# The planet can only support so many people



## primroselane (May 10, 2002)

Since World War II, despite ever increasing investment in a more efficient fleet, trawler catches in U.K. waters have been dropping, presumably due to overfishing.
For example, today's trawling fleet off the U.K. annually catches about half what its sail-powered predecessor did in 1889, the study saysâand less than a quarter of the peak annual catch in 1938.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100511-science-environment-overfishing-trawlers/


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Cant see were that relates to human population. It has everything to do with fishing practices and conservation methods. The same argument could be made before the advent of agriculture when we all were hunter gathers. What if all the red meat available was supplied by professional hunters? That too would also exhaust the supply. If anything this is a call for aquaculture.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Um, what do you feed the fish in your aquaculture? That food has to come from someplace. I personally havent seen any manna dropping from heaven recently.... Maybe they can eat some of this junk plastic we produce oodles of? There you go, genetically engineered fish that can eat plastic, couse Monsanto will own the patent and rent you the right to raise one sterile non-breeding fish for a nominal fee.

You can indeed expand the population yet some more, there are still some protected wild areas we havent overrun. BUT quality of life will keep dropping until we, like the bacteria colony in the petri dish go belly up, finally use all resources we have and pollute the rest to unusable status. 

Fact of life, you cant expand and exploit indefinitely, on a FINITE planet. Unless you have an economical way to move huge numbers of people to other solar systems that you are certain have other unpopulated earth-like planets, then you have to learn to live within your means. You would think self proclaimed "conservatives" would get the idea of how to actually CONSERVE and be good stewards. But apparently not. They have this notion pure GREED and "shop till you drop" is the best strategy. Use it all up and let the great grandchildren that do survive, live like vermin, struggling and picking through the garbage we leave behind.


----------



## Michael Kawalek (Jun 21, 2007)

JJ Grandits said:


> Cant see were that relates to human population. It has everything to do with fishing practices and conservation methods.


I think that is an incorrect conclusion. Of course it is because of over population. The bulk of human population lives near sea coasts verses inland areas, and in some cultures almost all of the animal protein in people's diets is from fish/seafood. More people means greater exploitation of the sea, period.

Sure, if you lower catch limits, somebody in California with an empty crill can just stop at McDonolds for some McNuggets. But, what about the Indonesian fisherman that won't feed his children tonight because there are no fish to catch? Conservation sounds just fine, unless it's all you depend on to survive!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

You can pass all the laws and limits you want but nobody is going to sit by and watch their children starve because of them.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Not to worry the population is slowly decreasing and in about 20 years the US will begin to have a problem with finding "workers" to support the aged. 

Anyone interested in things like this might want to pick up The Next Hundred Years A forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman.

As if anyone could forecast that far into the future.  He does it thorugh tracing history and its geopolitical patterns around the world. An interesting, enlightning, thought provoking, easy to read book.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Sure can. Of course that number of people is 20 to 30 billion if we distribute reasonably.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Some of you are seriously whacked. It does refer to conservation practices with little impact from the population. You assume that the growing population will equally share in the resource. If this is so then the poplulation does impact the resource. Especially if the resource is a limiting factor. Using the logic that an increase in population alone causes a resource to decline then here in the United States the Deer, Turkey and Buffalo would be extinct. This however is not the case. Even though our population has increased many times over from say 200 years ago the amount of resources is expanding. This is due to conservation practices. Sorry, Im right, you're wrong, but I still respect you and your crazy ideas.


----------



## MushCreek (Jan 7, 2008)

OK- As the population increases, and usable land decreases, how are you going to feed everybody? It is a finite planet, and we are overpopulating it. It's starting to show up as we use up one resource after another. Meanwhile, we do everything we can to extend human life all around the globe, while doing little to control population growth. Sure, educated people in some countries practice birth control, but then you have the Octomom and the Duggan family or whatever their name is. You have the lady in Tampa with 12 children who insists that the government take care of her and her family. You have Muslims in Europe who have been instructed to have as many children as they can, so some day they will take over by a simple majority. Then there are illegals cranking out 'anchor' babies so they can stay here. Eventually, there will be a massive die-off, like there is any time a species over-populates. It won't be pretty.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Sheesh - MushCreek - The examples that you use are the end of the spectrum exception rather than the rule, therefore invalid. 

Rather than just pop off about the article, why not google to see if it's valid? If youall don't want to read - just scroll down to look at the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

:bored:


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> Not to worry the population is slowly decreasing and in about 20 years the US will begin to have a problem with finding "workers" to support the aged.


 I think we already have a problem finding enough workers to support those that don't want to work.They want a government check,thanks to the backs of the hard working taxpayers.Most of the border crossers legal and illegal,get help from the working taxpayers as well.


----------



## willbuck1 (Apr 4, 2010)

Some regions are declining but overall the world population is still boot-scooting for the sky, abd those regions are allowing more immigration because the easy way to have a growing economy is by having a growing population.

A resource is by definition something that is of use. More people puts more demand on those resources. Commercial cropland is starting to decline in productivity because of too many demands put on it with too few returns of organics and nutrients. Fertilizer by itself is not sufficient to maintain it. More people are depending on seafood and yields are going down. At some point the trend lines cross and more people die.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Um, what do you feed the fish in your aquaculture? That food has to come from someplace. I personally havent seen any manna dropping from heaven recently.... Maybe they can eat some of this junk plastic we produce oodles of? There you go, genetically engineered fish that can eat plastic, couse Monsanto will own the patent and rent you the right to raise one sterile non-breeding fish for a nominal fee.
> 
> You can indeed expand the population yet some more, there are still some protected wild areas we havent overrun. BUT quality of life will keep dropping until we, like the bacteria colony in the petri dish go belly up, finally use all resources we have and pollute the rest to unusable status.
> 
> Fact of life, you cant expand and exploit indefinitely, on a FINITE planet. Unless you have an economical way to move huge numbers of people to other solar systems that you are certain have other unpopulated earth-like planets, then you have to learn to live within your means. You would think self proclaimed "conservatives" would get the idea of how to actually CONSERVE and be good stewards. But apparently not. They have this notion pure GREED and "shop till you drop" is the best strategy. Use it all up and let the great grandchildren that do survive, live like vermin, struggling and picking through the garbage we leave behind.


Wow. Only 2 replies before someone showed up and started pointing fingers................


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

All we need is the one good superbug that will wipe out 50 to 60 percent opf the most congested areas in a no fault culling.

Cholera, smallpox, TB, infuenza etc have all filled the bill when population concentration reached maximum concentrations. Each time medical science proclaimed whatever epidemic conqured with advanced innoculation Nature quietly began breeding a new bug to thin the human herdin new no fault ways that no one group of technicians could be blamed for the loss of life within the herd but everyone could claim to be doing all they could to prevent its spread if they chose.

The hamster cage lifestyles many of the most congested areas of the human herd now live sealed in their urban human hamster cages disinfecting every germ that comes their way is helping Nature to develop MRSA and assorted lung ailments that will greatly thin the hamster cage bubble dwellers in the coming generations.

Best part is there will be nobody to blame because everyone will simply be living their lives to the best they can within their chosen environments and it will simply be another pandemic that medical science will only cure after Nature has thinned the human herd to numbers where a "medical cure" is possible.


Think of how many humansters today are allergic to peanuts and shellfish and already succumb to new influenza and infection strains while breathing their filtered air, sanitizing everything around them and running their stairmasters instead of out building antibodies (the recirculated moist chilled air btw makes a most effective bacteria breeder in most cases ). Nature can act very fast when required and no one group of the herd is found to be at fault


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willbuck1 said:


> Some regions are declining but overall the world population is still boot-scooting for the sky, abd those regions are allowing more immigration because the easy way to have a growing economy is by having a growing population.
> 
> A resource is by definition something that is of use. More people puts more demand on those resources. Commercial cropland is starting to decline in productivity because of too many demands put on it with too few returns of organics and nutrients. Fertilizer by itself is not sufficient to maintain it. More people are depending on seafood and yields are going down. At some point the trend lines cross and more people die.


History has shown the best way to reduce the population is to increase the standard of living. As the standard of living goes up the number of children per family drops.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

This is why I feel that a greater percentage of our GDP should be spent towards space exploration. Always before in mankind's history there has been some frontier to reach for. Now we are reaching the top of the "dome" and it's starting to become clear to everyone that we can't go on like this indefinitely.

I prefer the thought of mankind reaching to the stars and finding other planets to colonize as opposed to a supervirus that wipes out 90% of the population and returns us to a new Dark Age.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Hey,even Obama is trying to get Africa to change their constituion, to allow Abortion.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

The earth is designed to support people's needs, not their wants. we have stopped differentiating between needs and wants.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

No population whether it be plant, animal, or bacteria is exempt from the laws that govern life on this planet.

We're rapidly approaching 7,000,000,000 people with no end in sight. That's insane considering the obvious signs of overpopulation that are all around us. We're exterminating species at a rate that is equal or greater than the great exterminations that happened in the past. Future generations are going to have to live on much less than generations that lived around the turn of the 19th century. I think we are headed towards the biggest world war this planet has ever seen and it will be fought over resources as huge numbers of environmental refugees migrate. That number has already reached 200,000,000 people and it hasn't really gotten started yet.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Ernie said:


> You can pass all the laws and limits you want but nobody is going to sit by and watch their children starve because of them.


no, but people can certainly limit the sizes of their families.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

What are we going to do about overpopulation? It is not a problem in America, the current birthing rate is below replacement level. We can hardly just exterminate populations like insects.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

the big decline in fish population is not only caused by overfishing. it is also caused by all the filth we pour into the oceans that kills off the fish and their habitat.

no other mammal fouls their nest so thoroughly as humans.

my tag line should read- "Gaia will survive."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

One factor is nirtogen fertilizers: It creates a very fertile environment, suitable for much algae, which kills the fish... Somehow.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> History has shown the best way to reduce the population is to increase the standard of living. As the standard of living goes up the number of children per family drops.


The problem with that idea is that increasing the standard of living costs more of the limited resources. TANSTAAFL applies, as always.:cowboy:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Sure can. Of course that number of people is 20 to 30 billion if we distribute reasonably.


I'm not aware of any time in human history when we distributed anything reasonably.


----------



## dixienc (Apr 11, 2008)

marvella said:


> the big decline in fish population is not only caused by overfishing. it is also caused by all the filth we pour into the oceans that kills off the fish and their habitat.
> 
> no other mammal fouls their nest so thoroughly as humans.
> 
> my tag line should read- "Gaia will survive."


Umm...David Suzuki.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Im sorry, I said some of you are whacked. But after reading your replies I now know that MOST of you are whacked. I enjoy the Animal planet and Discovery too, but pushing your face up against the screen for hours at a time is not good for you.


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

I think if the people of this world started focusing on human beings rather than making money, we would be surprised at how many people this old earth could feed. So much land is wasted right now. so much isn't used as productively as possible. Look what some folks on this forum can produce on just a couple acres compared to a mega farm. Methods just have to be changed and change costs money. What counties are currently producing the most people and what are THEY doing about it?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You got that right. Class 1 land is being turned into golf courses and shopping malls. We have incredible resources under poor management. When we were into market gardening you would be totally amazed on what one acre of land could produce.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Callieslamb said:


> I think if the people of this world started focusing on human beings rather than making money, we would be surprised at how many people this old earth could feed. So much land is wasted right now. so much isn't used as productively as possible. Look what some folks on this forum can produce on just a couple acres compared to a mega farm. Methods just have to be changed and change costs money. What counties are currently producing the most people and what are THEY doing about it?


So where are you going to get the fuel, fertilizer, and WATER to do all this more efficient farming? This is still a FINITE planet no matter how efficiently or inefficiently its run. Its just lot more comfortable life for those here if the population doesnt increase to make it more crowded. The only people that benefit from ever greater population are the capitalists. Course they can buy their own little piece of heaven while us peons get to live closer and closer together under each others armpits. Just because we can possibly raise people in the equivalent of a confinement feedlot wading around in our own feces, doesnt mean thats the thing we should strive for.

And the birthrate in the USA maybe low, but we throw the doors open and look the other way cause we want more consumers and cheap labor. So population has increased greatly despite low birthrate.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

tinknal said:


> Wow. Only 2 replies before someone showed up and started pointing fingers................


So you are not a "self proclaimed conservative" that doesnt believe in conserving?

Are you a 'liberal'?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Ernie said:


> This is why I feel that a greater percentage of our GDP should be spent towards space exploration. Always before in mankind's history there has been some frontier to reach for. Now we are reaching the top of the "dome" and it's starting to become clear to everyone that we can't go on like this indefinitely.
> 
> I prefer the thought of mankind reaching to the stars and finding other planets to colonize as opposed to a supervirus that wipes out 90% of the population and returns us to a new Dark Age.


Of course expansion into space is the logical progression. Mankind by nature is a viral infection taking nutrients from the host and moving onto healthy body parts as the host is not able to produce antibodies to combat it or it mutates in reaction to the antibiotics to allow the host a degree of recovery in its current location of the host. 

As with any virus , as it multiplies and the current host cannot produce adequate antibodies and dies, the virus of Mankind must infect another host to continue its nutrition seeking lines of infection.

As the old joke goes "Earth First. We will strip mine the others after we suck all nutrient from this rock."


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

The planet CAN only support so many people.

America's soil and water are being mined to feed a good share of the planet. When the water is gone for good, people will starve.

Nature Bat's Last.

Until we have a good old fashioned "wake up call", (wherein a couple hundred million die off from disease or starvation) we'll not change our ways... until it's too late (it probably already is).


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"Using the logic that an increase in population alone causes a resource to decline then here in the United States the Deer, Turkey and Buffalo would be extinct."

I'm told in the 1930s deer were so scarce in TN when you saw one it was food for fodder around the pot-bellied stove at the general store for weeks. Same for turkey. Both had to reintroduced by F&G. (Who deny restocking beaver, now overrunning the area.)

Bison did come very close to becoming extinct. There were great herds when there were only Native American indians but their needs were relative small and hunting techniques rather crude.

It took a dededicated effort to bring them back to a small, but sustainable, population. But then Bison became extinct in the Eastern part of the U.S. now long after the arrive of Europeans.

I saw on BBC America news last evening fishing has been suspected in the Sea of Gallalie due to declining and smaller size catches.

Frankly I'm 63 and have no children. I use to figure I'd make it to 80, but I'm starting to doubt that. I still say us Baby Boomers enjoyed what may prove to be the 'best of times' in the U.S.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> History has shown the best way to reduce the population is to increase the standard of living. As the standard of living goes up the number of children per family drops.


Spot on, watcher. As women make more 'money' working than having children, as children are more likely to survive childhood, as they are needed less to have a secure old age, women will find their own way to have fewer and fewer children.

My big concern though is that many of the folks in well off countries still having lots of children are the ones lowering the intelligence and self sufficiency of the 'species'. As a hardcore leftie I have to include those doing so for religious reasons hee hee. But still I hope the species will not truly decline in intelligence a la the movie Idiocracy.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Is this thread about human population or declining fish populations? Human overpopulation is a problem but its being painted with too broad of a brush. Our natural resources can be renewed with proper management. We do not use up water. Planet Earth has just as much water now as it has a million years ago. We do not create it or destroy it, we simply mismanage what we have available in any given area. Yes, the Earth can only support so many people but fish populations are still a conservation problem.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Is this thread about human population or declining fish populations? Human overpopulation is a problem but its being painted with too broad of a brush. Our natural resources can be renewed with proper management. We do not use up water. Planet Earth has just as much water now as it has a million years ago. We do not create it or destroy it, we simply mismanage what we have available in any given area. Yes, the Earth can only support so many people but fish populations are still a conservation problem.


it's not the amount of water or earth that is the problem. as you say, that does not change.

what IS the problem is that we a making it filthy and unfit for human use. and that does include the fish.

i disagree with another poster that said we ought to put human needs before everything else. that is what we have been doing for centuries and has caused the problems we have now.

we need to start having a lot more respect for the needs of all other species. we are all interconnected and the earth is continually striving to maintain a balance that humans have been disrupting.

i forget who said it but you cannot pluck a flower without troubling a start. and that's my other tag line.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Ken Scharabok said:


> "Using the logic that an increase in population alone causes a resource to decline then here in the United States the Deer, Turkey and Buffalo would be extinct."
> 
> I'm told in the 1930s deer were so scarce in TN when you saw one it was food for fodder around the pot-bellied stove at the general store for weeks. Same for turkey. Both had to reintroduced by F&G. (Who deny restocking beaver, now overrunning the area.)
> 
> ...


economically, we probably have been the "best of times generation."
i beleive a little belt tightening would e good for this country.

as an aside, from someone who is planning on living to her 90's if possible, the people that live a long time are the ones who keep moving, pushing to keep active and don't give in to infirmity. don't lay down and you may well make it.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Ken Scharabok said:


> No doubt about it. Baby boomers inherited half of their lifestyle from their parents and grandparents, and borrowed the rest from their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Hard not to be the 'best of times' when you (the royal you, not you Ken) convince yourselves you don't have to pay for it yourself.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

Shrek said:


> Cholera, smallpox, TB, infuenza etc have all filled the bill when population concentration reached maximum concentrations. Each time medical science proclaimed whatever epidemic conqured with advanced innoculation Nature quietly began breeding a new bug to thin the human herdin new no fault ways that no one group of technicians could be blamed for the loss of life within the herd but everyone could claim to be doing all they could to prevent its spread if they chose.


Medical science is only a couple of hundred of years old at best and has done a remarkably good job of combating infectious disease. Most of the diseases you name were major problems before the impact of modern science or in places where the findings of medical science aren't or can't be implemented.

Of course, there very well may be superbugs in our future but to date nature hasn't really done an end-around on modern medicine. Even the influenza pandemic of the last century struck before there was widespread supportive care available. In all likelihood if it occurred today, the mortality rate would be significantly less if not a small fraction of what it was then. HIV is doing a number and there are worries about drug-resistant TB, but on the whole we're doing remarkably well vs. infectious disease. So well that for the first time probably in all of human history fewer humans die of infectious diseases than from other causes (primarily heart disease and cancer).

You have to keep in mind we understand how disease is spread now, which was not the case when we were regularly ravaged by epidemics and we have supportive care in most places that would lower the mortality rates significantly over historic epidemics. I think it would take a hell of a bug to kill off really big numbers of us. Probably take a perfect storm situation.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

marvella said:


> the big decline in fish population is not only caused by overfishing. it is also caused by all the filth we pour into the oceans that kills off the fish and their habitat.
> 
> no other mammal fouls their nest so thoroughly as humans.
> 
> my tag line should read- "Gaia will survive."


Yes, the new religion of Gaia, or mother earth. Some want to replace all other religions with this.

Parts of the religion include population control. At any cost.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

we could fit every human being on the planet into texas and not be any more crowded than dallas-fort worth is currently. then we'd have the rest of the planet to farm.

The planet CAN only support so many people. But that number is probably ten times the number we have now, and we'll never see anywhere near that because population growth is stagnating already, and will most likely soon begin to decline.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Environmental theology is now the state religion in the United States. It has all the facets of a major religion - Sin, Saints, Salvation, Sacraments, etc. 

And it is completely grounded in blind faith and our own pride, and is 100% incompatible with my worldview.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Chuck, you got that right. I was an environmentalist way back. Even before my college days. I learned real quick that environmentalism was becoming a political/ physophical/ economic monster. Since then I have been, and still am a conservationist. Environmentalists hold cocktail parties and pat themselves on the back because the napkins are made from recyled paper. Conservationists actually do what environmentalist talk about.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Chuck said:


> The planet CAN only support so many people. But that number is probably ten times the number we have now, and we'll never see anywhere near that because population growth is stagnating already, and will most likely soon begin to decline.


Yep, we can raise people in confinement feedlots walking in their own manure. Its when you start considering that even the least of us has a desire for quality of life that your theory breaks down. 

And back at you, WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO LIVE CHEEK TO JOWL, just because they can???? Is it your desire to live in 6 sq feet in your own feces and wait for the wagon to unload your ration of food and water for the day to fatten you up for market? And if you dont want to live that way, why would the rest of the human population want to?

And how do you supply your Texas confinement feedlot for humans with water, sanitation, and other necessities? Where do you get the energy? Texas is very hot and very dry area for the most part. 

In other words I'm suggesting your argument is merely parroting what you have heard by the "exploit the world" crowd without any independent thought of how biological systems interact with one another.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Chuck said:


> Environmental theology is now the state religion in the United States. It has all the facets of a major religion - Sin, Saints, Salvation, Sacraments, etc.
> 
> And it is completely grounded in blind faith and our own pride, and is 100% incompatible with my worldview.


Sorry but I have to contradict that. You've got it the wrong way round. Gaiaism is the only theology in the world that is not based on blind faith. The Gaia Theory has developed considerably and in recent years has gained increased support as a potentially viable, testable scientific hypothesis or theory. Every single other religion in the world is based on pride and blind faith alone with no facts to back up any of them.

.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

DaleK said:


> No doubt about it. Baby boomers inherited half of their lifestyle from their parents and grandparents, and borrowed the rest from their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Hard not to be the 'best of times' when you (the royal you, not you Ken) convince yourselves you don't have to pay for it yourself.


The leeches that live on welfare are the ones who "borrowed" from their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The baby boomers were forced to pay into social security and medicare and the socialist governments took that money to feed those who could be bought by social programs - that are too many to list. So - WE DID pay for it and it WAS stolen to provide hand outs to the last couple of generations of takers. We PAID for it and it was stolen. Now that we are in our declining years there will be no more producers and you have been taught that it is owed to you and you won't have to work for it - guess what - we'll be gone and you WILL not be able to bleed us for your "best of times". We gave it all - and you took it!! Oh, the royal you - as in gimme more, gimme more.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Sorry but I have to contradict that. You've got it the wrong way round. Gaiaism is the only theology in the world that is not based on blind faith. The Gaia Theory has developed considerably and in recent years has gained increased support as a potentially viable, testable scientific hypothesis or theory. Every single other religion in the world is based on pride and blind faith alone with no facts to back up any of them.
> 
> .


we need an "incredulous" smiley... until then, wow... just... wow


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> Yep, we can raise people in confinement feedlots walking in their own manure. Its when you start considering that even the least of us has a desire for quality of life that your theory breaks down.


You haven't been to Dallas recently, have you?


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> The Gaia Theory has developed considerably and in recent years has gained increased support as a potentially viable, testable scientific hypothesis or theory.
> .


Well, there you go. Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe that. Possibly because I can't find anything in real life that supports your assertion.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> And back at you, WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO LIVE CHEEK TO JOWL, just because they can???? Is it your desire to live in 6 sq feet in your own feces and wait for the wagon to unload your ration of food and water for the day to fatten you up for market? And if you dont want to live that way, why would the rest of the human population want to?


I doubt he was advocating this...simply making a hyperbolic illustration.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

WindowOrMirror said:


> we need an "incredulous" smiley... until then, wow... just... wow


Why do you say that? Have I missed something? Do you have evidence that any religions are based on scientifically provable facts?



.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Do you mean the scientists who made a practice of hiding the facts and twisting them to prove their point? 

You're talking about Gaia - do you mean the goddess of the earth and mother of Cronus and the Titans in ancient mythology? Probably not, but it's not surprising that you are asserting Environmental theology is based solely on science - because that is, in fact, one of the primary tenets of the theology you espouse. 

The problem is, you make a MORAL argument that we SHOULD care about the environment. So tell me....how much does a moral law weigh? How long is it? What's the half life of morality? 

Moral law is something we all know exists that CANNOT be proven by any scientific method...

...kind of like...um....God?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

No Chuck, I'm not talking about Gaia as earth goddess or characters out of Greek mythology. I'm talking about the Gaia Theory, that the earth itself is a living, breathing, fluid circulating, growing, self-regulating entity with self-consciousness and no sense or awareness of human morals.

Are you saying that we humans should not have a moral obligation to care for the environment for our own sakes?

.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Wait, my worldview has a basis for universal morality. Yours does not. So before you can convince me that I SHOULD care about the world you're going to have to show me the origin of your sense of SHOULD (and why it applies to me.)

And the planet is an entity with self-consciousness? Proven by science? Really?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying we should not have a moral obligation to care about the environment?


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

My worldview says I am to take dominion over the earth - to subdue it and not just conserve it, but make it better. I'm to care for my animals. I am not commanded to worship anything created or to fret over things beyond my control. 

My worldview says humankind is the pinnacle of God's creation - His Magnum Opus - His masterpiece. It tells me that human souls are more important than the earth - because the earth will one day be destroyed, but human souls live forever. 

My sense of "Should" comes from my belief that there is an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicient personal God who loves mankind deeply and since He created us, the earth, and science, he gets to say what is right and wrong. Morality isn't affected by my opinion of it. Right and Wrong, like Truth exist outside of the realm of science and therefore can't be measured by science. 

There, I answered your question. If you don't want to answer mine, I understand.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I don't know if this will answer your question. I hope you'll foregive me for taking some of your eloquently phrased words and using them to express my own opinion in contrast.

My worldview says I am to husband the earth and conserve it, not to create an imbalance and not to try to make it better than what god has already created. How can I improve upon something that god has already perfected? If I could then wouldn't that make me equal to or greater than god? I'm to care for and about all living things. I am not commanded to worship anything. I should not fret over things that are in god's control but I should concern myself with the things created by man and that man tries to control. 

My worldview says the universe is the pinnacle of god's creation and that this earth and all things on it are only a small part of that greater whole. That the universe as a whole is more important than the earth, that the earth as a whole is more important than man, that the earth will one day be transformed, that its' consciousness will live on forever as a part of the greater whole which is god's consciousness and that human souls will live forever as a part of that consciousness. 

My sense of 'should' comes from my belief that there is an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient but impersonal god who loves all of its' creations equally and wants all creations cared for equally. God doesn't say what is right and wrong, there is no such thing as right and wrong to god - right and wrong are man-made concepts, not universal or godly concepts. My sense of morality is based on what I sense god wants for harmony and balance in the universe. I agree with you that right and wrong, like truth, exist outside of the realm of science and therefore can't be measured by science but that they are moral concepts created in the minds of men and can only be measured in the minds of men.

.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Moral law is something we all know exists that CANNOT be proven by any scientific method..."

We don't ALL know that.:cowboy:

"...kind of like...um....God?"

Same for that one.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

naturelover said:


> My sense of 'should' comes from my belief that there is an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient but impersonal god who loves all of its' creations equally and wants all creations cared for equally. God doesn't say what is right and wrong, there is no such thing as right and wrong to god - right and wrong are man-made concepts, not universal or godly concepts. My sense of morality is based on what I sense god wants for harmony and balance in the universe. I agree with you that right and wrong, like truth, exist outside of the realm of science and therefore can't be measured by science but that they are moral concepts created in the minds of men and can only be measured in the minds of men.
> 
> .


standing ovation!


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Chuck said:


> Environmental theology is now the state religion in the United States. It has all the facets of a major religion - Sin, Saints, Salvation, Sacraments, etc.
> 
> And it is completely grounded in blind faith and our own pride, and is 100% incompatible with my worldview.


you too?? i thought you were better informed than that.

can you provide a link to this "new state religion??" i can't find anything and it might be something i am interested in LOL!!!

how can you be 100% against something that doesn't exist?? doesn't your religion require blind faith?? how do you reconcile that contradiction?


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

reading on, i see naturelover has done a far better job than i making the point.

thank you.

i still want to know how some think gaia theroy is some kind of new state religion. that sounds like paranoia at it's best.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> My sense of 'should' comes from my belief that there is an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient but impersonal god who loves all of its' creations equally and wants all creations cared for equally. God doesn't say what is right and wrong, there is no such thing as right and wrong to god - right and wrong are man-made concepts, not universal or godly concepts. My sense of morality is based on what I sense god wants for harmony and balance in the universe. I agree with you that right and wrong, like truth, exist outside of the realm of science and therefore can't be measured by science but that they are moral concepts created in the minds of men and can only be measured in the minds of men.


Okay. I'll try to make this brief. Your worldview commits logical suicide.

An impersonal being does not have emotions. Does not love. Does not have an opinion. A rock is impersonal. An impersonal God is more like a "force" than a person. So you say God is impersonal and then immediately assign all sorts of personal characteristics to God. Logical suicide. 

You use the term "God wants" right after saying God does not say what is right and wrong. That is completely self-contradictory. Again, logical suicide.

You say "moral concepts are created in the minds of men." and "There is no right and wrong." So look what logically follows your assertion.

Nothing is ACTUALLY (universally, no matter what anyone thinks) wrong. therefore:

The holocaust was completely justified.
Columbine was simply two boys pursuing their own truth.
Everything Rush Limbaugh says is as true as everything Nancy Pelosi says. Which is difficult since they often say things that are diametrically opposed to each other.

Logical Hari-Kari.

What you are trying to say is that Morality is merely opinion. Which makes its weight upon humanity exactly NOTHING.

So, if morality is simply a human construct, each of us must necessarily be free to construct whatever form of morality we like. 

So you see destroying the planet as a bad thing. Fine. That's bad for you. But what right do you have to say it's bad for me? I should be able to deplete and destroy as I wish - AND YOU CANNOT TELL ME IT IS WRONG. Oh, sure, it might be wrong for you. But why should I care what you think?

See - you are so incredibly contradictory. You say morality is a human construct, then talk about global peace and harmony as if it is a universal good. But you can't have it both ways. Either there is universal good (and thus, evil) or there is not.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

marvella said:


> you too?? i thought you were better informed than that.
> 
> can you provide a link to this "new state religion??" i can't find anything and it might be something i am interested in LOL!!!
> 
> how can you be 100% against something that doesn't exist?? doesn't your religion require blind faith?? how do you reconcile that contradiction?


Well, there's an entire department of the government devoted to evangelizing the cause:

http://www.epa.gov/

Actually, I only came to understand that it is the defacto state religion when I started visiting public schools a few years ago to teach investment classes. What I saw there shocked me. Environmentalism is taught with as much fervor and zeal as islam is in madrassas across the middle east.


My worldview does not require blind faith in the way you are using the term. It requires me to submit to the reality that I cannot understand everything fully. But I have to say, my worldview provides logical, practical, and in most cases verifiable answers to all of life's big questions. I have yet to find a question that doesn't have an acceptable answer.

I've spent years studying alternate worldviews as well - everything from Islam to the new age movement. And I've yet to find another worldview that isn't logically untenable at some point.

If you are really interested, Marvella, I can take you through a step-by-step logical apologetic that proves there is a personal Creator to whom we are beholden. But it's one of those things that is hard to see if you are pre-determined not to see it.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"The planet CAN only support so many people. But that number is probably ten times the number we have now,"

As long as we are "supporting" the surplus population with resources which are not being replaced, the planet can support more people than it would otherwise. When the non-renewable resources start running out, the number of people the planet can support will take a sudden(and large) nosedive. It's like a patient in a hospital on life support. As long as the tubes keep supplying stuff, life can be extended beyond where it would otherwise end. Our life-support is oil, which won't be able to last forever.

"I have yet to find a question that doesn't have an acceptable answer."

That just depends on how low you set your standards.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Fourdeuce, I think you dramatically underestimate the power of the human mind. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.

I find it interesting that on one hand, we're supposedly so powerful that we can destroy the entire planet. But on the other, we're apparently too stupid to come up with solutions that will help us take care of our environment, eventually replace oil as a primary source of energy, and increase the global standard of living.

And we can build vast, complex cities, send people to the moon, eradicate various childhood diseases, and yet according to some environmentalists, we have no more value as a species than slugs.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Chuck said:


> Well, there's an entire department of the government devoted to evangelizing the cause:
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/
> 
> ...


oh i believe in god alright. i also believe in a personal jesus. but i probably don't mean the same thing as you do. that's why god gave us brains after all. i believe he speaks to each person in a very individual way. to expect god to speak to each person only in one specific god limits him. imo, most organized religions do exactly that- promote one view to the exclusion of all others. god has spoken to me in a very clear way about that exact attitude and how wrong headed it is. i'm serious, not facetious.

my world view makes as much total sense, logically and realistically, as yours. that's where the right and wrong comes in. i think i'm right, but only for me. most religion (most notably christianity) is convinced they are the only ones right and spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince others of the same. up to and including the point of death, historically. 

i beleive that the concept of right and wrong is man made, not god made. the concept of original sin that requires blood atonement is barbaric and yes, wrong, imo. how can anyone think a newborn child is born with the weight of sin on it's neck?

i have never ever seen any kind of environmentalism taught in public schools. then again, i'mm in appalachia and we're lucky is they actually read a book before graduation. the epa has been around since the 70's. so how that applies to this discussion is confusing. that's government policy, not religious. if i were you i'd be a lot more concerned about lack of faith in god and atheism, that any kind of state sponsored religion. more and more young people find religion useless and irrelevant.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Chuck said:


> An impersonal being does not have emotions. Does not love. Does not have an opinion. A rock is impersonal. An impersonal God is more like a "force" than a person. So you say God is impersonal and then immediately assign all sorts of personal characteristics to God. Logical suicide.


Not to run interference here but ...
GOD Knows EVERYTHING - now that does not mean He knows everything but chooses to "overlook" a lot of "stuff" - He KNOWS everything - what's going to happen tomorrow, what is happening on Venus and what raccoon is going to kill another one of my chickens - (what about evil? Yes - I'm going to say there IS evil, but how can it exist outside of a God who knows and is and can do anything?) either that or He is NOT omniscient and it's all a big joke somewhere anyway.
GOD is EVERYWHERE - God is present in His entirety in every single atom in the universe (could elaborate on that since we know that atoms are made up of other GOD stuff and He's there too) either that or He is NOT omnipresent - right?
GOD can do ANYTHING - there is not one thing in the universe that God cannot do - from the simple grain of sand that is falling from the side of a huge sand dune in the Sahara to the tiniest wavelet that is riding a huge wave in the ocean was created by Him - hey, He even know what sort of carp makes up the rings of Saturn (each piece!!) - either that or we must all confess that God is really none of the "stuff" that we have been taught and know to be true in the very depths of our souls.
We also have to believe that one never dies - or Jesus was a fraud - Christians like myself would never buy that because as a Christian I've developed a deeper understanding of what I think Jesus came to teach me.
Is GOD impersonal - yes, to the extent that we are all ONE and that means that the fantastic mystical experience that IS GOD and the very fact that the one thing that permeates the entire universe is LOVE and the final settlement that we all must face - even the horrors that we endure daily - mean a spiritual growth that GOD KNEW we would have to face - after all, He created us and every wispy cloud that vanishes before our eyes. Please tell me about a logic that will come forth to bring all this mystery together. Please tell me how GOD is not any of the "things" that our bible says He is (nope, just the New Testament only please) - I really want to know - help me add another deminision to the three facets that GOD is.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Chuck said:


> Fourdeuce, I think you dramatically underestimate the power of the human mind. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.
> 
> I find it interesting that on one hand, we're supposedly so powerful that we can destroy the entire planet. But on the other, we're apparently too stupid to come up with solutions that will help us take care of our environment, eventually replace oil as a primary source of energy, and increase the global standard of living.
> 
> And we can build vast, complex cities, send people to the moon, eradicate various childhood diseases, and yet according to some environmentalists, we have no more value as a species than slugs.


i agree. we should have ended out dependence on oil decades ago. it's a crimae that we have not.

spill baby, spill.

it's not that i don't think humans have no more value than slugs. it's that slugs feel their existence is at least as important as mine is. it's what the survival instinct is all about. it's also about recognizing how intertwined everything on this sweet earth is and having some respect for that.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

I'm sitting here wondering how you know what a slug feels. 

About that survival instinct. If life came about by absolute random chance, what impetus would there have been for living things to try to go on living? Why keep struggling? And if life is nothing more than the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, why haven't all living things given in to the sweet comfort of death long ago?

See, Marvella, as best as I can tell you have all these well-enumerated beliefs (which you are perfectly free to believe, BTW) but those beliefs, by your own admission, exist only in your brain, and are derived from....what? Your opinion?

But I don't live in your brain. And while you are free to believe in a great purple unicorn if you want - that doesn't make it universally true for everyone.

You say your worldview is logical, then assert that a thing can be both right and wrong simultaneously depending on someone's opinion. That's like saying nothing can be something, and something can be nothing. It tortures the definition of the words.

It isn't logical. 

Logic is the basis of all science. It says we all share a common reality, and if a thing exists in that reality, your opinion of it has no bearing on its existence.

Why shouldn't morality be the same way? Back to the OP - if morality is what you say, then why should anyone care if you think it's wrong to destroy the environment? Are you really saying that YOU are the final arbiter of truth for the universe?


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Gercarson - your question (if I understand it correctly) is this:

How can a loving, omnicient, omnipotent God allow evil?

Good question - and it has a good answer. Because for God to give us free will meant he had to give us the freedom to be stupid. And you don't have to look far in this country to see that is one of the most over-used freedoms we have.

Love demands freedom. They are inseparable. And freedom to choose right cannot exist without it's opposite.

The pain, suffering and heartache we see around us is our doing, then, not His. He gave us freedom to do whatever we like - we are the ones who choose to be stupid. (and I am their King, I think sometimes.)

Babies with a sin nature? You bet! It would be hard for anyone who had ever raised a toddler to dispute it. You don't have to teach babies to be selfish. It comes hard-wired.

That's sin nature.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

marvella said:


> the epa has been around since the 70's. so how that applies to this discussion is confusing. that's government policy, not religious.


To clarify, Marvella:

The reason I use the word "worldview" a lot is to reduce confusion. In reality, one's religion is simply the set of preconceptions through which we view the world. 

You're making a distinction between "organized religion" - a method of interpreting reality based on thousands of years of accumulated belief and knowledge and other methods that don't tap ancient wisdom, such as science.

In reality, they both serve the same purpose - to help us interpret the world around us. 

My worldview is based on reason and millenia of tried-and true traditional wisdom. It is the foundation of what I believe is true.

The public schools are teaching a much different foundation - worldview - ergo, religion. It is one based on respect for (worship?) the environment. And it is, in many ways, diametrically opposed to my worldview. In a word, I believe it is completely, universally, and dangerously WRONG.

And if your kids shouldn't have to be taught the tenets of my worldview, then my kids shouldn't have to be indoctrinated with yours.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Chuck said:


> I'm sitting here wondering how you know what a slug feels.


Most likely, right now that slug is thinking:

"I may be a slug, but I'm smart enough not to waste my time arguing in an online forum."

:gaptooth:

I'd probably be in here discussing, except Chuck's making all my points for me. As he previously stated, it's amazing how many people think we're so powerful as to be able to destroy the planet...yet so DUMB as to have no clue how to fix it. Of course, this doesn't mean that we have the FORESIGHT or ABILITY to fix it instantaneously; but Chuck's point about some equating human life to that of a slug still stands.

One of the things that constantly amazes me is that people will often say "Well, look at all of the advances science has made!" and point out how much MORE we know about the world. Yet, discoveries (you know, scientific/archaeological discoveries with actual countable, empirical evidence) are being made ALL the time that bolster what the Bible has to say...and yet I CONSTANTLY hear how the Bible is nothing more than a book of fairy tales.

As far as respecting the Earth, I DO respect it. I'll even say that our lives are intertwined...because, uhm, if the Earth weren't here, I sort of wouldn't have an Earth to live on.  I respect the Earth because God made it for us, not because our 'lives are intertwined.' When I'm driving my truck down the road, my life is technically intertwined with that of the truck, in the sense that if I stop too quick and the bozo behind me doesn't, both our lives might end.  That doesn't mean I'm going to revere it and give it at least as much importance as I give myself, if not more so.

But I AM supposed to take care of it, keep it clean, and all that good stuff. Sure Christians are supposed to take care of the Earth, respect it, keep it clean; but it's not an object of worship.

@ marvella:



> my world view makes as much total sense, logically and realistically, as yours. that's where the right and wrong comes in. i think i'm right, but only for me. most religion (most notably christianity) is convinced they are the only ones right and spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince others of the same. up to and including the point of death, historically.


As has been laid out before by Chuck and others, the problem with the whole 'right for me' viewpoint is that it breaks down under any serious scrutiny. I remember being at a friend's house once when a relative of his - who chose to believe in atheism - told him there was no right and wrong.

My friend promptly kicked him in the shin - HARD. His relative yelled "@#$#! What in the @$##@ did you do that for?"

My friend smiled and said "I wanted to."

Said relative said "That's wrong!" and immediately thereafter realized what he'd said. LOL

Regardless of what people believe, at some point there HAS to be an absolute truth. If I'm driving down the road and plow into someone's rear end, there might be 10 different witnesses with 10 different stories, but that doesn't change the fact that there was one ACTUAL sequence of events. That people are getting the story wrong doesn't mean that the events didn't occur. And I would think people would want to spend as much time possible on getting the facts right instead of saying "Well, I'm satisfied with what we have." Similarly, there HAS to be an objective standard for right and wrong; or else, what is the point? 

People in this forum spend so much time lambasting Congress for not being held to the same standard that the populace in general is held to; and yet we then turn around and tell others exactly that - "Well, that might be right for you, but it's not right for me." I'm not going to force my beliefs on anyone, but that doesn't mean that at some point an objective moral standard does not exist. It just means people don't want to be held to it.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Chuck said:


> Gercarson - your question (if I understand it correctly) is this:
> How can a loving, omnicient, omnipotent God allow evil?


It's a rainy day here in the Florida Panhandle and I just spent a lot of time watering my garden last night - sort of like the washing your car syndrome.
I knew I shouldn't have been babbling about spirtual "stuff" especially since I'm an older fellow who has found a great deal of peace - you know, akin to the "passeth understanding" sort.
My comment was not really for public viewing and I already have "MY" answer (knowing full well that once you have "things" figured out" you are absolutely wrong). The comment was esoteric and ripe for flaming. 
So, I am somewhat honored that you even tried to figure it out. 
Thanky, thanky verah much.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I am convinced that God put the honeybee on this planet for the sole purpose of showing the faithful how to be industrious, and for use as an aid in converting the non-believers.

If you're not ready to believe in God, then no words I use will be of any merit. If God has already put the spark in your soul, then there's nothing I can do to extinguish that flame.

If you ask me if I want to save the planet, I say yes and I can then point out exactly how I'm endeavoring to save the specific acreage for which I am accountable. What I particularly am bothered by is the Starbucks environmentalists who wish to lecture to the world how we're wrecking the planet and the human race doesn't deserve to live and exactly what we SHOULD be doing ... though they lack the skills to keep so much as a houseplant alive.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

LOL Yep. I can't count the number of times that I've seen people sit around and pontificate supposedly 'intellectually' about how they're helping the world by buying their coffee from an 'ethically sourcing' coffee company. They sit around and talk about how Costa Rica is probably the 'best place to live' in the entire world (though they'll never actually LIVE there - they just want to seem intellectually superior).

Then they get up and walk off - neglecting to throw away their cups. If asked (and I did once) they'll say "If I did that, the employees would have nothing to do; they have to have jobs."



I'm all for environmentalism, if you define environmentalism as simply taking care of one's environment. But environmentalism is supplanting religion/faith, and THAT is what I have problems with.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Chuck said:


> Fourdeuce, I think you dramatically underestimate the power of the human mind. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.
> 
> I find it interesting that on one hand, we're supposedly so powerful that we can destroy the entire planet.
> 
> ...


*On an objective scale, nobody can prove any species has any more value than any other species, since value is entirely subjective. Value is meaningless until you specify value to who(or what). Humans value ourselves(sometimes too much, I'd say), but then every species seems to prefer living over dying. If they didn't, they'd die off pretty fast.
I don't think the end of oil will necessarily doom the entire human race, but I do think it will cause the "surplus" population to die off, and that dying off could be a serious problem for the entire race. If the end of oil causes the human population to be reduced, that will result in less pollution and less of the current human damage, but it would be a LONG time before the standard of living could recover.
Maybe our great technology will be able to come up with something to replace fossil fuels, but there's little effort to do that so far, and once the oil starts getting scarce it might be much harder for anybody to try to do research if they're busy trying to survive.*


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> On an objective scale, nobody can prove any species has any more value than any other species, since value is entirely subjective. Value is meaningless until you specify value to who(or what). Humans value ourselves(sometimes too much, I'd say), but then every species seems to prefer living over dying. If they didn't, they'd die off pretty fast.


And therein lies the difference between myself (and Chuck and many others), and nonbelievers. Christians - heck, just about any person whose religion involves a monotheistic god - believe that our self-worth derives from the fact that we are created in His image, and therefore have more intrinsic value over the other species.

All of this being said, while it is undeniable that humans screw up on a daily basis, it is ALSO undeniable that we intrinsically have the ability to do/reason more with what we have available to us; so even not counting the existence of God, there's SOME reason that we're advanced as we are, and that the other species are not, and I'm not sure it's 'well because they just haven't evolved that far yet.'


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Chuck said:


> ....... So you see destroying the planet as a bad thing. Fine. That's bad for you. But what right do you have to say it's bad for me? I should be able to deplete and destroy as I wish - AND YOU CANNOT TELL ME IT IS WRONG. Oh, sure, it might be wrong for you. But why should I care what you think?


I'm wondering if somebody whizzed in your wheaties this morning? You know it's not healthy to get so personally upset and go into a tirade just because I don't agree with you that (you, me, humans) are god's masterpiece and therefore free to deplete and destroy all of god's other creations. And what is your beef with god's other creations anyway that you would want to destroy them on your whim? Of course destroying the planet would be a bad thing! God never gave you or me permission or rights to destroy the planet. God gave us this planet as an already perfect home to share with all other living things on it, not as an imperfect toy to play with and toss aside when we've worn it out because we couldn't improve it. 

And you *DO* care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't have responded with such vitriol attacking what was only my personal definition of god and what I think god wants. 



> See - you are so incredibly contradictory. You say morality is a human construct, then talk about global peace and harmony as if it is a universal good. But you can't have it both ways. Either there is universal good (and thus, evil) or there is not.


You put words in my mouth. Read my post again. I never said anything about global peace and harmony - I said that I think god wants balance and harmony in the universe. It has nothing to do with love or favoritism (personal attachment) or good or evil, or right or wrong or morality according to mere human conceptions. If we pollute and over-populate the earth and create an imbalance then the earth will continue in it's cycles and shuck us all off earth's skin when the imbalance becomes too much for earth to handle. God won't care, it won't be a good thing or an evil thing to god if we are all gone. Earth will continue on as if we'd never been here and new life forms will start all over again. God is infinite and in god's big picture humans are just a tiny blip on god's radar. Humans are only important to themselves and even go to the extent of putting words in god's mouth to suit themselves and their ideals then write books about it and say "God told me so, _this_ is god's word, so be it".

Such utterly pompous arrogance trying to play at being gods. That is true evil. 

.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I have it on good authority that the earth will support as many people as it is supposed to until such time as it is rejuvenated for the eternity. It will be returned to its original glory and it seems not many earth worshipers will be around to enjot it.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

naturelover said:


> And what is your beef with god's other creations anyway that you would want to destroy them on your whim?


I think you're guilty of the same thing you accuse Chuck of - misunderstanding your posts. I think he's merely using points he made (such as 'being able to destroy the planet at whim') in his argument against a subjective morality. The very fact that you point out that destroying the planet would be bad is proving his point.

Now, I can't truly speak for Chuck, since I'm not him; but that's my viewpoint on what he's saying.



> Of course destroying the planet would be a bad thing! God never gave you or me permission or rights to destroy the planet. God gave us this planet as an already perfect home to share with all other living things on it, not as an imperfect toy to play with and toss aside when we've worn it out because we couldn't improve it.


And again you're proving his point, methinks. I don't think Chuck truly wants the ability to destroy the planet.  I DO think he's arguing that being as God created us AND gave us dominion over the earth and everything in it, that we should HAVE that dominion, and not equate ourselves with slugs and mosquitos.

Does having this dominion mean we'll never make mistakes? Obviously not; but even in the Bible itself, it tells us, and I quote, to

"rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Just as one would want a king to rule fairly and justly over a kingdom, caring for its subjects, so should people do the same for the Earth - but because it is GOD'S creation, NOT because it is any sort of deity or creator. 

I could respond to the rest of your post, but I don't think it's needed. I think I've made my point, and that is that I'm FAIRLY sure Chuck doesn't want the personal ability to destroy Earth. LOL


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Okay. I appreciate what you're saying - and I'm sure that Chuck doesn't want to destroy the earth at his whim, otherwise he wouldn't do the good works that we all know he does. But I don't believe god gave us dominion over the earth or that god ever intended for us to take dominion of it and over-run it. Maybe god put us here as _caretakers_ of what is god's own dominion, to preserve and conserve but not to dominate. I know you all believe that because it's what's written in your book, but to me it's just another history book written by men expressing their own ideals, not the ideals of god. If god ever comes to me in person and expressly commands me to take dominion of the earth then I will believe it, and only then.

.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Okay. I appreciate what you're saying - and I'm sure that Chuck doesn't want to destroy the earth at his whim, otherwise he wouldn't do the good works that we all know he does. But I don't believe god gave us dominion over the earth or that god ever intended for us to take dominion of it and over-run it.


Uhm, neither do I, and neither does Chuck. If you actually read and study the Bible verses in context, they essentially say EXACTLY what you say below, which is that 



> Maybe god put us here as _caretakers_ of what is god's own dominion, to preserve and conserve but not to dominate.


Is preserving and conserving a kingdom not exactly what a king does? Yet that *IS* dominion - defined as 'the act of governing and controlling.' Yes, a king can lay waste to his kingdom, make it do as he sees fit; but if he's SMART he'll work with and for the kingdom.

Same with the Earth. I don't believe it's to be worshipped; but utilized as we see fit, preserved and conserved, etc. And if we're SMART, utilizing it as we see fit, AND preserving it, can and do go hand in hand.



> I know you all believe that because it's what's written in your book


And yet based on what you said above, you DO agree with this book that you....don't agree with. :gaptooth:



> If god ever comes to me in person and expressly commands me to take dominion of the earth then I will believe it, and only then.


But until then you can conserve and preserve the earth and govern it wisely...which is, uhm, dominion.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Kung said:


> And therein lies the difference between myself (and Chuck and many others), and nonbelievers. Christians - heck, just about any person whose religion involves a monotheistic god - believe that our self-worth derives from the fact that we are created in His image, and therefore have more intrinsic value over the other species.
> 
> *What people believe is one thing. What they can prove is another matter entirely. I've had LOTS of people tell me that human life is "special", but I've yet to have anybody prove it to me(using logical or empirical evidence).*
> 
> ...


*If I was an alien and had just landed on Earth and took a look around, I could easily see an argument that there is very little "intelligent" life on this planet. Would an intelligent species do to their environment some of the things we've done to ours? Times Beach, Missouri. Love Canal, New York. Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Chemical Alley in Louisiana. If we(humans) were put on trial and had to prove our species was intelligent, we might have to deal with some strong arguments on both sides.*


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

FourDeuce - ALL of what you said are some of the reasons why it is that Christians derive their viewpoints from an intrinsic value placed there by God. Not everyone agrees with it, but there you are. The fact that humans screw up is part OF the reason many of us believe as we do...and of course, not everyone agrees on that viewpoint, so often we have to agree to disagree.

This being said, two points I'd like to make:

- when humans themselves make forays into the jungle and the like to do anthropological work with 'basic' tribes, attributing an intelligence/advancement to the cultures doesn't normally involve an 'environmental damage' variable. We may not always pay as much attention to the environment as we should, but that doesn't mean that we're not intelligent NOR does it mean that we're not an advanced culture. It simply means we don't always USE that intelligence.

- Additionally, I agree that it's hard to quantify evidence ror 'intelligence' or 'reason' as far as numbers go; but beavers didn't build the first nuclear reactor, or the first vehicle production line; and so on. You get the idea. I might not be able to quantify HOW we're different, but all you have to do is look around at the entire WORLD and at what man HAS achieved. One can't so blithely dismiss millennia of achievement by man by saying "Well yeah, we've built lots of stuff, but we can't keep it clean." Yes, it means we're not good stewards of the environment many times; but that doesn't negate the achievements. I suspect you can try to prove just how we're NOT different/'above' animals, and I can do the opposite, all day long, with no budging on either side.

(BTW - I wouldn't say all animals are 'good stewards' of their environment either. My dogs prove this to me every day. )


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> Not to worry the population is slowly decreasing and in about 20 years the US will begin to have a problem with finding "workers" to support the aged.
> 
> Anyone interested in things like this might want to pick up The Next Hundred Years A forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman.
> 
> As if anyone could forecast that far into the future.  He does it thorugh tracing history and its geopolitical patterns around the world. An interesting, enlightning, thought provoking, easy to read book.


Population Decline??? I don't think its happening yet. Our reproduction rates may have fell but we're still INCREASING in population. The US Census Bureau notes that the 74 million people added to the world's population in 2002 were fewer than the high of 87 million people added in 1989â1990. The annual growth rate was 1.2 percent, down from the high of 2.2 percent in 1963-64.

In 1990 the world's women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes and 2009, 2.5. We're in the middle of a worldwide reccession/depression so of course birth rates will fall but once things pick back up we'll become babies machines again.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Chuck said:


> You haven't been to Dallas recently, have you?


So now you are claiming all the worlds population is in Dallas? Suggest you look at population of Dallas, think its falls a wee bit short. You suggested all the worlds population could live in TX. 7 BILLION people. Can you even count to 7 BILLION (one, two, three, ...) before you die if you did nothing else.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

marvella said:


> no, but people can certainly limit the sizes of their families.


Well, why limit the size of your family when you get rewarded in this country for popping kids out?


FourDeuce said:


> I'm not aware of any time in human history when we distributed anything reasonably.


Obama is redistributing our money, but I guess even that's not equally.:shocked:


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

texican said:


> The planet CAN only support so many people.
> 
> America's soil and water are being mined to feed a good share of the planet. When the water is gone for good, people will starve.


Well the water is recycled, we will never run out of water. Here's an experiment, go drink a gallon of water and tell me what happens after a little while...lol

The whole evaporation/condensation(rain/snow) thing filters the water and redistributes it. I know we will never run out of water, it just maybe harder to filter but we already have to filter it in most of the world.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Chuck said:


> My worldview says I am to take dominion over the earth - to subdue it and not just conserve it, but make it better.


A puny frail imperfect human is going to improve something created by an omiscient, omnipotent god? Wow! So much for humility. 

I'll take a walk in the woods over a walk in a city any day. I dont see any city as an improvement. Do you? Does your god see the works of man as an improvement over his work? How about when humans eventually redesign their own DNA to improve themselves?

I think most religion, yes including yours, is mans efforts to justify doing what man wants to do. And using religion to justify subduing a perfect earth and trashing it certainly seems to confirm that.

How would you feel if you had a house in perfect condition and out of goodness of your own heart let some homeless people stay there. They trash it and dont take care of it in slightest. When you ask them why, they say they IMPROVED it and made it more valuable in terms of little green pieces of paper. And when the fallacy of this argument is pointed out, they say it doesnt matter, since you will eventually tear it down and build them a new one. Hmmm..... should make you think, but I dont suppose it will, you are too busy subduing little green pieces of paper.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

HermitJohn said:


> Yep, we can raise people in confinement feedlots walking in their own manure. Its when you start considering that even the least of us has a desire for quality of life that your theory breaks down.
> 
> And back at you, WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO LIVE CHEEK TO JOWL, just because they can???? Is it your desire to live in 6 sq feet in your own feces and wait for the wagon to unload your ration of food and water for the day to fatten you up for market? And if you dont want to live that way, why would the rest of the human population want to?
> .


Apparently millions of people do like to live that way, look at the cities' expansions. Not sure why, but it IS happening all the time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> *If I was an alien and had just landed on Earth and took a look around, I could easily see an argument that there is very little "intelligent" life on this planet. Would an intelligent species do to their environment some of the things we've done to ours? Times Beach, Missouri. Love Canal, New York. Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Chemical Alley in Louisiana. If we(humans) were put on trial and had to prove our species was intelligent, we might have to deal with some strong arguments on both sides.*


I have to bring some things up here. Times Beach and Love Canal were not caused by unintelligent but by ignorance. They did not spray dioxin laced oil on the roads in Times Beach because they wanted to kill people off. At the time, they just didn't know that dioxin was the killer it is. That's like saying it was unintelligent for people to have used asbestos to fire proof buildings because we have now discovered it can cause lung problems.

Chernobyl was also not caused by unintelligence. The builders KNEW when it was built it was a potentially dangerous design and because of this they set up specific protocols. Had these protocols been followed it would still be up and running today. If your view of intelligence was followed your aliens would never show up because space travel is too dangerous for an intelligent species to attempt.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> I'm wondering if somebody whizzed in your wheaties this morning? You know it's not healthy to get so personally upset and go into a tirade just because I don't agree with you that (you, me, humans) are god's masterpiece and therefore free to deplete and destroy all of god's other creations. And what is your beef with god's other creations anyway that you would want to destroy them on your whim? Of course destroying the planet would be a bad thing! God never gave you or me permission or rights to destroy the planet. God gave us this planet as an already perfect home to share with all other living things on it, not as an imperfect toy to play with and toss aside when we've worn it out because we couldn't improve it.
> 
> And you *DO* care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't have responded with such vitriol attacking what was only my personal definition of god and what I think god wants.
> 
> ...


No vitriol here. I'm not upset in the least. I'm simply pointing out where your worldview contradicts itself. 

You make it very clear that your view of right and wrong lives exclusively in the realm of your opinion. You made it up.

The entirety of your worldview isn't even based on sacred writings, or timeless wisdom. It's just something you cobbled together, a little of this, a little of that. Truth, to you, is like ice cream. Everyone gets to choose their own flavor.

But that's not what truth is like. Truth is like insulin. You need it to survive. But if you say "I'm just going to substitute this ice cream for insulin, because it tastes better," that is your right, but you'll still die because truth has no substitute.

All I'm saying, Naturelover, is that you are perfectly free to believe whatever you want. But before you go telling me that anything I believe is wrong or evil, you have to somehow establish that I am subject to your version of morality. 

But since your morality consists solely of your opinion, I'm not sure why you feel you have the right to impose it on me. And you call me arrogant?

My worldview is based more on science and reason than yours is, however, since in the real world, truths (like gravity, for example) exist apart from anyone's opinion. They are universal. That is the nature of truth. So while you're free to believe whatever you like, simply believing it doesn't make it true.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Chuck said:


> My worldview is based more on science and reason than yours is, however, since in the real world, truths (like gravity, for example) exist apart from anyone's opinion. They are universal. That is the nature of truth. So while you're free to believe whatever you like, simply believing it doesn't make it true.


Now if you could apply that same logic to evolution then there might be some consistency in all of this. The problem is that conservatives don't apply science uniformly, and even politicize scientific issues.

And yes, liberals can be guilty of politicizing scientific issues also, but I believe that they apply science more uniformly than conservatives do.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> So now you are claiming all the worlds population is in Dallas? Suggest you look at population of Dallas, think its falls a wee bit short. You suggested all the worlds population could live in TX. 7 BILLION people. Can you even count to 7 BILLION (one, two, three, ...) before you die if you did nothing else.


You missed what I was saying. Let me put it another way:

If everyone in the United States moved to Texas, all 300 million of us, the state would be about as crowded as greenville, SC or the state of New Jersey. The rest of the United States could be made into huge farms and enormous national parks. 

If the entire planet moved to Texas, it would be about as crowded as Los Angeles. (do the math, 6 billion people divided by the land area of texas)

Now that is certainly more crowded than many people would prefer. But I've been to LA, and I didn't see anyone living in "six square feet of their own feces" as you so eloquently put it. 

I'm not saying we SHOULD do this - I'm simply making the point that the world is a lot less crowded than people think.

We tend to think we are much bigger than we really are - which is hubris.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

That's a different discussion, Nevada, but I'd like you to visit the creation museum some day and then try and tell me evolution is based any less on faith than intelligent design.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So now you are claiming all the worlds population is in Dallas? Suggest you look at population of Dallas, think its falls a wee bit short. You suggested all the worlds population could live in TX. 7 BILLION people. Can you even count to 7 BILLION (one, two, three, ...) before you die if you did nothing else.


You misread he said the entire population would fit in TX and be no more crowded than Dallas. You post got me to wondering so I crunched some numbers. (numbers found at wikipedia) And please check my numbers and calculations to point out any errors I have made.

The land area, i.e. taking out any area covered by water, of Dallas is 342.5 square mile, the population is 1,279,910. That gives us a population density of 3,737 people per square mile. The land area of TX is 26,209,950 square miles. 

So let's start crunching. . . 
3,737 ppl/mi^2 * 26,209,950 mi^2 = 97,946,583,150 ppl

I don't think anyone would have a problem with rounding that off and calling it 98 billion. So 98 BILLION people could fit in the area of TX and have them no more crowded than the city of Dallas. 

Let us crunch some more. . .

98 /7 = 14 

So we discover using the data available you can fit 14 times the number of people currently living in the world in Texas and have it no more crowded than Dallas. 

It gets better. If you look at Shanghai, which isn't some third world slum, you find something really interesting. The land are of Shanghai is 2,447.9 square miles and the population is 19,210,000 people. This gives us a population density of 7,848 ppl/mi^2. Let's crunch again. . . 

7848 ppl/mi^2 * 26,209,950 mi^2 = 205,695,687,600 ppl.

Let's call that 206 billion to make things a bit easier.

So we have

206 / 7 = 29.4 

If everyone was willing to live in Shanghai conditions we could fit 29 times the current world population in the state of TX. Put another way we could use just 1/29th of TX, or 90,3791 mi^2 to house everyone in the world. That would give us quite a bit of land around the world to raise crops on.

Interesting isn't it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Chuck said:


> That's a different discussion, Nevada, but I'd like you to visit the creation museum some day and then try and tell me evolution is based any less on faith than intelligent design.


Evolution is a different subject, but the uniform application of science is precisely the subject here.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Apparently the only thing that upsets non-believers more than a illogical Christian talking is a LOGICAL Christian talking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ernie said:


> Apparently the only thing that upsets non-believers more than a illogical Christian talking is a LOGICAL Christian talking.


Is logic a part of Christianity? Is logic, innovation, or free thinking rewarded anywhere in the Bible? By its very nature, religion is dependent upon a belief in something that defies logic.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Chuck said:


> That's a different discussion, Nevada, but I'd like you to visit the creation museum some day and then try and tell me evolution is based any less on faith than intelligent design.


how do you know a slug doesn't feel important? and no one is worshipping anything. sheesh.

i'm real curious about that creation museum. just how does it manage to justify creation and evolution? 

personally i don't have a problem understanding that it is quite possible to believe both. but there are plenty of creationists around who refuse to "believe" evolution. imo, their belief really limits gods abilties.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Is logic a part of Christianity? Is logic, innovation, or free thinking rewarded anywhere in the Bible? By its very nature, religion is dependent upon a belief in something that defies logic.


You are using a flawed logic. A Christian can think logically, just as easy as a scientist can think illogically. The thought process of the individual is not directly correlated to his or her belief system.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Now if you could apply that same logic to evolution then there might be some consistency in all of this. The problem is that conservatives don't apply science uniformly, and even politicize scientific issues.
> 
> And yes, liberals can be guilty of politicizing scientific issues also, but I believe that they apply science more uniformly than conservatives do.


The theory that all life grew from a single cell is so flawed its laughable when you apply logic to it. It this were not the case this theory would have been moved up to a scientific law decades ago. 

The theory that life forms change due to their environment makes perfect sense and is easily provable and should be called the law of environmental physical changes. Look at the different breeds of dogs produced by nothing more than man's breeding the ones with specific characteristics.

FYI, the theory of the single cell is as much of a religion as any other. It is based on the belief on something which can not be proven.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evolution is a different subject, but the uniform application of science is precisely the subject here.


Are you kidding? If the said "uniform application of science" was applied to the theory of evolution it would have been tossed years ago. It has too many WAGs and assumptions in it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Is logic a part of Christianity? Is logic, innovation, or free thinking rewarded anywhere in the Bible? By its very nature, religion is dependent upon a belief in something that defies logic.


Like the belief that something was suddenly made out of nothing? Say like the big bang theory? Thank you for the hanging curve ball.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Is logic a part of Christianity? Is logic, innovation, or free thinking rewarded anywhere in the Bible? By its very nature, religion is dependent upon a belief in something that defies logic.


What's the FIRST sin in there? Humans seeking knowledge. Seems to me the MEN who wrote it might have put that sin first because they considered it important.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> I have to bring some things up here. Times Beach and Love Canal were not caused by unintelligent but by ignorance. They did not spray dioxin laced oil on the roads in Times Beach because they wanted to kill people off. At the time, they just didn't know that dioxin was the killer it is. That's like saying it was unintelligent for people to have used asbestos to fire proof buildings because we have now discovered it can cause lung problems.
> 
> Chernobyl was also not caused by unintelligence. The builders KNEW when it was built it was a potentially dangerous design and because of this they set up specific protocols. Had these protocols been followed it would still be up and running today. If your view of intelligence was followed your aliens would never show up because space travel is too dangerous for an intelligent species to attempt.


Maybe the aliens would be intelligent enough to build spaceships that didn't poison them. Or maybe they could teleport here. Either way, once they arrived, they might have some serious doubts about our status as "intelligent" beings. Smoking is another good example of "things humans do which don't seem very smart". It's not too hard to find plenty more examples.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Global pandemic, global famine or government enforced homosexuality.

All will decrease the need for more resources...


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

I understood that SWAG was the primary component of any great spirit in the sky belief or archeoligal bases hypothesis when I was 10 or 12 years old and my grandfather explained that was what happened whenever a human with a lifespan of 50 to 80 years trired taking part in discussions of things thousands of years to eons old with only puzzle pieces and incomplete histories to base their hypothesis on.

He told me all I could do was embrace the perspective that I liked best and let others do the same and avoid "my view is beter than your view" confrontations whenever possible becaus nobody ever actully wins those debates and almost everybody feels a bit offended and few realize with any view, all of our perspectives are a bit off from one another , even if we are standing side by side "in the same camp looking toward the same answer".

If there were no perspective difference, there would be no religious splinter groups of the same diety or different yet similar SWAG based hypothesis on Mankinds origins.

All any of us know for sure is that our species has a short lifespan and not as well prepared naturally for the environment we live in as other animal species, but Nature or whatever Spirit in the Sky we choose to believe in has provided us multiple brains of other species stacked one on top of the other to offer our species a degree of competativeness with other species.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> You misread he said the entire population would fit in TX and be no more crowded than Dallas. You post got me to wondering so I crunched some numbers. (numbers found at wikipedia) And please check my numbers and calculations to point out any errors I have made.
> 
> The land area, i.e. taking out any area covered by water, of Dallas is 342.5 square mile, the population is 1,279,910. That gives us a population density of 3,737 people per square mile. The land area of TX is 26,209,950 square miles.
> 
> ...


So exactly how do you deal with water supply and sanitation. A city that is densly populated can have water piped in. The southwestern cities use all Colorado River and more. Not even a trickle reaches Mexico anymore. Now imagine an arid land area the size of Texas and densely populated. It would be impossible locally or if you were tankering in water from other side of planet so energywise impossible.

Now think how Americans dispose of our waste. We as a society mandate everybody use 5 gallon water everytime that individual urinates. Now do the math on that!!!! for a densly populated area the size of TX. And even if everybody used zero water poop and urinate, there would be incredible amounts of poop and urine to move out of the populated areas. Not only do you have to bring in food and water, you have to dispose of the waste products of 7B humans. Far as i know there are no rivers in TX capable of flushing that much waste.

Its not just land area, its ALL resources needed to supply a population. And if you've ever visited Hong Kong or Calcutta, then tell me its the way man was meant to live. Sure people CAN live that way if there is money to bring in ALL needs from the outside, but doubt many would want to. And guess what that 7B all cheek to jowl arent going to stop dieing or reproducing. So all that has to be handled. How about medical care?

Yep comparing a city like LA to a TX sized megacity densly populated like Hong Kong and its apples to oranges. Not a real comparison any which way.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Global pandemic, global famine or government enforced homosexuality.
> 
> All will decrease the need for more resources...


No more resources to exploit rather makes demand a mute point also. The bacteria colony in the petri dish always eventually succombs to its own temporary success.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So exactly how do you deal with water supply and sanitation. A city that is densly populated can have water piped in. The southwestern cities use all Colorado River and more. Not even a trickle reaches Mexico anymore. Now imagine an arid land area the size of Texas and densely populated. It would be impossible locally or if you were tankering in water from other side of planet so energywise impossible.
> 
> Now think how Americans dispose of our waste. We as a society mandate everybody use 5 gallon water everytime that individual urinates. Now do the math on that!!!! for a densly populated area the size of TX. And even if everybody used zero water poop and urinate, there would be incredible amounts of poop and urine to move out of the populated areas. Not only do you have to bring in food and water, you have to dispose of the waste products of 7B humans. Far as i know there are no rivers in TX capable of flushing that much waste.
> 
> ...


Another point missed. The point is not that we ARE going to put people in one mega-city or even into many cities. The point is the number of humans living on the planet is next to nothing when compared to the size of the earth. 

But all the points you bring up are really nothing. It really wasn't that long ago when buildings over 5 or so stories was thought to be impossible due to many of the same points. And just a bit longer ago the thought of even 100,000 people living in an area was unthinkable. How many out houses would be needed? How would you get rid of all the waste? Technology solved these problems. 

Methane generators, waste water recycling and things we can't even envision today could be used to solve the problems you bring up.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> What's the FIRST sin in there? Humans seeking knowledge. Seems to me the MEN who wrote it might have put that sin first because they considered it important.


You're taking it out of context. (Which is not at all unusual.)

There's nothing wrong with seeking knowledge/information in and of itself. Otherwise we would not have been commanded to seek the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, *MIND* and strength; and the Bereans in Scripture are told not to blindly accept what they are told, but to test it.

HOWEVER, there's a difference between simply blindly seeking 'knowledge' and seeking knowledge with the intention of knowing more about God. I see so many people that supposedly admit that they 'can't be sure' that God doesn't exist; yet, these same people are sure confident when they're attempting to disprove the Bible, Christian history, and the like.

The basic difference between Christians and non-Christians is essentially (in my mind) that non-Christians start with the assertion that God does not exist (or that he 'might' exist) and they go from there, unwilling to accept that He does exist unless given incontrovertible proof - which will *NEVER* happen.

Christians, on the other hand, start with the assertion that God DOES exist, and they go from THERE, also unwilling to accept that He does not exist unless given incontrovertible proof - which will ALSO *NEVER* happen.

The funny thing is, both groups spend SO much time lambasting and lampooning the other side for their viewpoints, when both sides employ much the same tactics.

Simply put, seeking knowledge for its OWN sake is not good. I like to think that I am VERY intellectual; I read all the time, debate as I get the chance, etc. I read MANY books that many Christians wouldn't be caught dead reading. I'm betting, for instance, that you won't find too many Christians who have read "The Satanic Bible" by Anton LaVey.

Difference is, I didn't read it for giggles; I wanted to try to understand the mind of a man who could write such a thing, who could have such a problem with God. In other words, my aims were 'God-centric' - they had to do with trying to understand not only God more, but why people have problems with the concept/existence/supposed 'contradictory' nature of God. I wanted to see if Anton had anything interesting/different to say. (I will ALSO admit that I wanted simply to be able to 'understand the opposition' if you will. Let's be honest - if I'm going to point out to nonbelievers that 'hey, you've not read the Bible - and yet you're commenting on its contents" I had better be prepared to take my own advice.)

(Funny thing is, it says not much more different than many others have said - that he believes the strongest should have the places of preeminence, that the weak deserve no concern or grace, etc. Not exactly a revolutionary concept.)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So exactly how do you deal with water supply and sanitation. A city that is densly populated can have water piped in. The southwestern cities use all Colorado River and more. Not even a trickle reaches Mexico anymore. Now imagine an arid land area the size of Texas and densely populated. It would be impossible locally or if you were tankering in water from other side of planet so energywise impossible.


LOL It doesn't HAVE to be IN Texas.
It's just the square miles that matter.
I know you can't *really* be that obtuse

Think about the CONCEPT instead of getting hung up on the semantics


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Crap.

FourDeuce - I meant to respond to your post; but accidentally edited your post, and then my browser died. One of the problems with being an admin - I can edit a post if need be, yet sometimes a mistake is made. *smacks head* In other words, you'll need to respond again if you want your response posted. My apologies...it had nothing to do with the content of your post and everything to do with me screwing up. LOL

My actual response to YOUR response was very basic - it was essentially responding to your assertion that nothing has been proven (or something like that) Biblically. My response to that was that considering the most skeptical historians/archaeologists don't doubt the historical existence of Jesus, the 12 Apostles, and many other Biblical personalities, we're not even really on the same footing, or starting on common ground; and therefore I'm not sure it makes sense to continue to discuss/debate.

That, and I have a Unix test to take so it'd be a while anyways.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

Chuck said:


> Fourdeuce, I think you dramatically underestimate the power of the human mind. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.
> 
> I find it interesting that on one hand, we're supposedly so powerful that we can destroy the entire planet. But on the other, we're apparently too stupid to come up with solutions that will help us take care of our environment, eventually replace oil as a primary source of energy, and increase the global standard of living.
> 
> And we can build vast, complex cities, send people to the moon, eradicate various childhood diseases, and yet according to some environmentalists, we have no more value as a species than slugs.


When one talks about value it always raises the question to whom or what? 

In the greater scheme of the universe I doubt that our ability to crawl up out of our gravity well with great effort counts for much. Come back and let's have a conversation when we send people to the nearest star.

Other than humans, who or what cares that we have eradicated childhood diseases (and have we truly eradicated them?)? 

And by what measure of comparison do you claim our cities are vast and complex? We know one tiny corner of the universe.

One might go back and read (or re-read) the definition of hubris.

I appreciate your optimism but the track record of humankind indicates it is just as likely that we will destroy ourselves and our planet. What is lacking is not skills and technology but rather wisdom.

Mike


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL It doesn't HAVE to be IN Texas.
> It's just the square miles that matter.
> I know you can't *really* be that obtuse
> 
> Think about the CONCEPT instead of getting hung up on the semantics


First pick the sweetest most choice TX size chunk of real estate on the planet. I'll gladly let you be the one to pick. Now populate it with the entire 7 BILLION humans in existance. Explain the infrastructure necessary to make it work? You are one heck of an engineer if you can. 

It not just the square miles as you say, its the big picture of a complete system. To crowd people into a small space causes more disease, it requires a very expensive infrastructure to support it. It requires huge amounts of resources collected and transported there. It requires huge amounts of bodily and other wastes removed. I'd say there isnt a TX size chunk of real estate in the world that could support 7 BILLION people any which way, at least not with our current technology. Sure in your fantasy world 7 BILLION people once moved there could stand in that amount space for very short amount time until their wants and needs made them start looking for food, water, and a latrine. How about schools and hospitals and everything else. How about the maze of roads, trains, warehouses, stores, etc.

What you are basically wanting is a self supporting ant colony! Or building the new Tower of Babel. There you go, your new megacity can be called Babel City and we know how well your god liked that human effort.....


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> Another point missed. The point is not that we ARE going to put people in one mega-city or even into many cities. The point is the number of humans living on the planet is next to nothing when compared to the size of the earth.
> 
> But all the points you bring up are really nothing. It really wasn't that long ago when buildings over 5 or so stories was thought to be impossible due to many of the same points. And just a bit longer ago the thought of even 100,000 people living in an area was unthinkable. How many out houses would be needed? How would you get rid of all the waste? Technology solved these problems.
> 
> Methane generators, waste water recycling and things we can't even envision today could be used to solve the problems you bring up.


You still arent getting that it isnt about standing room, its an entire system with lots of infrastructure and resources necessary to support that infrastructure and population. Even if you moved all the people to a TX size confinement feedlot, it would still take an Earth size planet to provide the food, water, and other necessities. Plus the EXTRA energy to move all those resources to that one spot and take away the waste. You still cant suddenly make the rest of the now empty planet produce more food and fuel than its already producing and your 7 BILLION person confinement feedlot is going to consume all of it. You just concentrated the population, YOU DIDNT MAGICALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR THEM TO LIVE!!!!!

The people in Hong Kong and Calcutta or even LA or Dallas ARE DEPENDENT ON RESOURCES FROM THE ENTIRE PLANET. Resources from sparsely populated or rich areas flow to the densely populated areas to be consumed. Squeezing together the population DOESNT miraculously increase those finite resources to somehow support ten times that population. 

If you still cant get your head around it, think of a farm. Its a set size, no more land to buy or rent in the neighborhood and no neighbors selling extra grain or hay. Now you have a herd of cattle. They are happy cattle and most years have enough to eat and drink. Some are born, some die, some are harvested by the farmer, but its a stable population. You can fence your farm and move them from pasture to pasture, giving the grazed pastures time to renew, maybe grow some hay or corn or whatever for winter feeding on part of the farm. This farm has a carrying capacity on the number of cattle it can support. Suddenly doubling the number of cattle and confining them shoulder to shoulder in a small feedlot doesnt somehow double the resources you have to feed them or water them or the space they have to graze. And it increases greatly the work to supply them food and remove their wastes. Only a total IDIOT farmer would think he can infinitely expand his herd or any other production on his farm without OUTSIDE INPUTS. 

Well the planet can be thought of a big farm, but with the same closed system and a FINITE amount of resources. You cant rent more space on neighboring planets, you cant bring in more resources from neighboring planets. So you reach a sustainable carrying capacity. Go beyond that and you are headed for trouble. Right here in Babel City.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> You still arent getting that it isnt about standing room, its an entire system with lots of infrastructure and resources necessary to support that infrastructure and population. Even if you moved all the people to a TX size confinement feedlot, it would still take an Earth size planet to provide the food, water, and other necessities. Plus the EXTRA energy to move all those resources to that one spot and take away the waste. You still cant suddenly make the rest of the now empty planet produce more food and fuel than its already producing and your 7 BILLION person confinement feedlot is going to consume all of it. You just concentrated the population, YOU DIDNT MAGICALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR THEM TO LIVE!!!!!
> 
> The people in Hong Kong and Calcutta or even LA or Dallas ARE DEPENDENT ON RESOURCES FROM THE ENTIRE PLANET. Resources from sparsely populated or rich areas flow to the densely populated areas to be consumed. Squeezing together the population DOESNT miraculously increase those finite resources to somehow support ten times that population.
> 
> ...


Ok let's play a bit. 

Look around where you live. How many single family houses with fair sized lawns are there? Now think about all of those people living in a single multi-story apartment building. The apartment would have a smaller land foot print which would leave all the rest of the land to grow crops. So you would have more food available.

The amount of water needed to be provided and removed from each person would not change, that volume is being handled now therefore that is not a problem.

The amount of material needed to build the apartment building would be less than would be needed to build all of those houses so you would actually need fewer (less?) resources. 

Because all of the people would be in one place working, shopping and other such places could be placed closer to the people reducing the travel, saving resources. Even more could be saved with a mass transport system removing individual cars from the road.

Speaking of roads, look at how many acres of farm land are paved over. By having people live in mega cities almost all of these acres would be free to be farmed and all those resources used for other things.

So I guess by concentrating people in one place we can "MAGICALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR THEM TO LIVE".


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> My worldview is based more on science and reason than yours is, however, since in the real world, truths (like gravity, for example) exist apart from anyone's opinion. They are universal. That is the nature of truth. So while you're free to believe whatever you like, simply believing it doesn't make it true.


Chuck, your logic is dead-on until you start interjecting possibly imaginary supernatural beings into the equation.

The problem is that god(s) do not operate in measurable ways, like gravity or insulin, thus the comparison is somewhat faulty.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> First pick the sweetest most choice TX size chunk of real estate on the planet. I'll gladly let you be the one to pick. Now populate it with the entire 7 BILLION humans in existance. Explain the infrastructure necessary to make it work? You are one heck of an engineer if you can.


It would be NO DIFFERENT than any other city with the same population DENSITY


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> Chuck, your logic is dead-on until you start interjecting possibly imaginary supernatural beings into the equation.
> 
> The problem is that god(s) do not operate in measurable ways, like gravity or insulin, thus the comparison is somewhat faulty.


Not in the least, WG. Here's why. It's easy to prove that things exist outside the realm of what is measurable. Moral laws exist - we all feel them - and yet they don't exist in any scientifically measurable way. So we can't DISPROVE the existence of beings outside of our reality simply because we can't see, feel, touch, smell or taste them.

Then, move on to the kalam cosmological argument:

since one cannot actually count to infinity - no matter how high you count, you can always add one more to it, the universe cannot have existed forever. Not only that, but science shows the universe is expanding and slowing, it must have had a beginning. That beginning was either caused or uncaused. Since we never observe things coming into being spontaneously, the universe logically had a cause. 

So that causative agent must have been either personal or impersonal. But since impersonal objects (rocks, energy) don't display a will and are not seen as "active" agents, it's unlikely the causative agent of the "big bang" was impersonal.

So the most logical explanation for the big bang is that a personal being caused it to happen. But in order to be able to do that, that being would have had to be outside of time and space as we know it - not subject to it, just as a painter is separate from (though present in) his paintings.

So believing in a super-natural creator isn't that illogical after all.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

I'd also like to explain something to those who assert "God created the planet perfectly and so how dare we think we can improve upon it."

A traditional Christian worldview holds that God did create the planet as perfection. it was called the Garden of Eden. But when sin entered the world at the hands of humankind, that perfection was spoiled. thorns grew, things broke, became rotten and rusty.

As the pinnacle of God's creation, we were made IN HIS IMAGE - that is, with many of God's characteristics - like the ability to create.

When we were commanded to "take dominion" over the earth, part of that means we are to beat back the effects of sin on this world - to strive to bring our part of the planet back to a better state, like it was before the fall. This is why Christians have always been the largest force for improvement in this world. Something like 80% of all the world's charity is given by Christians. the first 300 universities in America were founded by Christians. The majority of hospitals were begun and funded by Christians. 

We can't improve on God's perfection - but this world is no longer perfect. We ARE able - yes, COMMANDED to work to improve creation as we find it today.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Chuck said:


> Not in the least, WG. Here's why. It's easy to prove that things exist outside the realm of what is measurable. Moral laws exist - we all feel them - and yet they don't exist in any scientifically measurable way. So we can't DISPROVE the existence of beings outside of our reality simply because we can't see, feel, touch, smell or taste them.
> 
> Then, move on to the kalam cosmological argument:
> 
> ...


well looky here, we agree on something. 

i too believe it's entirely possible the "big bang" is merely a descriptor for the creation of the world. the same is true for evolution- we can clearly see things evolving today, such as viruses, planst and animals. no reason god could not have created evolution as the process. science has clearly shown that humans on this planet are merely a blip on the screen. it's clear to me that there are much larger processes going on than what we understand. personally i think humans are no more important than some electron circling an atom (or smaller.) it's a macro/ micro thing. but that's probably where we diverge again.

as i said earlier- there's no reason not to believe both.

i take issue with those who believe humans and dinosaurs were on the earth together and that the world is only 6000 years old. that really limits god's power.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

There is - of course - a fundamental reason you cannot believe that God used evolution to create the changes necessary to create this planet (aside from the exactly zero mathematical probability) and that is that the Bible says that sin came into the world through Adam, and further makes it clear that death is a result of sin. Evolution requires death, PILES of it... and it simply didn't happen before Adam and Eve sinned.

Other than that... sure, it all 'works'. I mean, there's no 'point' to any of it and life really is meaningless, but it theoretically 'works'... if that's comfort to some.

R


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Chuck, your logic is dead-on until you start interjecting possibly imaginary supernatural beings into the equation.


I hate to tell you this but even science must inject some imaginary supernatural thing or being into the equation and take it on faith. 

Please tell me what was here before the "Big Bang"? Science says you can't make something out of nothing therefore there must have been something there. But science says that everything was created at the Big Bang therefore there could not be anything before then. How do they get around this contradiction? They ignore it or say it just happened that way. IOW, they must base their belief system on faith which IMO makes it a religion.




willow_girl said:


> The problem is that god(s) do not operate in measurable ways, like gravity or insulin, thus the comparison is somewhat faulty.


Talk about faulty logic? What kind of logical argument can you make to support your thought God would not use things like gravity?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

marvella said:


> well looky here, we agree on something.
> 
> i too believe it's entirely possible the "big bang" is merely a descriptor for the creation of the world. the same is true for evolution- we can clearly see things evolving today, such as viruses, planst and animals. no reason god could not have created evolution as the process. science has clearly shown that humans on this planet are merely a blip on the screen. it's clear to me that there are much larger processes going on than what we understand. personally i think humans are no more important than some electron circling an atom (or smaller.) it's a macro/ micro thing. but that's probably where we diverge again.


I've got to interject here. What you use as an example of evolution is not what is thought of in most cases. Anyone with eyes knows things can be changed and change based on external environmental pressures. The best example I have found is the dog. Look at all the different sizes, shapes and colors of dogs man has made by selective breeding. Is that "proof" of evolution? No. If someone took a dog and breed into it the ability to breath water or grow feathers then you might have some proof.

IMO, if you wanted to prove evolution it would be fairly easy. A generation of the fruit fly is 5 days. IOW, a fruit fly can go from egg to egg laying adult in 5 days. Now in 10 years you could have 3,650 generations of flies. So why not take several bunches of fruit flies and expose them to different things which should cause them to evolve into a different species. Say expose one group to a constant spray of water and see if they grow gills. Expose another to low temps and see if they grow fur. Expose another to low levels of radiation, another to high levels and see if we get something totally new.

I'm sure anyone who believes in evolution would agree in 3,650 generations (which would equal about 36,500 years in chimps and 73,000 years in humans) would be long enough to see some evolution when you are trying to force it to happen. But you won't see this happen because the real scientist out there know you could keep this up for 100 years and you'd still not get anything but a different looking fly.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

watcher said:


> I hate to tell you this but even science must inject some imaginary supernatural thing or being into the equation and take it on faith.


I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. People tell me *all* the time that science is based on fact, reason, etc. (and indeed it is) and yet if you REALLY pay attention to scientific findings, theories and the like, they're just as full of assumptions and taking things on 'faith', as it were, as Christianity (and other religions) are.

The next thing I then usually hear is "Science is always making advances, finding proof for their theories or disproving previously held assumptions." Funny...Christianity does the same thing - although with the exception of some obviously contentious areas, the findings that have to do with Christianity, Biblical personalities, etc. continue to prove the Biblical/Christian people/places/things they're associated with.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> Ok let's play a bit.
> 
> Look around where you live. How many single family houses with fair sized lawns are there? Now think about all of those people living in a single multi-story apartment building. The apartment would have a smaller land foot print which would leave all the rest of the land to grow crops. So you would have more food available.


Again you are paying for more carrying capacity by forcing more people closer together and lessening their quality of life. 



watcher said:


> The amount of water needed to be provided and removed from each person would not change, that volume is being handled now therefore that is not a problem.


But right now that water is spread around a planet as are the humans. How are you going to pipe all that water to one TX size spot on the globe. How much energy would that take? The infrastructure to accomplish this would be massive. And do you just flush all that slightly used water back in the ocean after you have tinkled in it? Do you somehow reprocess it. Do you have any idea how city water and sanitation works? And water resources are getting short in lot of the globe. How exactly again are you going to provide for ten or 20 times the current population that you would like to see?



watcher said:


> The amount of material needed to build the apartment building would be less than would be needed to build all of those houses so you would actually need fewer (less?) resources. .


Again YOU want to take away space from people in order to have more people. How again is this improving their quality of life.



watcher said:


> Because all of the people would be in one place working, shopping and other such places could be placed closer to the people reducing the travel, saving resources. Even more could be saved with a mass transport system removing individual cars from the road..


So you want to tell people how to live and what to buy. My, my, sounds like socialism to me.... 



watcher said:


> Speaking of roads, look at how many acres of farm land are paved over. By having people live in mega cities almost all of these acres would be free to be farmed and all those resources used for other things..


And are not roads necessary to transport all that agricultural produce to Babel City? Or have you invented teletransporters like on Star Trek?



watcher said:


> So I guess by concentrating people in one place we can "MAGICALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR THEM TO LIVE".


By dictating how they live from on high and what oportunites they have. Basically by putting them in a confinement feedlot for humans and telling them how lucky they are. I thought conservatives didnt believe in such things?

You are maybe increasing efficiency with a confinement feedlot for humans and buying bit more time and bit more carrying capacity (at an incredible cost for new and massive infrastructure and social engineering), BUT you ARE NOT INCREASING THE TOTAL RESOURCES OF THE PLANET!!!! You have NOT explained how you are going to provide for 10 or 20 times the current human population that you fantisize. Just like any farm, it has a carrying capacity, ONLY SO MANY ANIMALS OR CROPS can be raised there. Oh you might increase efficiency a bit here and there, but without outside inputs you cant indefinitely increase carrying capacity of that farm. Gains from increased efficiency dont increase exponentially, they are small and hard won and many times very expensive. However population can increase at exponential rate. The maximum human carrying capacity of Earth at a particular technological level is set in stone short of being able to import vast quanties of resources from other planets. We barely have the technology to get a handful of people off the planet and it takes a huge expenditure of money and resources to do that. Any significant wholesale trade between planets would take a quantum leap in technology and some vast new cheap energy source. Not to mention needing more earth like planets. None in our solar system.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would be NO DIFFERENT than any other city with the same population DENSITY


Pretty obvious you are neither a farmer nor an engineer.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> I hate to tell you this but even science must inject some imaginary supernatural thing or being into the equation and take it on faith.
> 
> Please tell me what was here before the "Big Bang"? Science says you can't make something out of nothing therefore there must have been something there. But science says that everything was created at the Big Bang therefore there could not be anything before then. How do they get around this contradiction? They ignore it or say it just happened that way. IOW, they must base their belief system on faith which IMO makes it a religion.
> 
> ...



I believe science says there most likely was something before the big bang, but its impossible to find traces with current technology, since everything started all over. The dice were rolled again afresh. Melt down the steel in 50 white Edsels, pour it out into bars and then tell me just by looking at the steel bars what color the Edsels were painted?

But then the godly people have a simular problem of where god, GOD, or godz came from. Did they just suddenly pop into existance, were they pooped out by some giant supergod turtle???? But the religion people just say we arent suppose to ask such questions and that such things are unknowable or that their god is somehow not linear and has just always existed. I say cop out. Going to make a linear argument about origin of things, your beliefs have to provide logical answers also and you havent done so. You want to know where the matter came from for the big bang, well I want to know where your God came from that you say created all space and time. If everything has a beginning and an end then so does your God. So explain it.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Every organism is subject to the rules of nature. Humans are no different.

If we fail to stabilize and then reduce our population those rules will reduce our population no matter how hard we try to stop the population correction. I hope that I'm not here to witness it because it won't be a good thing to see. When the forces of nature correct a population the inevitable result is a population that is much smaller than carrying capacity because the overpopulation has reduced carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The carrying capacity of this planet is probably around 2 - 3 billion people. We currently just below 7 billion and still rapidly expanding. That means that when the correction is finished at least 5 billion people will be dead.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Chuck said:


> I'd also like to explain something to those who assert "God created the planet perfectly and so how dare we think we can improve upon it."
> 
> A traditional Christian worldview holds that God did create the planet as perfection. it was called the Garden of Eden. But when sin entered the world at the hands of humankind, that perfection was spoiled. thorns grew, things broke, became rotten and rusty.
> 
> ...


The thorns I hate to tell you are protection various plants use to protect themselves from being eaten. Is this evil? They are doing what any species does to protect its survival. Not good for the evil predators of this plant I suppose. So is human greed to defeat the thorns and devour the plant somehow a superior goal?

Rot is natures way of recycling. Where anybody got the idea that nothing should rot or recycle is beyond me. Again its human greed that creates such wishful foolish thinking. 

Nature is a successful self balancing system until man tries to defeat natures balance to enrich himself. 

Interesting seems most things touched by man are despoiled and ruined, not improved. Man works far more for far less in this brave new "improved" world than when he was a hunter/gatherer with very small human population and cooperating with nature. Consuming more and more and creating more and more humans is the route of the bacteria in the petri dish, not an improvement over the natural world. The natural world has a balance. All humans have done is figured out ways to prevent nature from keeping this balance. Tried to gain an advantage over nature but ended up just hurting themselves. How that is improvement I dont know. It just ends with us treating the planet like the bacteria do their resources in a petri dish. They consume and consume and breed and breed until they have used up the finite resources available to them or despoiled what they couldnt consume. So whoopee, your god wants us to emulate the bacteria. Big improvement. 

So the idea man is going to improve upon nature gives lot credence to the notion that mans' various Gods, gods, godz are nothing more than wishful creations of man himself to justify his wanton destruction and exploitation of nature. Remember the Great and Powerful Oz from the childrens book? Well just listen to his commands, dont look at the puny man behind the curtain pulling the levers.... Sound familiar? Sure sounds like most religions man has invented especially the western ones.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"I hate to tell you this but even science must inject some imaginary supernatural thing or being into the equation and take it on faith."

Nope. Science takes nothing on faith, and never injects any supernatural "things or beings" into the equation. When the answers are unknown to science, the logical answer is "Insufficient data". Any speculation into POSSIBLE answers is just speculation, and is not given as fact until it is proven. That's the difference between science and religion. Science starts with speculation and works to find answers using the available data. Religion starts with the answers and tries to find evidence to support those answers, often ignoring or throwing out any evidence which doesn't support them.:baby04:


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> Nope. Science takes nothing on faith, and never injects any supernatural "things or beings" into the equation.


Possibly; but scientists DO make assumptions, conjectures, etc. all the time. To insist otherwise is to simply be wrong.



> When the answers are unknown to science, the logical answer is "Insufficient data". Any speculation into POSSIBLE answers is just speculation, and is not given as fact until it is proven.


Agreed...but the problem with this is that there are *MANY* scientists, many branches of science that DO speculate, assume and 'conject' (not sure if that's a word ) and yet pass it off as fact. If you want proof....Lord, I'm not even sure where to start. I'd have to do research merely to find proof of this because it happens all the time.

One particular scientist, I remember, scoffs @ the creation theory....while suggesting quite seriously that crystals were involved somehow in the synthesis of life from nothing to something. That's like telling someone annoying that they're perpetuating a bad habit...while picking their nose. LOL



> Science starts with speculation and works to find answers using the available data. Religion starts with the answers and tries to find evidence to support those answers, often ignoring or throwing out any evidence which doesn't support them.:baby04:


You're not seriously suggesting that scientists don't do the same? :grin: I mean, I can't count the number of times that this or that 'advancement' in science came about...only to be disproven because someone falsified the evidence, or evidence of bias or 'leading the witness' was found. 

I would content that science DOES indeed often start with answers as well, trying to find evidence supporting their answers, and ALSO throws out or ignores evidence not supporting it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Nature is a successful self balancing system until man tries to defeat natures balance to enrich himself.


And then nature restores the balance by defeating man. 

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Again you are paying for more carrying capacity by forcing more people closer together and lessening their quality of life.


The debate isn't the quality of life, its how to keep the a greater number of humans alive on the earth. History has shown people are more willing to live a very poor quality of life then die.




HermitJohn said:


> But right now that water is spread around a planet as are the humans. How are you going to pipe all that water to one TX size spot on the globe. How much energy would that take?


I don't know but I'm willing to bet the power from one fast breeder-reactor would do the job. Or you could use the power from that plant to run desalination plants which would cut the distance plus not use ground water.

Or you could just put the city near a major river. I'm sure the flow of the Mississippi river would probably take care of a very large percentage of the water needs.




HermitJohn said:


> The infrastructure to accomplish this would be massive. And do you just flush all that slightly used water back in the ocean after you have tinkled in it? Do you somehow reprocess it.


In this case you'd have to reduce the amount used and recycle it and the liquid waste. Think space station.




HermitJohn said:


> Do you have any idea how city water and sanitation works? And water


Yep, sure do. I also know you don't have to do it that way. There's composting toilets, there's incinerating toilets, there's digesting (which gives you methane and fertilizer).




HermitJohn said:


> resources are getting short in lot of the globe. How exactly again are you going to provide for ten or 20 times the current population that you would like to see?


Who says I'd like to see it? I'm just saying it can be done.




HermitJohn said:


> Again YOU want to take away space from people in order to have more people. How again is this improving their quality of life.


Let me ask you a few things. Where do you think most people would rather live, in a mud hut in Africa or in Dallas? Which would most people choose living in Dallas or dying?




HermitJohn said:


> So you want to tell people how to live and what to buy. My, my, sounds like socialism to me....


Nope, I'm telling you HOW it could work. 




HermitJohn said:


> And are not roads necessary to transport all that agricultural produce to Babel City? Or have you invented teletransporters like on Star Trek?


Nope, trains are much more energy efficient at moving large amounts of supplies. And ships are even more so. 




HermitJohn said:


> By dictating how they live from on high and what oportunites they have. Basically by putting them in a confinement feedlot for humans and telling them how lucky they are. I thought conservatives didnt believe in such things?


I don't but this is a theoretical exercise. 




HermitJohn said:


> You are maybe increasing efficiency with a confinement feedlot for humans and buying bit more time and bit more carrying capacity (at an incredible cost for new and massive infrastructure and social engineering), BUT you ARE NOT INCREASING THE TOTAL RESOURCES OF THE PLANET!!!! You have NOT


By increasing the amount of land available for farming and reducing the need for resources has the same effect.




HermitJohn said:


> explained how you are going to provide for 10 or 20 times the current human population that you fantisize. Just like any farm, it has a carrying capacity, ONLY SO MANY ANIMALS OR CROPS can be raised there. Oh you might increase efficiency a bit here and there, but without outside inputs you cant indefinitely increase carrying capacity of that farm. Gains from increased efficiency dont increase exponentially, they are small and hard won and many times very expensive. However population can increase at exponential rate. The maximum human carrying capacity of Earth at a particular technological level is set in stone short of being able to import vast quanties of resources from other planets. We barely have the technology to get a handful of people off the planet and it takes a huge expenditure of money and resources to do that. Any significant wholesale trade between planets would take a quantum leap in technology and some vast new cheap energy source. Not to mention needing more earth like planets. None in our solar system.



There would be more land available for farming. You would also have to convert land which is now being used to grow either nonfood crops or high area to output ratio crops. You could also use hydroponics to grow crops without any land usage at all.

For energy you have all kinds of options. There is tidal, wind, nuke, solar along with others. Heck we could do something as strange as putting a few huge water mill generators on the Mississippi river. Or we could dam rivers in areas which are too poor to farm but can't be dammed now due to the fact there are too many people living in the flood plane to make it feasible currently. Or we could do something we haven't even invented.

As I said there will have to be some big technological advances but as I pointed out we have made them before.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> I believe science says there most likely was something before the big bang, but its impossible to find traces with current technology, since everything started all over. The dice were rolled again afresh. Melt down the steel in 50 white Edsels, pour it out into bars and then tell me just by looking at the steel bars what color the Edsels were painted?
> 
> But then the godly people have a simular problem of where god, GOD, or godz came from. Did they just suddenly pop into existance, were they pooped out by some giant supergod turtle???? But the religion people just say we arent suppose to ask such questions and that such things are unknowable or that their god is somehow not linear and has just always existed. I say cop out. Going to make a linear argument about origin of things, your beliefs have to provide logical answers also and you havent done so. You want to know where the matter came from for the big bang, well I want to know where your God came from that you say created all space and time. If everything has a beginning and an end then so does your God. So explain it.


Ah. . .there's the rub. There had to be a beginning somewhere which means something had to be made from nothing. 

Science tells scientist this can't be done in nature. So they must take it on _faith_ that there is some explanation to this problem. 

Religion tells the religious it it can't be done in nature. So they must take it on _faith_ that God did it.

God is supernatural therefore he does not need to follow our laws of nature. Its like goldfish trying to explain where you get the water when you change their tank or how you can live outside the tank.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> The debate isn't the quality of life, its how to keep the a greater number of humans alive on the earth. History has shown people are more willing to live a very poor quality of life then die.
> 
> .


The debate isnt how to fit the most people we can in the smallest space possible or we could just squeeze everybody all together in old VWs or phone booths (are there such things anymore?). The point the exploiter crowd was arguing is that we have infinite resouces and space to continue on our current misguided ways. And life quality is DEFINITELY part of the equation. At least for humans. If you think life quality doesnt matter then give away all you own and go live under a bridge.

Ah, but technology now lets humans have sex without reproducing. I would bet if given real life choice of death, miserable overpopulated human confinement feedlot, and simply not having children.....

And you still havent answered why we should desire a miserable super dense populated planet. You do realize that your TX size feedlot is going to reproduce and pretty soon you have multiple TX size confinement feedlots and again overrun your resources.

You still havent dealt with the problem that there is a carrying capacity to any finite system. You may gain a little time improving efficiency and greatly degrading quality of life, but carrying capacity will be reached where even if you acheive some mythic 100% efficiency, you still cant support more people. Knowing burocracies, 100% efficiency is pure pipe dream, in reality you arent going to get huge gains in efficiency from mega cities and mega farms. Look at what happened in the old Soviet Union. Production went DOWN using such methods.... Funny hearing you promote the old Soviet solution as the answer....

Oh and as to recycling on space station, has anybody stayed on one more than a year? Did they raise families there. What happens on a space station intended for maximum say 20 people when you double that number. Even if there were facilities to recycle everything and grow food for 20 people, what then happens when that number of people is doubled. Does your god somehow provide manna from heaven to feed them? Does the materials suddenly and magically apparear from the vacuum of space to increase the size of the space station? Again limitations of resources. There is always a carrying capacity of any finite area without becoming dependent on outside inputs. The confinement livestock operations for sure dont raise their own feed on site.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> "I hate to tell you this but even science must inject some imaginary supernatural thing or being into the equation and take it on faith."
> 
> Nope. Science takes nothing on faith, and never injects any supernatural "things or beings" into the equation. When the answers are unknown to science, the logical answer is "Insufficient data". Any speculation into POSSIBLE answers is just speculation, and is not given as fact until it is proven. That's the difference between science and religion. Science starts with speculation and works to find answers using the available data. Religion starts with the answers and tries to find evidence to support those answers, often ignoring or throwing out any evidence which doesn't support them.:baby04:



Call you what you want but believing something you can not prove is faith. 

I give you evolution as a prime example. In the years since this theory has been put out why haven't we been able to prove it to the point of being able to call it the _law_ of evolution? As I have pointed out before it should be fairly easy to do in 10 years or so with fruit flies. In 10 years you would have something like 36,000 generations. In that number of generations you should be able to force some kind of evolution using heat, radiation or something; not just some selective breeding changes in their appearance. Humans can do that, look at dogs. Heck, push it out to 20 years that would give you 72,000 generations. Assuming 20 years per human generation that would give roughly 1,440,000 (that's almost 1.5 MILLION) human equivalent years. Surely in that time frame we could force the flies to grow gills or scales or fur or something which would change them from flies to some other species.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> The debate isnt how to fit the most people we can in the smallest space possible


Actually the debate appears to be over about 234 different things right now.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> Call you what you want but believing something you can not prove is faith.
> 
> *I call that faith, too, and that's why I said science requires no faith. *
> 
> ...


*Sounds like you should spend some time at some reliable sites on evolution instead of going to creationist websites. All those questions could be answered for you IF you're really interested in the scientific answer.*

"There had to be a beginning somewhere which means something had to be made from nothing."

*There HAD to be? Where did you find that rule? I've never seen such a rule.*

"Science tells scientist this can't be done in nature."

*I've never heard or seen science telling anybody that. Where did you hear it?*

"So they must take it on faith that there is some explanation to this problem.'

*Nope. They search for some explanation. Whether there IS one or not will only be answered later(maybe). In science, as in any type of logical thinking, there is no reason to assume there is an answer or that it will be found. If the answer to a question is unknown, science and logic instruct people to answer "I don't know".*


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Kung said:


> Possibly; but scientists DO make assumptions, conjectures, etc. all the time. To insist otherwise is to simply be wrong.
> 
> *To blame science for what some(or even all) scientists do is as illogical as blaming religion for what some(or even all) religious people do.*
> 
> ...


*No, science starts with possible answers, often called hypotheses. Any scientist who assumes he has the answer before he begins gathering data is doing bad science(in other words, he's not doing science).*:teehee:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

For Chuck & Watcher:

I have no idea what came before the "Big Bang." There are some things we can't explain yet. Maybe someday; who knows? It's not a question that keeps me awake at night.

In any case, whatever gods may exist do not operate in this realm in any measurable fashion. There simply is no way to prove whether they exist. (In all fairness, there also is no conclusive proof they don't.) 

Believing in any god is rather like buying a pig in a poke. Which certainly is your prerogative -- it's your spiritual currency to spend! But I think it's rather fatuous to criticize another for choosing a different pig, or no pig at all (if you'll pardon the inelegant metaphor).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Pretty obvious you are neither a farmer nor an engineer.


And neither are you so I guess we cancel each other out


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I have no idea what came before the "Big Bang"


Dinner and a movie


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Rofl!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> *Sounds like you should spend some time at some reliable sites on evolution instead of going to creationist websites. All those questions could be answered for you IF you're really interested in the scientific answer.*


Do you disagree if the evolution theory is correct we should be able to force evolution? Say by exposing 36,000 generations of flies to radiation? How about 76,000 generations? Surely out of that many flies over that long of a time with the proper conditions we could get one that would grow scales or something.




FourDeuce said:


> ["There had to be a beginning somewhere which means something had to be made from nothing."
> 
> *There HAD to be? Where did you find that rule? I've never seen such a rule.*


Its simple logic. We are told time is unidirectional therefore there has to be a beginning. If not then time would have to, eventually, loop back on itself. Although there are a few who say time is not unidirectional.




FourDeuce said:


> ["Science tells scientist this can't be done in nature."
> 
> *I've never heard or seen science telling anybody that. Where did you hear it?*


You need to get around more. Even the theoretical guys will tell you, you must have something to create something. If nothing else you must have energy to convert to mass. 




FourDeuce said:


> ["So they must take it on faith that there is some explanation to this problem.'
> 
> *Nope. They search for some explanation. Whether there IS one or not will only be answered later(maybe). In science, as in any type of logical thinking, there is no reason to assume there is an answer or that it will be found. If the answer to a question is unknown, science and logic instruct people to answer "I don't know".*


So you are saying scientist will say "That's just the way it is." and move on?" Just taking the fact that something works and they don't know why and move on.

Or are you saying they must have faith there is an explanation and have faith they, or some other scientist, will find the answer and keep searching?

Do not either of those actions require faith in something? In the first case it they have faith that something has caused this and they can't find out (and in that case could it not be just as logically aruged a higher being caused it as anything else?). In the second case they must have faith that there is an answer and someone will find it. BTW, there are scientist in both camps when it comes to gravity.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I have no idea what came before the "Big Bang." There are some things we can't explain yet. Maybe someday; who knows? It's not a question that keeps me awake at night.


I don't find the inability to explain things to be a compelling reason to believe that it was done by God.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> *No, science starts with possible answers, often called hypotheses. Any scientist who assumes he has the answer before he begins gathering data is doing bad science(in other words, he's not doing science).*:teehee:


HUH? A hypothesis, by definition, is an assumption of an answer. You base it on evidence or just a gut feeling. You then experiment to test your hypothesis. A good scientist plans his experiments to remove anything which would skew the results and unbiasedly judges the results he gets. If you don't get the results you expected you do it again. If the results are the same then you can be fairly sure your hypothesis was wrong. 

If you get the results you expected, you do it again. If you get the same results again you release your hypothesis, your experiment protocol and your data so other scientist can test your hypothesis. If enough of them agree there are no flaws in your protocol and are able to replicate your results you hypothesis is accepted.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Well the only reliable source for showing where things came from is the Scriptures.

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God did not create the universe out of nothing, Hebrews said it was created out of things that do not appear or they are invisible. 

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now God is spirit and it says plainly in that verse in 1 Tim. that God is invisible. So we can conclude that the universe came out of God. 

Rom 11:36 For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever.

Kathy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> HUH? A hypothesis, by definition, is an assumption of an answer. You base it on evidence or just a gut feeling. You then experiment to test your hypothesis. A good scientist plans his experiments to remove anything which would skew the results and unbiasedly judges the results he gets. * If you don't get the results you expected you do it again.* If the results are the same then you can be fairly sure your hypothesis was wrong.
> 
> If you get the results you expected, you do it again. If you get the same results again you release your hypothesis, your experiment protocol and your data so other scientist can test your hypothesis. If enough of them agree there are no flaws in your protocol and are able to replicate your results you hypothesis is accepted.


If your hypothesis test doesn't produce the results you expected you don't repeat the experiment. You modify your hypothesis.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> For Chuck & Watcher:
> 
> I have no idea what came before the "Big Bang." There are some things we can't explain yet. Maybe someday; who knows? It's not a question that keeps me awake at night.
> 
> ...


This became a long reply so I ask if you don't want to read this entire post at least read the story of the third incident and the very last paragraph.


I can tell you there is something out there, I call it God, which does not play within natures rules. I will give you three personal examples. I've given them before. The first too seem small and silly to some but the third one doesn't.

My former house had dark brown carpet in the living room and it showed every little thing, you'd think dark brown would hide stuff but it doesn't (this'll be important later). One day I needed to go to town and buy something. I don't remember what but I do remember it was very, very important. The problem was I could not find my debit card. I searched high and low. I searched the car, the truck and the van. I searched the house from bathroom to kitchen. I checked the pockets of every pair of pants in the laundry hamper. I even searched the pockets of the pants in the dryer. No joy. I sat down and told God I needed that card and asked him to let me find it. I got up and found the debit card laying in the middle of the living room floor. There is no way I could have missed a white debit card laying in the middle of the living room floor the dozens of times I had passed through it. Its not like it was sticking out from under the edge of the couch, it was 3 feet from anything.

The second time I also needed to find something. It was a watering nipple which I _knew_ was in the middle drawer of the desk. I shut the water off, cut the main line, put the T and the riser in. Then I came in to get the nipple. Yep, it wasn't there where I _knew_ it was. Now here I am with the water shut off with no way to even plug the hole while I drove the hour to town, got a new nipple and then an hour back. So you can be sure I took EVERYTHING out of that drawer looking for that nipple. So I prayed to find it. Then on the thought the wife might have taken it out of the desk draw and put it in my tool storage closet I searched there. The anger factor was really high when I didn't find it there either. So to calm down I sat down to play a few computer games when I sat down I looked in the open desk drawer and there laying all the way in the front was the nipple. Again there's no way I could have not seen a 3" silver watering nipple laying in that drawer when I was taking everything out of it.

The third one is much more serious. My son was small (5 maybe?) and I was working on a truck. I had it up on ramps and I thought I had it secure but. . .Anyway I was under it working and he was "helping". It started to drizzle rain so he move under the truck to get out of the rain. He was squatting/sitting right next to the wheel asking a million questions like any little boy. I mean he was less than 6" from the wheel. I reached up to do something and knocked the transmission out of park and the truck started rolling off the ramps. I had just enough time to turn my head toward him and yell "move". He didn't move. . . he *was moved*. He did not push off with his legs, he did hop backwards. He moved straight backwards out of the way of the wheel just as if someone grabbed him under the arms, lifted him slightly and pulled him out of the path of the wheel. I saw it. Now I'm a big guy, 250+#, and this little boy grabbed my arms and pulled me out from under that truck, another miracle. There wasn't a scratch on him afterward. Not so for me. I laid there on the ground for 5-10 minutes thanking God and wondering if I should try to make it back to the house or have my son call for an ambulance. I had been laying with one leg up with the foot flat on the ground when the truck rolled over me so I was sure at I had broken at least one bone in my lower leg and most likely both. But after laying there I realized m leg didn't really hurt that bad. I was able to get up and hobble to the house. I lost the tip of a toe when my foot was folded backwards and pushed down into and over the gravel, I had an amazing bruise where the frame had pushed my leg into the ground that was it. The next day I was able to walk ok. My toe hurt a bit but the ankle which had been bent backwards and should have been swollen to about the size of my head didn't bother me a bit.

There is no way you can explain how the card and nipple were suddenly somewhere where they had not been earlier. There's no way you can explain how my son was able to get out of the path of that wheel. There's no way you can explain how that truck rolled over me and did as little damage to me as it did. You can't but I can and can in one word. God. 

You believe what ever and how ever you want. Its not my place to demand you believe what I do. But it is my duty to tell you about God and His Son Christ and how you can become an adopted family member in that family. After that its up to you to make the choice. You can either ask for more information or you can tell me to hit the road and I'll do what ever you want me to do. At that point I've done all I can.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> ....There is no way you can explain how the card and nipple were suddenly somewhere where they had not been earlier. There's no way you can explain how my son was able to get out of the path of that wheel. There's no way you can explain how that truck rolled over me and did as little damage to me as it did. You can't but I can and can in one word. God.
> 
> You believe what ever and how ever you want. Its not my place to demand you believe what I do. But it is my duty to tell you about God and His Son Christ and how you can become an adopted family member in that family. After that its up to you to make the choice. You can either ask for more information or you can tell me to hit the road and I'll do what ever you want me to do. At that point I've done all I can.


Watcher, I totally believe your stories, I've had similar types of things happen to me too including miraculously escaping death on more than one occasion. Although I believe in god I don't know that I can attribute those events to intervention from god, from guardian angels/spirits or to the psychokinetic power of my own mind. I don't take those events for granted or expect them but I don't question them or wonder about them either. It just happens and when it does I'm grateful and say "thank you" out loud to whatever it was that intervened on my behalf. A person doesn't have to be a christian in order to have unexplainable events and life saving miracles happen for them, they can happen for anybody.

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If your hypothesis test doesn't produce the results you expected you don't repeat the experiment. You modify your hypothesis.


Depends. Unless its very complicated or very expensive you usually run the experiment again to make sure you didn't just mess up the procedures first time. It makes sense to run it again to be sure than take the chance you are missing the real answer because you added X ml of this and Y ml of that when it should have been the other way around or someone turned a screw 3 turns clockwise instead of counterclockwise.

Basically you should always be prepared to do the experiment at least twice. No matter what results you got you should make sure you can and do get the same a second time. If you do then you look at your hypothesis, if you don't you look at your experiment and procedures.

I saw a simple physic experiment, where the answer was known, give the wrong results due to bad procedure. They were supposed to use wave harmonics to discover the frequency imparted by a vibrator/motor. The frequency of the motor was known, heck it was stamped on the manufacturer's plate. Everyone else got the correct results but these guys couldn't get their numbers anywhere close.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Watcher, I totally believe your stories, I've had similar types of things happen to me too including miraculously escaping death on more than one occasion. Although I believe in god I don't know that I can attribute those events to intervention from god, from guardian angels/spirits or to the psychokinetic power of my own mind. I don't take those events for granted or expect them but I don't question them or wonder about them either. It just happens and when it does I'm grateful and say "thank you" out loud to whatever it was that intervened on my behalf. A person doesn't have to be a christian in order to have unexplainable events and life saving miracles happen for them, they can happen for anybody.
> 
> .


NL, you should tell him about the car we were in that got lifted up from the middle of the intersection out of the way of that oncoming truck and got set down in front of the bus stop on the other street. :thumb:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"A hypothesis, by definition, is an assumption of an answer."

Not according to my dictionary. If they assumed it was the answer, they wouldn't have to do any experiment. Once you have the answer there is no need to test anything.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

watcher said:


> Do you disagree if the evolution theory is correct we should be able to force evolution? Say by exposing 36,000 generations of flies to radiation? How about 76,000 generations? Surely out of that many flies over that long of a time with the proper conditions we could get one that would grow scales or something.
> 
> *Sure, but maybe the "something" would just be minor changes that might be hard to detect. Evolution happens over LONG periods of time, and other factors in addition to mutations are involved. Like I said, any decent website on the theory should be able to explain it for you.*
> 
> ...


*Science doesn't require faith, no matter how much stretching you try to use to make it so. Science is logical. No faith needed. That's one of the things I like about it. I don't need faith, either*.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And neither are you so I guess we cancel each other out


At least I can think in terms of a working system! You seem to think all it takes to increase carrying capacity is to just squeeze everybody closer together. Oh well, just keep listening to radio talk shows, sure they will continue to tell you what to think and that logic doesnt matter.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Dinner and a movie


I am sure you are talking about your wife, since your religion will send you directly to hell for thinking such thoughts otherwise....


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

fishhead said:


> Every organism is subject to the rules of nature. Humans are no different.
> 
> If we fail to stabilize and then reduce our population those rules will reduce our population no matter how hard we try to stop the population correction. I hope that I'm not here to witness it because it won't be a good thing to see. When the forces of nature correct a population the inevitable result is a population that is much smaller than carrying capacity because the overpopulation has reduced carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The carrying capacity of this planet is probably around 2 - 3 billion people. We currently just below 7 billion and still rapidly expanding. That means that when the correction is finished at least 5 billion people will be dead.


absolutely. 

biologically, that is the purpose of various plagues that would wipe out 2/3 of populations. it's a self-correcting mechanism that is built into our plant. it happens to other species on a pretty regular basis.

there have beeen great medical advances over the last century or so. one unintended side effect is that we have overcome this natural selection that has kept the world in balance as long as it has.

i fully expect some kind of mutated virus to come along and put things back to rights, just about any day now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> "A hypothesis, by definition, is an assumption of an answer."
> 
> Not according to my dictionary. If they assumed it was the answer, they wouldn't have to do any experiment. Once you have the answer there is no need to test anything.


But you see, here's the strange part. Proponents of creationism will criticize testing the testing of evolution, but don't test creationism at all. Not only do they assume that the creationism hypothesis is the answer, but they also elevate creationism to being a theory without first applying the scientific method.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Watcher, the problem I see with your theory is that even if we accept that the incidents in question were miraculous, it's a rather large leap from "a supernatural being was involved" to "I was assisted by Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was slain as a human sacrifice to redeem mankind, and whose death is properly celebrated with rituals of symbolic cannibalism." No? 

At the risk of seeming unkind, I would guess the reason you attributed the "miracles" to Christ, and not Osiris, Zuarasic, Ahsonnutli, Ngai, Cernunnos, et al., is because you already had at least a passing familiarity with Christ, but not the others. 

Let the record show that I acknowledge "[t]here are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. :shrug:


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

marvella said:


> absolutely.
> 
> biologically, that is the purpose of various plagues that would wipe out 2/3 of populations. it's a self-correcting mechanism that is built into our plant. it happens to other species on a pretty regular basis.
> 
> ...


That mutated virus could have happened last winter with H1N1 and may still happen this next winter.

It seems pretty inhumane of us not to stabilize our population and reduce the likelihood of a disease burning it's way through humanity. It also seems pretty inhumane of us to consume this planet and not leave something for future generations or the species we share this planet with.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

fishhead said:


> > Originally Posted by *marvella*
> > _absolutely. _
> >
> > _biologically, that is the purpose of various plagues that would wipe out 2/3 of populations. it's a self-correcting mechanism that is built into our plant. it happens to other species on a pretty regular basis._
> ...


No doubt a virus or plague could reduce the population, but even if that didn't happen the population would be reduced anyway, by humans. You only need to look to nature to see what happens when a community of healthy animals (or trees) confined to a territory becomes too large for its' territory even when there is plenty of food available. The strongest beings all start killing the weaker beings to acquire more space to grow and move around in. No living thing can tolerate living and growing in tightly cramped quarters and if forced to do so it becomes a matter of kill or be killed. That is a law of nature and that's how nature regulates itself. Humans are no different.

.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

naturelover said:


> No doubt a virus or plague could reduce the population, but even if that didn't happen the population would be reduced anyway, by humans. You only need to look to nature to see what happens when a community of healthy animals (or trees) confined to a territory becomes too large for its' territory even when there is plenty of food available. The strongest beings all start killing the weaker beings to acquire more space to grow and move around in. No living thing can tolerate living and growing in tightly cramped quarters and if forced to do so it becomes a matter of kill or be killed. That is a law of nature and that's how nature regulates itself. Humans are no different.
> 
> .


And we have nuclear weapons, bioweapons, conventional weapons. And we have............politicians!


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

naturelover said:


> No doubt a virus or plague could reduce the population, but even if that didn't happen the population would be reduced anyway, by humans. You only need to look to nature to see what happens when a community of healthy animals (or trees) confined to a territory becomes too large for its' territory even when there is plenty of food available. The strongest beings all start killing the weaker beings to acquire more space to grow and move around in. No living thing can tolerate living and growing in tightly cramped quarters and if forced to do so it becomes a matter of kill or be killed. That is a law of nature and that's how nature regulates itself. Humans are no different.
> 
> .


that's a distinct possibility as well. add in keeping babies alive who would have died without modern medicine, living to reproduce and pass on the weaknesses (i don't want anyone's baby to die, this is for illustration only before the furies start up again) and the ways we have overcome natural selection, the chemicals we are bathe in from the moment we are born- (strontium 90 anyone?) i am afraid we have already sown the seeds of our own destruction. we develop medicines to combat viruses and the wily things mutate into a resistant form. it's simply a matter of time.

sometimes i think viruses are REALLY the most important living things in our world, not humans.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

We only have to look at a satellite view of the earth at night to see where all the people are and how crowded it is in places. All the white light on there is human habitations, and that which is not lit up is mostly uninhabitable space that won't support agriculture.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Like a fungus.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But you see, here's the strange part. Proponents of creationism will criticize testing the testing of evolution, but don't test creationism at all. Not only do they assume that the creationism hypothesis is the answer, but they also elevate creationism to being a theory without first applying the scientific method.


I forget the exact term but it basically is proof by observation, and no this is not exactly how it works but I'm KISS. I hypothesis that all chickens naturally have feathers. I spend years searching for a chicken w/o feathers to disprove my hypothesis. After years of searching and not finding anything which disproves my hypothesis there is enough evidence to raise my hypothesis to the level of a theory. My hypothesis may never get moved up to "law" level (it can but its rare) but as more and more years go by and no featherless chickens are found the theory grows stronger. But if anyone finds even one featherless chicken then the hypothesis is a bust.

This is basically the same way the hypothesis of evolution moved up to the theory of evolution and why it has never raise to the level of a "law". If you could ever do an experiment where you forced one species into something else (as in my fruit fly example) then you'd have enough proof (assuming others could reproduce your results) you'd have proven the law. Even if you could find an example of something which was a cross over example it would greatly raise the odds of moving it out of the theory state which it has been in for longer than any other widely accepted theory that I know of.


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

Or maggots who multiply profusely, comsume their host and then die off for lack of a host. We are the only organisms on the planet who willingly and knowingly destroy and crap in our own "nest".


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Watcher, have you never done a search on evolution timelines of different animals? Chickens evolved out of featherless reptiles (a species) into feathered birds (a different species). If you can find a featherless chicken it will probably be a chicken that is devolving back into the reptilian species.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

GrammasCabin said:


> Or maggots who multiply profusely, comsume their host and then die off for lack of a host. We are the only organisms on the planet who willingly and knowingly destroy and crap in our own "nest".


Maggots pupate and turn into flies and then lay more eggs that hatch into more maggots which turn into more flies.

.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Gravity is a theory.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Not only do they assume that the creationism hypothesis"

I have never even heard any creationism HYPOTHESIS. I've heard lots of creation stories from different mythologies, but none of them fit the definition for hypothesis.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Watcher, the problem I see with your theory is that even if we accept that the incidents in question were miraculous, it's a rather large leap from "a supernatural being was involved" to "I was assisted by Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was slain as a human sacrifice to redeem mankind, and whose death is properly celebrated with rituals of symbolic cannibalism." No?


Not really. Say one morning as you are leaving for work you call your friend George and leave a msg telling him how the big oak tree in your yard had fallen in your yard from the storm last night and you come home and the tree has been cut and stacked it would be a leap, not a great one but a leap, to think George came over and did it. 

Now if George had told you at some time before he had a chainsaw and if you ever needed a tree taken out just call him that leap to "George did it" becomes even smaller, does it not? 

If George had told you that and in your call you specifically told George you needed someone to get rid of the tree then that leap becomes even smaller. 

And if you had called him and left a msg in which you asked George to please come over and get rid of the tree the leap is almost none existent.

Now do you have any proof that George did it? No. Could it have been a neighbor or a local company? Sure. But given the evidence would you not have faith that that tree was removed by George?




willow_girl said:


> At the risk of seeming unkind, I would guess the reason you attributed the "miracles" to Christ, and not Osiris, Zuarasic, Ahsonnutli, Ngai, Xenons, et AL., is because you already had at least a passing familiarity with Christ, but not the others.


PLEASE don't be afraid of upsetting or angering me, say what you think. Your statement is not unkind at all, AAMOF, there is a lot of truth to it. People tend to be followers of whatever they are exposed to in their life. But my faith in God and Christ is not only based on "Its what mom and dad taught me." I, like anyone who should, have questioned my belief system. A bit of background, not bragging. I'm very intelligent, did well in and out of school and have a very strong background in science and engineering. I have been taught and trained to NEVER take ANYTHING based purely on the word of someone else (i.e. only on faith). When given something, question it, exam it, test it and come to your own conclusions. I have done that with my religious beliefs. I will admit that there a point where there is nothing to go on but faith.




willow_girl said:


> Let the record show that I acknowledge "[t]here are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. :shrug:


So you admit there is a God or gods but you don't think or know which one, if any, is God (i.e. THE God)? If that is the case then you can't not know what is the 'real' truth/rules, after all different gods tend to have different rules. This, IMO, allows you to pick and choose which rules you wish to follow based on what you want. Makes me wonder how you can have any set rules if you can change them as you go.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"I'm an agnostic, not an atheist."

They're not mutually exclusive. You can be both at the same time. :buds:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So you admit there is a God or gods but you don't think or know which one, if any, is God (i.e. THE God)?


Not quite. I don't see how it is possible to know whether there is a god (or gods) since they do not operate in this realm in a recognizable way. By the same token, it's impossible to prove they don't exist. Since it doesn't appear likely this question can be satisfactorily answered at present, I'm content to leave it (like the question of how the universe was created) in the realm of the unknown. It's OK not to know, AFAIC! 



> If that is the case then you can't not know what is the 'real' truth/rules, after all different gods tend to have different rules. This, IMO, allows you to pick and choose which rules you wish to follow based on what you want.


Exactly! But everyone has that option. The only difference between you and I is that (I presume) you choose to adhere to a set of rules provided for you in the Bible, while mine are of my own making. :shrug:

But wait! It's not quite as simple as that. You make it sound as if all Christians share the same version of morality, and the same rules, which, of course, isn't true. Under the umbrella of Christianity are sects with diverse views on issues such as the death penalty, homosexuality, abortion and the role of women in the church. So even Christians have the option of "picking and choosing which rules they wish to follow based on what they want," don't they?

Which is probably pretty much how it plays out ... I suspect most people choose a sect that closely matches their preconceived morality, rather than drastically altering their beliefs to conform to a religion. No?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Ok...but what about those who spend their entire lives exercising a morality diametrically opposed to that of Christianity? Not everyone who converts to Christianity was raised in a nice Christian or Catholic home and just rebelled for half their lives to get back at their parents, but secretly held to those morals.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I think in some cases, people make such a hash of their lives that they're willing to sign up for anything that promises relief. Think of the avowed atheist who finally turns to A.A. for help with his drinking problem, or the convict who finds Jesus in prison.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I can see how it would be comforting to believe (even in the absence of any tangible evidence) that Divine Ruler of the Universe takes a special interest in one's personal problems (however banal). :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I think in some cases, people make such a hash of their lives that they're willing to sign up for anything that promises relief. Think of the avowed atheist who finally turns to A.A. for help with his drinking problem, or the convict who finds Jesus in prison.
> 
> Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I can see how it would be comforting to believe (even in the absence of any tangible evidence) that Divine Ruler of the Universe takes a special interest in one's personal problems (however banal). :shrug:


I understand that Jeffrey Dahmer became a born-again Christian after his conviction. Will we really be sharing heaven with the likes Jeffrey Dahmer? It just doesn't seem that his accepting Christianity offset his transgressions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But wait! It's not quite as simple as that. You make it sound as if all Christians share the same version of morality, and the same rules, which, of course, isn't true. Under the umbrella of Christianity are sects with diverse views on issues such as the death penalty, homosexuality, abortion and the role of women in the church. So even Christians have the option of "picking and choosing which rules they wish to follow based on what they want," don't they?


I have pointed out many times there are a lot of people who call themselves Christians who are not following Christ's teachings. I use this example all the time, if someone you know tells everyone that they are a vegetarian but ever you see them eating they are eating meat. Is that person a vegetarian just because they say so?

The rules are written plainly and clearly. What you are talking about are people playing religion. They take parts of the Bible out of context and twist other parts to make it fit what they want. Look at it this way. Say you hate your neighbor and one day you are reading a law book. You find a place where it says killing someone is not murder if the killing was done in self defense. The next day you go out and kill your neighbor and justify it by quoting the fact the law says "killing someone is not murder". 

Also there are some who just ignore parts of the Bible like people who choose to ignore the human laws they don't like. You have people who think the law against using drugs is ok so they ignore the laws against them. These people who decide to ignore these laws have to face a judge when they are caught. The people who are playing religion will have to face the Judge.




willow_girl said:


> Which is probably pretty much how it plays out ... I suspect most people choose a sect that closely matches their preconceived morality, rather than drastically altering their beliefs to conform to a religion. No?


I admit that and will go even farther; they will even ignore the rules of the sect they have picked when those rules interfere with how they want to live. They want to be in the group and call themselves Christians even though they aren't and don't really want to be. Its like the person who wants to be thought of as a vegetarian but refuses to stop eating meat. They don't want to please God they want to please themselves. I really don't worry about them in general, I can only deal with the individuals.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I understand that Jeffrey Dahmer became a born-again Christian after his conviction. Will we really be sharing heaven with the likes Jeffrey Dahmer? It just doesn't seem that his accepting Christianity offset his transgressions.


Who knows. The Bible says many of them who *call* themselves Christians will be turned away. If you and Dahmer really asked for forgiveness and lived your lives for the Lord since then, they yes you'll be sharing Heaven with him. If either of you didn't/haven't then you won't.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

naturelover said:


> We only have to look at a satellite view of the earth at night to see where all the people are and how crowded it is in places. All the white light on there is human habitations, and that which is not lit up is mostly uninhabitable space that won't support agriculture.


every time i see this picture i am struck once again by the most lights = the heaviest american presence in that country.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I understand that Jeffrey Dahmer became a born-again Christian after his conviction. Will we really be sharing heaven with the likes Jeffrey Dahmer? It just doesn't seem that his accepting Christianity offset his transgressions.


Wonderfully, there's no requirement to 'make up for' transgressions where salvation is concerned. We're to repay those we wronged (where we can), but salvation is free (can't earn it, can't do anything to deserve it).

R


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Who knows. The Bible says many of them who *call* themselves Christians will be turned away. If you and Dahmer really asked for forgiveness and lived your lives for the Lord since then, they yes you'll be sharing Heaven with him. If either of you didn't/haven't then you won't.


I find that odd though. I would think that a spirit like what God is believed to be would be quicker to reward good and compassionate behavior before rewarding faith. Rewarding faith over behavior defies all logic for a benevolent spirit.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Wonderfully, there's no requirement to 'make up for' transgressions where salvation is concerned. We're to repay those we wronged (where we can), but salvation is free (can't earn it, can't do anything to deserve it).
> 
> R


Maybe so, but you've got to admit that Jeffrey Dahmer was pushing the envelope for being deserving of salvation.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but you've got to admit that Jeffrey Dahmer was pushing the envelope for being deserving of salvation.


As far as deserving salvation, none of us do. Did Dahmer obtain salvation? I have no idea because I am not his judge. God is. Murder is a major sin and the Bible says a murderer cannot have salvation in the flesh. That is why God tells us to execute them. They then go to the Father and I believe they face those they murdered there. How it works out is above my pay grade.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

1John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

I think Jeffrey Dahmer was part of this world. His day of judgment is yet to come, as is most that have lived.

2Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 

The judgment of the "ungodly men" is yet to come and they will be purged and cleansed and learn righteousness.

Isa 26:9 With my soul I have desired You in the night, 
Yes, by my spirit within me I will seek You early; 
For when Your judgments are in the earth, 
The inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. 

Kathy


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Wonderfully, there's no requirement to 'make up for' transgressions where salvation is concerned. We're to repay those we wronged (where we can), but salvation is free (can't earn it, can't do anything to deserve it).
> 
> R


Here's one I can agree with. At least that's what I get out of the salvation message.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I find that odd though. I would think that a spirit like what God is believed to be would be quicker to reward good and compassionate behavior before rewarding faith. Rewarding faith over behavior defies all logic for a benevolent spirit.


Huh? If I understand what you wrote you don't understand God very well. God is not some jolly fellow sitting around just waiting to hand out presents if you act nice most off the time, that's Santa Claus.

You need no faith in God to do good acts. I know atheist who are "good people" who do lots of compassionate acts.

The thief on the cross shows you don't need any good acts.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but you've got to admit that Jeffrey Dahmer was pushing the envelope for being deserving of salvation.


Again your ignorance of God is showing. God doesn't have 'levels' of sin where if you commit this sin you have to do more to get forgiveness than someone who had committed another. To God adultery is the same as murder. FYI, He also doesn't have 'levels' of punishment.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

marvella said:


> every time i see this picture i am struck once again by the most lights = the heaviest american presence in that country.


And the smallest number or one of the smallest. Probably most of that lighting is completely wasted but if you ask people to stop they'll come up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses to continue.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

watcher said:


> Again your ignorance of God is showing. God doesn't have 'levels' of sin where if you commit this sin you have to do more to get forgiveness than someone who had committed another. To God adultery is the same as murder. FYI, He also doesn't have 'levels' of punishment.


This Scripture seems to indicate there are degrees of punishment. 

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
v. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. 

Kathy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> God doesn't have 'levels' of sin where if you commit this sin you have to do more to get forgiveness than someone who had committed another. To God adultery is the same as murder. FYI, He also doesn't have 'levels' of punishment.


Again, that defies logic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Huh? If I understand what you wrote you don't understand God very well. God is not some jolly fellow sitting around just waiting to hand out presents if you act nice most off the time, that's Santa Claus.


Aside from your arrogant, condescending attitude, how do you know what God wears or spends his time? If you know those things, please enlighten us.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

To be perfectly honest, Nevada, you and I both know that aside from some sort of divine intervention, the perceived arrogant, condescending attitudes of Christians isn't exactly the only thing standing between you and being a Christian. LOL It's not like you're sitting there thinking "Hrm....I was really into this Christian thing, but watcher's being a jerk. I was SO close to making a decision and that just tore it all."

I can not count the number of times that threads have popped up both here and on other boards arguing against Christianity ad infinitum. All of them could care less to actually learn more about Christianity; none of them have any intention of doing anything more than making yet another attempt at proving just how silly Christianity is. I see so many people here who are so intelligent on many other subjects...and yet when Christianity comes up, they just sit there and ask questions of the Christian posters instead of doing what I do - actually going out and seriously researching the subject at hand. Case in point (and be honest) - how many here asking questions about who God accepts into Heaven are actually RIGHT NOW researching that subject online? I'm betting it's a big fat zero. 

Such questions posed here, to ME, seem to be for nothing more than leading the responder on, diverting their attention to another subject, getting them to a point where they don't have a good answer, whereupon the poster will eventually post the intellectual equivalent of "AHA! Gotcha...see? Christianity's crazy."

That's why I don't bother to debate/discuss related topics as much as I used to; I've done it for years, and those who discuss it have NOO intention of converting, or interest in Christianity.
*
HOWEVER..........*

that doesn't remove a Christian's responbitility to act as we KNOW we're supposed to. Getting all spun up because people react exactly as they always have and will always do is silly. I really could care less if people think my faith is irrelevant, irrational, silly, deluded, etc.; it's been that way since the beginning OF that faith. But it doesn't help the case of Christianity for its adherents to be perceived as condescending and arrogant. Let's try to show the patience and love and concern that the Christian faith actually encourages us to show. At the worst, it'll fall on deaf ears, yet the One who notices will be the only one for whom it really matters.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Hi Kung,

I understand where you are coming from, I was in the church for many years, didn't start to see the truth in the Scriptures until I got out from under 'religion.' Now I study the Scriptures and keep an open mind, let the Scriptures speak for themselves. 

You know it's really hard for people to be patient and love a institution that believes it's God will burn most of humanity in a torturous hell for all eternity. Where is the love in that?

Kathy


----------



## CamM (Dec 6, 2008)

watcher said:


> Who knows. The Bible says many of them who *call* themselves Christians will be turned away. If you and Dahmer really asked for forgiveness and lived your lives for the Lord since then, they yes you'll be sharing Heaven with him. If either of you didn't/haven't then you won't.


Yeah, it's pretty convenient when a person does a criminal act or something inappropriate and you can say, "Oh, they're not one of us," despite what the criminal says. Another argument is that if a person leaves a religion they were never really a part of it, even if they followed the doctrine. The Son of Sam is another murderer who turned to Christ after being sent to prison, and from what I have seen he seems pretty dedicated to it. 



marvella said:


> every time i see this picture i am struck once again by the most lights = the heaviest american presence in that country.


The population is actually even worse than this map. I saw a map, maybe it was posted on here, of the population growth since 2000 BC or something. The coastline of Africa is packed.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Simply put, God's not exactly gunning for that. Humans believe that God 'puts' us there; to me it's pretty clear that humans spend their entire lives denying or arguing against Him, wanting nothing to do with Him - and them blaming Him for problems.

I can't count the number of people who say NOTHING about God when things are great, even making fun of Him...but as soon as things get bad, you can bet they'll be there asking "Where's God now? Is this what a loving God does?"

Funny how He only exists supposedly when things are bad, to persecute people...but when things are going good, it's just chance, or coincidence, or something; it's not REALLY God behind it all.

Know what I mean? That's why I don't argue/debate much. Every point I've brought up here or had brought up to me, has been brought up so many times here AND elsewhere...and yet the same points keep cropping up. (Not talking about you. LOL ) EVERY TIME a discussion concerning Christianity comes up I see the same talking points (many of them incorrect or taken out of context, almost all of them asked before). Why waste time on it over and over again? :shrug:


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

CamM said:


> Yeah, it's pretty convenient when a person does a criminal act or something inappropriate and you can say, "Oh, they're not one of us," despite what the criminal says.


It's not convenient at all; the Bible itself says that we will know they are Christians by their fruits. (Heavily paraphrased obviously.) If they CLAIM to be a Christian and their fruits are diametrically opposed to what Christianity teaches, well, then, the proof's in the pudding. It's not Christians making excuses for other Christians at all. It's exactly the opposite - calling a spade a spade.

What's harder is dealing with those who have made mistakes and are changing their lives (for instance, Ted Haggard) yet supposedly 'were' and 'still are' Christian yet they DID royally screw up their lives as well as those of others. Because then people get to ask such oft-answered questions as "Well, but I thought when you became a Christian, Christ took the desire to sin away" or something. *sigh*



> Another argument is that if a person leaves a religion they were never really a part of it, even if they followed the doctrine. The Son of Sam is another murderer who turned to Christ after being sent to prison, and from what I have seen he seems pretty dedicated to it.


See...and there's an example of what I was saying. He's had guards around him for YEARS, and prison guards KNOW what the heck their prisoners are REALLY like. They're THE most cynical bunch. Yet it's the same guards who are guarding David Berkowitz (his real name) who say "Regardless of what he did to get IN jail, it's undeniable that after witnessing his life for THIS LONG in jail, he's a changed man." From what I understand some have actually become Christians as a result of witnessing David in action.

And what almost *NO ONE* will tell you when lambasting David for what he did...is that DAVID agrees. I remember when a pardon hearing for David came up; and the state of New York was in a royal uproar, carrying on and on against him, how he should stay, etc.

David wrote a letter to the parole board that essentially says "Forget the parole board - I @!##[email protected]%@ up, I took lives, I killed people; regardless of the change in my life, I have caused hurt and pain, and I deserve the consequences of my actions. I do not want to be paroled; I need to be here."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Again, that defies logic.


Why? ...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Aside from your arrogant, condescending attitude, how do you know what God wears or spends his time? If you know those things, please enlighten us.


What's arrogant and condescending about it?


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Kung you say;


> Funny how He only exists supposedly when things are bad, to persecute people...but when things are going good, it's just chance, or coincidence, or something; it's not REALLY God behind it all.


Actually it is the sovereign God that is ultimately responsible for all things, good and bad? Surely God's plan makes us accountable for our own actions and there will be a reckoning, but He is responsible as "all things" are according to His will.

Eph 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all thingsaccording to the counsel of His will,

Kathy


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CamM said:


> Yeah, it's pretty convenient when a person does a criminal act or something inappropriate and you can say, "Oh, they're not one of us," despite what the criminal says.


Its not convenient its just a fact of life. Do you disagree that there are people who have claimed to be Christians for no other reason than to gain the confidence of people they wish to rob? 

Also it doesn't matter what anyone says, it their actions which matter. Let's use my vegetarian example again. Can you be positive is someone who tells you that are a vegetarian really is? They can easily fool you into believing they are. They may order off the vegetarian menu every time you go out to eat, they may bring a vegetarian meal for lunch every day, they may have a vegetarian cook book and magazine on their desk. But they may eat a rare steak every night at home before going to bed. In the same way lots of people claim to be Christians and even act as they are in public but in their hearts they are just waiting to get home to eat that steak. And just as the person pretending to be vegetarian who will usually grow tired of acting and start eating meat in public the person pretending to be a Christan will grow tired of the act. 

As I have pointed out God says in the Bible that there are people who will claim the name of Christ which will be turned away because they only claimed the name, not lived it. 




CamM said:


> Another argument is that if a person leaves a religion they were never really a part of it, even if they followed the doctrine.


So, does this mean people who have been married for years and have children then leave their spouse to live with their homosexual partner actually were heterosexual all the time they were in the marriage? Or maybe they were homosexuals all the time and were just playing the role of being heterosexual?





CamM said:


> The Son of Sam is another murderer who turned to Christ after being sent to prison, and from what I have seen he seems pretty dedicated to it.


Ok, its great to have another soul not going to Hell, but what's your point about it? I know people who you'd probably call poster person for Christians. Some of them have lived the Christian life since childhood and have never been "bad people". But some of them were truly "bad" before they turned their lives over to Christ. Your past really doesn't matter to God.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Kathyhere said:


> Kung you say;
> 
> 
> Actually it is the sovereign God that is ultimately responsible for all things, good and bad? Surely God's plan makes us accountable for our own actions and there will be a reckoning, but He is responsible as "all things" are according to His will.
> ...


Kathy - not sure why you're telling me this, as I completely agree with you. I'm about as fundamentalist Christian as they come. :gaptooth:

I was being facetious, speaking from the point of view of those who DON'T believe in Him - you know, things are great, nothing is mentioned of Him...but when things are BAD suddenly it's His fault? That sort of thing.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Well I was just relating some Scriptures to what you were saying. This is not about fundamentalist Christianity at all, because I don't think most people believe that God truely is sovereign, but think they have control over when and if they choose to believe in Him. I don't see it that way, when God decides it's your time to see the truth... well Paul on the road Damascus is a poignant example of how He can bring anybody whenever He so desires. Indeed it is not us who makes the decesion to come to Christ, it is only when we are drawn by Him.

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Just adding my .02 worth to the conversation.

Kathy


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> See...and there's an example of what I was saying. He's had guards around him for YEARS, and prison guards KNOW what the heck their prisoners are REALLY like. They're THE most cynical bunch. Yet it's the same guards who are guarding David Berkowitz (his real name) who say "Regardless of what he did to get IN jail, it's undeniable that after witnessing his life for THIS LONG in jail, he's a changed man." From what I understand some have actually become Christians as a result of witnessing David in action.


This made me wonder about something. Berkowitz's conversion is hardly unusual; many killers seem to "find Jesus" after a few years behind bars. Whether they're sincere is another question, but for the purposes of this line of inquiry, let's assume they are. 

Given this phenomena, it would seem optimal to keep killers imprisoned for life, in hopes that having ample time to reflect on their crime(s) might lead them to remorse, repentance and salvation. Yet most Christians I've known are among the most ardent supporters of the death penalty, and cite the Old Testament to support their position.

From a Christian perspective, is it better to execute killers quickly, even if it increases the probability they'll go to Hell if they haven't repented; or to allow them to live longer (even if it brings sorrow to the families of their victims) in hopes they eventually will repent and be saved?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> From a Christian perspective, is it better to execute killers quickly, even if it increases the probability they'll go to Hell if they haven't repented


I'd think they'd be most likely to repent while walking that last mile


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> This made me wonder about something. Berkowitz's conversion is hardly unusual; many killers seem to "find Jesus" after a few years behind bars. Whether they're sincere is another question, but for the purposes of this line of inquiry, let's assume they are.


Well, like I said above, is it possible they're pulling the wool over peoples' eyes? Sure, but when the guards have watched these guys for YEARS, and had THEIR lives changed (and these guards are about the most jaded people on earth)....well.....



> Given this phenomena, it would seem optimal to keep killers imprisoned for life, in hopes that having ample time to reflect on their crime(s) might lead them to remorse, repentance and salvation. Yet most Christians I've known are among the most ardent supporters of the death penalty, and cite the Old Testament to support their position.
> 
> From a Christian perspective, is it better to execute killers quickly, even if it increases the probability they'll go to Hell if they haven't repented; or to allow them to live longer (even if it brings sorrow to the families of their victims) in hopes they eventually will repent and be saved?


Good question; and in my honest opinion, whether or not they go to Hell (assuming they've been given chances to understand and hear the Gospel message) is on their shoulders. I'm sure someone can make the case that people are 'sending others to Hell' because they're so supportive of the death penalty; but on the flip side of that, they sort of sealed their fate when they committed murder, or kidnapping, etc.

I don't think there's an easy answer for that. However, by the same token, I don't think anything negates the responsibility of ensuring that anyone (Christian or non) receives the justice that they have had meted out to them by the powers put in place in this country. Even the Bible speaks about obeying the laws put in place in a country.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> However, by the same token, I don't think anything negates the responsibility of ensuring that anyone (Christian or non) receives the justice that they have had meted out to them by the powers put in place in this country. Even the Bible speaks about obeying the laws put in place in a country.


True, but generally it's a judge and/or jury who decides the sentence. So they can say, "Let's imprison him for the rest of his life, and hope he finds salvation," or "Hang 'im high, boys!"

Christians, it seems, usually choose the latter. Interesting.

Switching gears ... Kung, I find these discussions kinda pointless, too. I don't think anyone is going to read anything I've posted and say, "Wow, I guess my religion really has no more validity than the horoscope printed in the morning paper! I guess I'll quit going around feeling superior to people of other faiths now." 

BUT ... Chuck had posted something about selecting the right god being akin to using insulin instead of ice cream to treat diabetes, and I took the bait. Umm ... no! In the case of diabetes, it's abundantly clear that one treatment has positive and the other harmful effects. When it comes to deities, however, you don't find out until after you die (if then) whether you picked the right one! Until then, it's merely speculation, and certainly nothing to be smug about, IMO.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Kung said:


> Kathy - not sure why you're telling me this, as I completely agree with you. I'm about as fundamentalist Christian as they come. :gaptooth:
> 
> I was being facetious, speaking from the point of view of those who DON'T believe in Him - you know, things are great, nothing is mentioned of Him...but when things are BAD suddenly it's His fault? That sort of thing.


That sounds like the flipside of those religious people who give ALL the credit for any good thing that happens to their god, but when something bad happens they blame a devil, the people who suffered and died, the atheists, or just about anybody and anything ELSE except their god. That sort of thing strikes me as dishonest, too.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> True, but generally it's a judge and/or jury who decides the sentence. So they can say, "Let's imprison him for the rest of his life, and hope he finds salvation," or "Hang 'im high, boys!"
> 
> Christians, it seems, usually choose the latter. Interesting.
> 
> ...


Psychologically it is. Check out a book called Influence, by Robert Cialdini. It's about the most common techniques salesmen use to influence people to buy their products, but it also talks about how people influence themself. Well-written book about the way people work.:kung:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Why? ...


Because lumping people who don't honor their parents or use the lord's name in vain in with the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer isn't dispensing justice. As I said, it defies logic to do that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because lumping people who don't honor their parents or use the lord's name in vain in with the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer isn't dispensing justice. As I said, it defies logic to do that.


Not really. His bat, His ball, His gloves, His field, His rules. 

But who has ever said God is "dispensing justice"? And even if He were who are we to say He's justice is the same as human justice. Heck, what is human justice?

In some areas if you get caught stealing they cut off your hand but in others they tell you that you've been a bad boy and let you go. Is that justice? In some places if you call your leader a jerk you will find yourself imprisoned, in others you'll be paid money to do just that. Is that justice? In some places if you are born into the 'wrong' class you are never going to have a 'good' life, in others a child born to a homeless woman can become a millionaire. If that justice?


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

> But who has ever said God is "dispensing justice"? And even if He were who are we to say He's justice is the same as human justice. Heck, what is human justice?


Watcher, you don't give your god much credit. There are plenty of Scripture that state God is just.

Job 37:23 As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him; 
He is excellent in power, 
In judgment and abundant justice; 
He does not oppress. 

Psa 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; 
Mercy and truth go before Your face. 

Isa 45:21 ...And there is no other God besides Me, 
A just God and a Savior; 
There is none besides Me. 

Now there is a very big difference between God's justice and man's justice, they do not even compare.

Isa 55:8 "For My (God's) thoughts are not your thoughts, 
Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 
v. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, 
So are My ways higher than your ways, 
And My thoughts than your thoughts. 

Jer 17:9 The heart (of man) is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 

Paul says it best about the human nature.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.

We are all in a wretched state. It takes the spirit of God to come into a person before they can do anything good or of value in God's eyes and that is because the spirit of Jesus Christ does it.

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! 

And before God's plan is finished He will change men from their wretched carnal state and save all men, because there are plenty of Scriptures that says so.

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Kathy


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> True, but generally it's a judge and/or jury who decides the sentence. So they can say, "Let's imprison him for the rest of his life, and hope he finds salvation," or "Hang 'im high, boys!"
> 
> Christians, it seems, usually choose the latter. Interesting.


For me, it's as simple as

- it IS supported, in states I live in, and in the Bible
- and prisons are overcrowded

All the time we hear stories about how people have been on death row for years; how the rate of recidivism is high (except, strangely enough, it's quite a bit lower, I believe, for those who have found the Christian faith in prison), and so on.

Do not mistake me for saying that I'm eager for anyone to die. Not in the LEAST. But by the same token, IF the crime is of a sufficient magnitude to be punishable by death, if there's no redeeming value in keeping said person alive, and if it is done within the letter of the law, well, actions should and do have consequences.



> When it comes to deities, however, you don't find out until after you die (if then) whether you picked the right one! Until then, it's merely speculation, and certainly nothing to be smug about, IMO.


Understood...just remember that we don't all run around being smug. I know I sure don't.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

No, you're not, Kung, and I didn't mean to tar you with the same brush. My bad!


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Understood; I didn't think you were. At most you're guilty of the same thing I do often - putting thoughts down on paper and having to reword this or that sentence.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Kung said:


> Understood; I didn't think you were. At most you're guilty of the same thing I do often - putting thoughts down on paper and having to reword this or that sentence.


I think that is called typing thoughts faster than your brain can think of them.:nana:


----------

