Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bornagainathiest last won the day on February 23

bornagainathiest had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,766 Holy Cow!

About bornagainathiest

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    In a Mirror universe!
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Spelunkering, Micro-Breweries, Steven Erikson, the Ring Cycle (not Wagner, the other one), StarFleet Battles, D.B.A. (Dead Boring Armies) and D.B.M. (Dead Boring Maneuvers) and SETI.
  • More About Me
    ---------------------------------------------------------- # 82

    Well, it looks like I ate the BIG M.A.C.
    If he shows up again, that doesn't mean he escaped.
    All it means is that I DID eat him (and shat him out dead) but he's just too stubborn (and too stoopid) to notice!

    Mister Pappy → bornagainathiest
    Great work exposing Rayskidude. I want to personally say thank you.
    Oct 28 2010 06:18 PM
    It looks like this Lion ate Thumbelina too, but she will NEVER, EVER admit the fact! ;)
    And the troll.. formerly known as JayL! :)
    (Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Pages)
    (Daniel Eisenstein's non-technical explanation of BAO's)
    ------------------------------------------------------ (Eternally-Existing Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe. Linde. 1987) (As above.)
    (From Big Bang Theory to a Theory of a Stationary Universe. Linde, Linde & Mezhlumian. revised 2006)
    (Eternal Inflation, Past and Future. Aguirre. 2007)
    "In particular, I will argue that given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past, and might obey an interesting sort of cosmological time-symmetry."
    (Eternal Observers and Bubble Abundances in the Landscape. Vanchurin & Vilenkin. 2006)
    (Eternal Inflation, Bubble Collisions and the Persistence of Memory. Garriga, Guth & Vilenkin. 2007)
    (Prediction and Explanation in the Multiverse. Garriga & Vilenkin. 2007)
    (Boltzmann brains & the scale-factor cut off measure of the multiverse. De Simone, Guth, Linde, Noorbala, Salem & Vilenkin. 2010)
    (Probabilities in the Inflationary Multiverse. Garriga, Schwartz-Perlov, Vilenkin & Winitzki. 2005)
    (Eternal Inflation, Global Time Cutoff Measures & A probability Paradox. Guth & Vanchurin. 2011.)
    (Inflation Without a Beginning: A Null Boundary Proposal. Aguirre & Gratton. 2003)
    (Steady-State Eternal Inflation. Aguirre & Gratton. 2002) Geosdesically Complete. (Linde) (2008)
    (Determining the Outcome of Cosmic Bubble Collisions in Full General Relativity. Johnson, Peiris & Lehner. revised 2012)
    (Hierarchical Bayesian Detection Algorithm for Early-Universe Relics in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Feeney, Johnson, McEwen, Mortlock & Peiris. 2012)
    ------------------------------------------------------------ (Physicists Linde and Vanchurin Calculate Number of Parallel Universes. 2009) (Understanding Alan Guth's Inflationary Cosmology. 2013) (Eridanus)
    (Simple But Challenging: The Universe According to Planck. 2013)
    ------------------------------------------------------ (Origin of Life) (#39) (#54) (#72) (#84) (#76) (#119 & #120) (#130) (#185 & #186)

    Evidence is not contingent upon an explanation, a valid and plausible explanation is contingent upon evidence however.

    Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Note that to purposely cause disaster is to generate suffering, so translating "ra" as something besides evil just moves the problem a step back without solving it.

    ”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?” (Lam. 3:38).

    ”...that I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings” (Jer. 26:3).

    ”...all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin” (Jer. 36:3).

    ”I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts....” (Ezek. 20:25-26).

    ”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).

    ”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

    See also: Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 23:12, 26:13, 26:19, 35:17, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64, Ezek. 6:10, Micah 2:3, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chron. 34:24, and 2 Chron. 34:28
    26 May 10, p.30
    --------------------------------------------- #61
    The three main principles upon which modern cosmology is based are:

    1. The universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen;
    2. The Copernican principle – the Earth is not in a special location within the Universe; and,
    3. The Cosmological principle – at any given time the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic (uniform in all orientations) at large distances.
    "All theories in physics predict some things which are directly amenable to experiment and some which aren't. For example, our theories of the stars predict things one could measure, like how brightly they will shine, and when they're going to go supernova. But they also predict things like the temperature at the center of the star, which we cannot measure directly. We accept these ideas, including their unobservable predictions, because they are the simplest way of explaining the things we can see within a consistent physical theory."
    David Deutsch, 'The Ghost in the Atom' p.84.
    By P.C.W. Davies & J.R. Brown, Cambridge University Press.
    At the beginning of the century many people tried to find a stationary solution of the Einstein equations, with the hope that General Relativity would resolve the inability of Newton’s theory to provide us with a stationary cosmological model. Einstein even introduced the cosmological constant into his theory for this purpose. The non-stationary character of the Big Bang theory advocated by Gamov on the basis of Friedmann cosmological models seemed very unpleasant to many scientists in the fifties. Then, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background turned the situation upside down. Physicists began to treat with contempt any attempts to find stationarity (remember the ‘steady-state’ model). After several decades of the reign of the Big Bang theory, the inflationary scenario appeared, which solved many of the intrinsic problems of the Big Bang cosmology and apparently removed the last doubts concerning its validity. However, it was realized soon afterwards, that inflation is even more dynamic than the old Big Bang theory.
    In inflationary cosmology, in addition to the ordinary classical evolution of the Universe governed by the Einstein
    equation, quantum mechanical evolution proves to be extremely important, being responsible for the large-scale
    structure formation and even for the global structure of the Universe. This quantum mechanical evolution can be
    approximately described by stochastic methods, and some of the solutions of the corresponding stochastic equations
    prove to be stationary! Surprisingly enough, after the dramatic development of the Big Bang theory during the last
    ten years, we are coming now to a new formulation of the stationary cosmology, on a new level of understanding
    and without losing a single achievement of our predecessors. The observable part of the Universe can be very well described by the homogeneous isotropic Big Bang model. However, on extremely large scales (far beyond the visible
    horizon) the Universe is very inhomogeneous. On even larger scales this inhomogeneity produces a kind of fractal
    structure, repeating itself on larger and larger time and length scales. The statistical properties of this structure are what we have found to be stationary.
    Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars (go to PNAS.ORG and search for 'Earth-size'
    True, Hebrew dates to about 900 BC. The Old Testament dates to the Babylonian captivity period or was at least redacted and edited in that period.

    Abram would have spoken a Nilo-Saharan language, he may have been familiar with Kushitic Akkadian of the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley from his childhood, and the Proto-Arabic spoken in Canaan.

    All of the earlier historic material, going back to Adam, would have passed through perhaps many developing languages over long periods of time. Genesis exhibits multiple stories overlaid onto each other.
    Our Cosmic Habitat

    Martin Rees

    Chapter 9 : The First Millisecond

    Page 127

    "An absolute limit to any credible backward extrapolation is set by quantum theory. The key concept of this theory is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, [or uncertainty principle] which tells us that the more accurately you want to locate or localize something, the more energetic are the quanta - the packets of energy - you need. There is a limit when the nergy is so concentrated that it risks imploding into a black hole. This limit is the Planck length: it's value is 10 -33 cm - smaller than a proton by about 19 powers of 10. This miniscule length, divided by the speed of light, defines the smallest measurable time interval, the Planck time, about 10-44 seconds."

    Page 132

    "Within about 10-36 seconds - a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second - a microscopic patch could have inflated large enough to encompass everything we now see, and to establish the fine-tuned balance between gravitational and kinetic energy."

    Page 133

    "Inflation, once started, is likely to overshoot, leading to a flattened domain extending much further than the 10 billion light-year dimensions of our observable universe. The distance to the "edge" could be a number with millions of zeros."

    "In this expanse of space, far beyond the horizon of our observations, the combinatorial possibilities are so immense that close replicas of our Earth and biosphere would surely exist, however improbable life itself may be. Indeed, in a sufficiently colossal cosmos there would, somwhere, be exact replicas not just of our Earth, but of the entire domain (containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars) that lies within the range of our telescopes."
    ----------------------------------- (#9, Shernren) B.A.O.s
    ------------------------------------- (Distinguishing between inflationary models using Planck CMB data)
    (Sean Carrol)
    ------------------------------------- (Higgs analog in superconductors)
    Did the universe have a beginning?
    Vilenkin & Mithani, 2012.
    What can the observation of nonzero curvature tell us?

    Alan H. Guth and Yasunori Nomura
    Phys. Rev. D 86, 023534 – Published 30 July 2012
    An ancient extrasolar system with five sub-Earth-size planets
    Guth/Albrecht/Steinhardt/So_Young Pi/Bardeen/Turner
    --------------------------------------------------- Flat Earth Debunked

    (# 177)
    Questions For Christians # 59 (Ficino)
    Christians, What Would Make... # 52 (TrueScotsman)
    Babies are made by God using knitting to put them together (Ps 139:13)
    Gravity works because Jesus holds things together (Col 1:17)
    Germs don't exist. Diseases are caused by demons. (many verses)
    Rainbows are caused by God putting a rainbow in the clouds, not by the refraction of sunlight. (Gen 9:12)
    Eagles catch their young with their wings if they fall out of the nest. (Deut 32:11)
    Bats are birds and not mammals. (Lev 11:13-19)
    Intellectual dishonesty is the classic DNA of the xtian cultist especially of the apologist.

    I would hate a god like you describe. I would hate such a puppet master.
    God expressed more love and compassion than any being in the universe by granting us free will.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Jerusalem on Mars
    Contrasting vs. Opposing
    Why? Because we are fundamentally emotional beings, and logic and reason is something which has evolved later. Every higher order animal, monkey, dog, cat, bird, is driven by fear, or trust. You can make animals trust you or fear you, and they will respond accordingly. They have other emotions too, since our basic emotions are controlled by the amygdala, which we share with them. Hormones, emotions, etc are controlled by that lower level brain. While the higher functions, like thought, comprehension, logic, reason, language, are controlled and maintained by the higher, later evolved brain.

    So why are they different? Because one is from our past evolutionary brain structure, while the other has evolved later. Basically, emotions are illogical since they're not part of the higher brain functions.

    What other would you expect???

    Do you mean that emotions somehow prove God, or can be used as logical arguments? I don't know where you want to take this, but consider that we are driven by reason AND emotions. Some people trust their emotions more for their decisions and way of life, while others focus more on reason and rational thought. The dilemma is when someone is thinking that emotional arguments are the proof for something, and sneer at logic and reason. Proof is a concept that is defined by logic and reason, so to hijack that concept into emotional reasoning is dishonest. Emotions don't prove anything, they can be real for sure, but they don't prove squat.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Beer. Not just for breakfast - anytime!

Recent Profile Visitors

6,873 profile views
  1. The Gifts of the Spirit

    Posted August 31 Re-bumped for Ironhorse's attention.
  2. Israel

    (Bumped fro Ironhorse's attention.)
  3. Please Test This... Rebooted.

    Oh and btw, these verses from Romans 8 are relevant to my attempted argument. Romans 8:19-23 New International Version (NIV) 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. This page... ...and the meanings given for the Koine words ktiseos and ktisis here... ...and here... ...prompt me to think along these lines. 1. If the whole of creation is in bondage to decay (because of sin) then this would surely mean ALL of these duplicate Earths are in bondage too and their inhabitants can only be liberated and redeemed by Jesus Christ. But since scripture also says that his sacrifice was made once only, whichever Earth this applies to is the only one where God's grace has the power to save. Therefore, God's grace is supremely impotent and ineffectual across the infinite sweep of His creation. He can only save the inhabitants of one Earth, because that is the only location where He incarnated Himself as His own Son, to sacrifice Himself to Himself and to satisfy His own inflexible requirement for blood. 2. But if scripture means that only this pocket universe and only this Earth is in bondage to sin, decay and death, then are all of these other Earths untouched by sin? Is our world the only one of many planets to fall, as per the Earth in C.S. Lewis' space trilogy? 3. If Christian apologists happily add the Fine-Tuned Universe argument to Inflationary theory, then they can't cherry pick from the consequences of their decision. As mentioned earlier in this thread, once the Inflationary process begins, it never ends. In the parlance of cosmology, it is future eternal. For the Christians this has two very unpalatable consequences. If God's grace does extend to every other Earth and not just this one, then Jesus' sacrifice needs to be made not just once, but an infinite number of times, forever onward. Which would make the final chapters of Revelation apply only to this particular pocket universe. Here God is worshiped in glory in the New Jerusalem, having finished His work here, once and for all. Meanwhile, He's also increasingly busy across the Multiverse sacrificing Himself to Himself on an infinity of other earths. Or, if His grace is only good for one Earth, then even when He winds things up here, He's still using Inflation to create an infinite supply of damned humans to feed the flames of hell. Having saved just one Earth, He chooses not save any others. Thanks, BAA.
  4. Please Test This... Rebooted.

    Ok, regarding your input about factorials vs exponentials and the variables that seem to make duplication impossible. Before I go ahead I must fess up to falling short of providing an adequate response. Here, an 'adequate response' would where I take your points and respond to them, using my understanding of why duplication is realized and explaining why this is so. Sadly, I cannot do that. My understanding of why this is so is not up to the task. I can't do the math and I don't have the smarts to understand why cosmologists and theoretical physicists tell us that duplication would happen. All I can do is report what they have declared to be so and then leave you to pick through the cited material for yourselves. Yes, I do see that I'm now in danger of committing the fallacy of appealing to authority. As an amateur astronomer delving into exotic stuff like cosmology, that was always going to be a reef that the ship of my argument could easily run aground on. So be it. That's the price one pays when putting an argument up for testing. Having made this declaration, I'll now take some time to collate the materiel I intend to cite. Thank you for your patience. BAA. p.s. I will be joining a science forum in the near future, with the aim of expanding my understanding of cosmology.
  5. Please Test This... Rebooted.

    Many thanks for this input, guys! This is exactly the kind of rigorous testing I was hoping for. Now, before I respond in any kind of detail to your words, let me just explain why the focus of my argument has been only on Inflationary theory. There are two prime reasons. First, it's the theory of choice for Christian apologists because it offers them something that other, rival cosmological theories do not. A gap into which the Christian god can be inserted. This gap is generated by inflation's inability to describe it's own starting mechanism. It can explain what happens after the inflationary process is initiated, but it cannot say what initiates the process. This paper is used by Christian apologists to generate the gap into which they insert their god. A close inspection reveals that they are playing the same game with inflation's starting point as they are playing with the initial singularity from which the inflationary energy field is supposed to emerge at the beginning of time and space. In both cases they take science's inability to describe the natural mechanisms involved as the signal to insert their supernatural mechanism of choice - the God of the Bible. But a breakdown in science's ability to describe a natural phenomenon isn't that same as an actual ex nihilo beginning of the cosmos. There is chicanery at work here. (I'm still investigating the interface between Christian apologetics the physics of the initial singularity, btw.) A brief overview of other contending cosmological theories readily shows why the Christians do not use them. Stephen Hawking's No Boundary theory offers a complete and entirely natural solution to the origin of the universe. Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic theory is cyclic and fully eternal, totally removing the need for a creator. This is also the case with Penrose's Conformal Cyclic theory. Aguirre's modification of Inflation removes the incompleteness of it's past boundary, making it past and future eternal. None of the above give the Christians what they need to reconcile Genesis with cosmology - a starting point. Hence the intensity with which the apologists focus on and fight for Inflation. The second reason I'm focusing only on Inflation in this thread is because I perceived that it offered me a way to demolish the Fine-Tuned Universe argument. My reasoning went like this. If I could validly argue that Inflation causes the duplication of patterns of matter and energy then I could employ that to demonstrate that the Fine-Tuned Universe argument - which is used to show Earth's uniqueness - when used in combination with Inflation, actually demonstrates the opposite. That an inifinity of locations across the Inflationary multiverse MUST BE as finely-tuned as the planet Earth. That an infinity of Earth's, populated by duplicates of ourselves, are the inevitable result of adding Fine-Tuning to Inflation. The end result of this infinite duplication, when taken in the context of Christian theology, leads to the following conclusion. If Jesus died only once and only for the sins of the humans on this Earth, then God has created a infinite number of other Finely-Tuned Earth's that are all populated by humans like us, but whom God has predestined to damnation and eternal torment . These others are born without hope of salvation because the savior has saved only us. Also, these others are damned by, not by the rebellion of their respective Adams and Eves of their respective Earths, by the rebellion of the Adam and Eve of this Earth. Furthermore, since history unfolds on the other Earths in exactly the same way it unfolded here, these other humans will have the appearance of everything we have had here - but none of the substance. Just as we were given the Law, the Prophets, the Messiah, the Apostles and the Bible, so they will also have all of these things. But all the other Christs who die on all the other crosses of all these other Earths won't be THE one and only sacrifice for sin that God the Father requires. That sacrifice happened only here. Or did it? Since Christianity functions on faith and not on evidence, how can we ever know if our Jesus Christ is the one who has the power to save people from hell? The answer is that we can't know - we can only go by faith and believe we are saved. Anyway, that was how I'd aimed my argument to run. Thanks to the testing it's receiving here it looks as if it might not pan out. But that's just fine by me. There's little point in putting something up for testing if one's not prepared for it to fail the test. Thanks, BAA.
  6. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    Posted 3 minutes ago I am just passing time. ------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for contradicting yourself by caring, BO.
  7. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    You care enough to reply. If you really didn't care you wouldn't reply. (Waits for BO to show that he cares.)
  8. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    You could be saying that, just to get a rise. And when you say that it doesn't matter to you, you could be saying that to get a rise, too. Perhaps I'd better take everything you post as an attempt to get a rise.
  9. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    And you could also be saying that to get a rise out of me, too. But seeing as it doesn't matter to you, I'll follow your lead.
  10. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    Posted 37 minutes ago Yes. It's your opinion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or you could be saying that it's your opinion... ...just to get a rise out of me.
  11. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    Yes. It's your opinion.
  12. Please Test This... Rebooted.

    Yes Disillusioned, I am playing fast and loose with the numbers. Deliberately so. I am massively understating them, for the sake of simplification and ease of understanding. My wording was... "For the sake of ease, let's suppose that it takes one second for the very first pocket universe to be 'inflated'." I used the interval of one second for two reasons. Because the count of one second is easily understood by everyone and because I could post the video, which lasts for 120 seconds - an easily grasped length of time. I had hoped to convey the idea that even using timescales that are easily understood, the number of pocket universes generated by inflation is so large that the repetition of patterns across the entire ensemble of them rapidly becomes realized. I asked that we suppose it takes a second to inflate a pocket universe. But according to Inflationary theory, the actual interval in which this happens is a trillion, trillion, trillionth of a second. An unimaginably short duration and one that the human mind finds difficult to grasp. In the next trillion, trillion, trillionth of a second two pocket universes are inflated. Then, using this doubling interval, the exponentially-accelerating cascade of pocket universe inflation follows the pattern we see in the video. Hence the three questions about your age, the age of the Earth and the age of our pocket universe. They are meant to get you thinking about how many pocket universes inflation would generate if it had been running at the artificially (and glacially) slow rate of one per second. If inflation had started when you were born and has been exponentially accelerating since then, how many pocket universes would it have inflated by now? If inflation had started when the Earth was formed and has been exponentially accelerating since then, how many pocket universes would it have inflated by now? If inflation had started when our pocket universe came to be and has been exponentially accelerating since then, how many pocket universes would it have inflated by now? But, both the Copernican Principle (CP) and General Relativity (GR) forbid us from assuming that inflation began here... with our pocket universe. Both CP and GR explicitly require us to drop the notion of a fixed and absolute frame of reference, based upon only what we observe. Once we drop that notion we cannot and must not assume that inflation began here, with us. To do that would be to elevate our status (we are the first) above all other observers of the inflationary process. The outcome of this is that we must conclude that the process of inflation began an arbitrarily long time before it caused our particular pocket universe to come into existence. We must conclude that the count of time and the inflation of space did NOT begin 13.72 billion years ago, in what we now call our observable universe. Instead we must conclude that inflation began exponentially accelerating an unimaginably long time before it inflated our particular pocket universe. Now I can move on to answering you, D. Specifically, the point you make about the number of variables in just this one pocket universe. About how this must be so high as to preclude the possibility of pattern repetition across the multiverse of pocket universes. Your argument would be valid, but for one vital point. Elapsed time here vs the elapsed time of the Inflationary Process. If we take your breakfast as the pattern under investgation, the key question we need to ask is this. How long did it take our pocket universe to assemble it's matter and energy into that pattern? Or, putting it another way, how much time has to elapse for the stars and galaxies of this pocket universe to forge the chemical elements needed to make your breakfast? A sensible answer, based upon what we know about nucleosynthesis of the elements, the life cycle of stars, the formation of planets, abiogenesis and evolution, would be of the order of billions of years. So, that is the elapsed time it took our pocket universe to assemble the pattern of your breakfast. Billions of years. In the meantime, what has inflation been doing? In the artificially slow example (one universe per second) I gave earlier, when inflation runs for just 64 seconds it inflates 18 ,446 ,744, 073, 709, 551, 615 pocket universes. And that's also setting inflation running from a standing start. As I mentioned above, both the CP and GR tell us not to even assume that inflation has been running for the 13.72 billion-year lifetime of our pocket universe. Instead they require us to assume that it has been exponentially accelerating for much, much, much longer than that tiny interval of time. No pocket universe can assemble the pattern of matter and energy that is your breakfast faster than inflation can make pocket universes. Putting it another way, inflation can make more universes than the possible number of variables in any single pocket universe. No matter how high the number of variables in any given pocket universe, the speed of exponential inflation will always exceed it. It will exceed it to such a great extent that the patterns in any given pocket universe will be repeated across the multiverse. . . . Our Cosmic Habitat, by Martin ReesChapter 9 : The First MillisecondPage 132"Within about 10-36 seconds - a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second - a microscopic patch could have inflated large enough to encompass everything we now see, and to establish the fine-tuned balance between gravitational and kinetic energy."Page 133 (Rees does not appeal to pocket universes, but instead simply postulates what would be if our pocket universe were infinitely large.) "In this expanse of space, far beyond the horizon of our observations, the combinatorial possibilities are so immense that close replicas of our Earth and biosphere would surely exist, however improbable life itself may be. Indeed, in a sufficiently colossal cosmos there would, somwhere, be exact replicas not just of our Earth, but of the entire domain (containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars) that lies within the range of our telescopes." Thanks, BAA.
  13. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    BO, You once told me that a lot of what you post is simply done to provoke a reaction, to get a rise out people. That being so, I've little doubt that's what you're doing here.
  14. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    Posted 43 minutes ago So perhaps the best thing is for each individual to be prepared to adapt to changes as best they can? Yes. As individuals we can do that. But as a species, I submit that we cannot. In nature, when a species is faced with change and crisis, only those members who can adapt will survive. Yet, the act of adapting changes these survivors, so that they are no longer what they were before they were forced to adapt. So it will be with humanity. We will not survive en bloc, as an entire species, because too many of us cannot or will not adapt. Instead, certain individuals, enclaves and factions will find ways to adapt and survive. Quite how they will do so is an unknown. What they will become in doing so is also an unknown. Maybe these survivors will be so changed that the word 'human' won't really apply to them any more. So I stand by my usage of the word hopeless, when it comes to the future of the human race as we know it. For humanity as it is today, there is no hope. We are too splintered and too self-destructive to unite in any common purpose - even the continued survival of our race. Remember this, LF? When this movie came out I was visiting my British friends, Neal and Katie and we saw it in London. Afterward Neal said, "Well, that outcome would never be believed by millions of people." Me: 'Oh, you mean they'd never believe the story line? That the entire human race could unite and fight a common enemy?" Neal: "No. I meant that millions of Muslims and millions of racists would never believe or accept that their lives had been saved by a Jew and a black man." At the time I thought he was being too harsh and too dismissive, but these days I reckon he was right on the money. No matter how high the stakes and no matter what the threat, there are some people who will never unite and cooperate with others. With that kind of poison in our gene pool, how can the human race possibly survive in it's current form?
  15. Climate & Environmental Warnings

    Imho it's hopeless, LF. If you changed this thread from 'Climate & Environmental Warnings' to 'Obesity Warnings', you'd probably get the same spectrum of reactions. Some folks will take heed and change their diet for good. Some folks will take heed for a while and change their diet for a while, but then lapse back into their previous ways. Some folks will worry about it for a few minutes, shrug their shoulders and then carry on as before. Some folks won't care about the warnings because there's a new reality show that's more important to them. Some folks won't care about the warnings because they don't even care about themselves and are on a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior anyway. Some folks won't care because they believe that God is going to destroy this sinful world anyway and they'll be reborn with new and perfect bodies. Some folks simply can't understand the consequences of their actions and so can't see that what they eat today will affect their health tomorrow. Some folks will simply deny that such a condition as obesity exists at all. Some folks will assert that these obesity warnings are 'fake news'. Some folks will claim that any and all such warnings are violations of their free choice. Some folks will believe that these warnings are issued by a global cabal of shape-shifting reptilian overlords to keep us under their control. And so on... Evolution hasn't equipped humans... as a species ...with the ability to freely and willingly unite in a common cause. So, if the problems we face can only be solved if humans unite in a common cause...?