Actually it was me said that. What's got us into hurt feelings before is when certain of us wax critical of either Christianity or Mormonism. There are those who have a substantial investment in one or the other of those. It's the underpin of their lives. So when we start showing reasons why it isn't true we are posing a threat to their fundamental world view. That make them mighty uncomfortable. Sometimes they stomp off and don't post for a long time, if ever. Other times they react offensively. It isn't unusual when you argue logically against religious views that they respond with personal attacks. Sometimes right vicious attacks at that. I guess they sense that if they can destroy you as the messenger then they don't have to think about whether what you say is true. All in all it can be a mine field.

Anyway, regardless of all that, here goes. I find I agree with most of what you've said. I mostly call myself agnostic. I am content to wait and see if the unprovable exists. First, before all else, I am a rationalist. Things have to make sense and conform to the rules of logic. If one's beliefs runs counter to observed reality, it's the beliefs that need adjusting, not reality. This is where the religionists Cognitive Disconnect comes into play. They can compartmentalize their brains so that the religious side doesn't allow anything contrary to their pre-existing belief to be considered. As a rationalist I find that very hard to understand. How can people believe things that are provably wrong?

Naturally I don't put any stock into the teachings of Joseph Smith. Also, I'm not a Christian because I think It's pretty clear that the core beliefs of the virgin birth and the resurrection did not happen.

I do have a lot of sympathy for Buddhism though. Buddhists are pretty flexible in their beliefs, since they feel that whatever religion you have is what you need for your spiritual progression. Buddhism is tolerant rather than dogmatic.

I've had some experiences too over the years. I don't know what to make of them now, looking back. In the long run, people who pray, heal, or listen to inner guidance don't seem to have any better luck than atheists. At any rate, such experiences don't prove the existence of a God, and they certainly don't validate any particular religious view.

Zactly.

Well, Cactus in that case, let's not debate about it. I don't want to offend anyone to the point of leaving. I am not sure if I want to witness mud slinging at that level. I like everybody here even if I disagree with them sometimes. I don't want anyone to be offended by what I said.

Well I'm not so sure God is imaginary,

With every culture of of man they all all have some sort of creation story how people came about . Well these stories are really quite diverse to say the least and no they all cant be right , maybe none of them . But if anything it was important to these forefathers of mankind to try to explain their existence and purpose .

To me me the teaching of evolution is just another creation story trying to give answer to the same question our forefathers asked thousands , or millions of years ago , where did we come from and whats our purpose .

Well the evolution creation story suggest mankind and all others species purpose of life is to procreate ( breed ) to ensure the survival of the species . That's it , nothing more . Talk about lack of imagination . Our music , poetry and even our science comes second to our primary purpose of breeding . OK , that's fine if others feel this way but that to me seems incredibly shallow way to view all what man and his bigger brain has accomplished compared to fellow mammals .

But science dosnt answer all the questions of creation either . I mean as much as man has learned he can not create life .

Science can change and destroy life but to this day can not create life. Or for that matter really explain what life is to me . I'm waiting for the day man can take elements of the shelf to create one little bean seed that will grow and has the ability to reproduce its self .

Have you ever wondered what is this life that can sit dormant for years and if planted as a bean seed can grow into a life giving plant ?

Well science dosnt know or can give a answer for this life , what ever life is science dosnt any know better than early man trying to explain life .

Science teaches that all life forms evolved into every species on this planet both living now or extinct .

OK, nature created these life forms , but tell me someone, why isn't nature still creating new distinct life forms as nature had in the past ? We hear all the time of species becoming extinct , but when was it you last heard about a brand new species or plant life that has the ability to become extinct as a species? You students of science tell me , what is the newest form of distinct species and how long has it been around .

To me science and their creation story is just another story trying to explain a question man has always had , where did we come from , did we crawl out of the sea or crawl out of the sand like the Navajo creation story suggests ?

Naw , just pick a creation story , as I See it it dosnt really matter which one if you looking to have your questions answered , heck better than that , make up your own creation story , I did.

Our planet we call home was a resting place for space migrating space birds called the yankie shit bird , and from the waste of these birds , from every seed they ate life came about as we see it today . But these Yankie birds became extinct years ago from illegal poaching brought about from men living on the dark side of the moon in order to have the finest tall black hats in the universe . Yup , thats were we came from , and our purpose is to only ask questions we can never fully answer or understand if answered . Dammit anyway.

If you know you don't wonder
If you wonder then you don't know.

I see a lot more things, evidence, that indicate to me there is.

It is possible to know that there is
It is not possible to know there isn't.

So from my perspective I think it is a lot more safe to not do or say anything deliberately to offend God, just in case he does exist.

There are those who figure that precludes them from a few enjoyments life has to offer, but so far I haven't seen anything I would consider good enough to trade for the security in feeling like God would approve and bless.

It this point in my life I'm more concerned with being forgiven for mistakes that were not deliberately blasphemous, i.e, against God. Why go there? That may also be considered by some as "ignorance" or worse, sanctimonious piety, but I see it as a mitigated risk.

If there is a God, he should be loved, feared (to offend) and respected.

Central to this argument is pre-mortal existence, and an afterlife. Perhaps even other lives, If those are true, that will change a whole bunch of "scientific" paradigms. A lot of what we now consider to be science will become nothing but belief, and what we consider belief would become immutable truth.

But the proof is actually more like the cemetery. People are just dying to get into it. But if the atheist (the blasphemous ones at least) are right, they will never know it, and if they are wrong, well then... it could be hell for them.

"Eat drink and be merry"

You make an excellent point, Yankie. I have to agree with the logical thinking behind it if not necessarily the view.

I agree with you 100% on that one, Say.
The problem is, how do we not offend God?
For me, I feel to follow the golden rule and trust (if there is a God) He/She will be understanding enough to forgive the rest. By respecting God's creations, I respect Him/Her. And if you think about it most of the major sins (murder, adultly) are sins because of the hurt they inflict on our fellow humans. I guess you could say I loosely follow the Ten Commandments- not because they are "Of God' but because they are only common sense. (Yet another reason why I see the Bible as I do.)

I also help out anyone I can whenever I can. I do mending for the people I work with... stuff like that.

And, believe it or not, when I feel strong emotions about something, from bone deep thankfulness to heart wrenching terror, I find myself praying without realizing when I had even started. Whether it's a side effect of my upbringing or just a natural reaction, I can't say.

Yank, why does there have to be a purpose behind anything. You can go out your front door and pick up a sandstone rock. Did there have to be a purpose for that rock to exist? Why not just, it exists? If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be there. Do you really need any more purpose than that?

The fact that you want to think you have more significance than chance existence is certainly normal human feeling, but doesn't make it true? God doesn't have to exist just because you'd feel lonely without him.

You don't seriously think that Navajo myths thought up a thousand years ago around a camp fire have the same weight as the objective observations of scientists? And why would you think science has an obligation to explain everything in order to be valid? One of the thousands of advantages science has over myth and religion is scientist allow themselves to say "Hell, I don't know". Does that make them second to an old Shaman who plucks some nonsense about Spider Woman out of his butt?

As far as I know, no biologist will say species jump up one day intact and separate. It's a gradual process and you aren't going to see it. You may see it in progress, but the day when some individuals become species B instead of species A is not very likely to be marked. You know about Kaibab Squirrels, right? They aren't a separate species from other squirrels but they have been isolated from other squirrels for a long time and they've developed slightly different characteristics, as in their unique ear tufts. If that continues someday they may be a separate species, but you would be hard pressed to identify the mellenium that took place, much less the day.

Science may not be perfect, but it is objective and it is self-correcting. All religion offers is a false sense that you have control over a universe that is often hostile. It's a comfort blanket.

Ah Cactus , dont you see , that is my point . One thousand years ago Navajo and other groups look around and tried to give answer to their existence of where they came from and what life is . Your thoughts that myth and science could not possibly be the same is bogus dear Cactus if you look at the science's past of what was considered fact . Ever hear of the study of eugenics ? Well just prior to your birth the study of the human skull had tons of scientist convinced this practise was cutting edge science . Scientist through the world studied with great depth this science of eugenics and concluded the human skull was the tell tell sign of a superior race . It was all a myth but this myth destroyed millions of life's and changed the world as man had known it . Until something is proven is there really any difference between myth and theory ? Or faith and theory ?

What is life Cactus ? Explain to me the life of a bean seed and how that works. I know how a bean seed develops from seed to plant , but what is about a bean seed that makes it live . Why cant science make me at least one bean seed that will grow , forget about being able to reproduce itself, just one seed that grows would make my day . Science cant do that can they , but science claims to know everything about a bean seed except the most important question what gives a bean seed life . They can destroy the potential life of a bean seed by heating up bean seeds over a certain temperature but even so they cant give answer what it is they destroyed . Can they?

Isn't it true under a microscope science cant tell the difference between a bean seed that has been heated over 110 degrees and one that has not ? But yet the heated bean seed wont grow will it ? A real big differnce if you ask me but science cant see it can they ?

If your comfortable with your purpose of life is only to procreate , fine by me , but hey if your pro abortion your going against your purpose , you defiler of nature . It aint nice to fool mother nature ya know .LOL

Surely with all the ability science has they can tell me natures latest evolutionary effort that is in progress and when this new species started cant they ? All I'm asking is how long ago did this journey of a new species start? I mean through extinction we are losing thousands of species each year . Shouldn't nature have some new species along the way by now you could show me ?

Nope the way I see it science's creation story hasnt answered much of my questions or for that matter the age old question of what life is and how'd it all all start .

About the only thing I know is there isn't much difference between myth and theory or even faith . Its just what you choose to call these words and what meaning you put to them .

OK , Cactus you crawled out of the sea and the Navajo the sand ,and Sayit came from God , myth , theory and faith is where each of you guys really crawled from and in fact by what you know and can prove it just as well be the same place . Heck maybe it is the same place for what we will ever know , -- a timeless guess unless the squirrels know anything different .

By the way , the squirrels you mentioned are of the same species , cousins . There is such a thing as evolution in a specie , and your wrong , allot of this evolution takes place incredibly quick , just look at mankind averages the last hundred year span . But this doesnt mean man came from monkey or monkey from frog .

Well, you're right of course, Uncaduff. Maybe I was a bit hard on ol Yank. I guess you are right in that the trashing of science, belittling it as merely another form of religion, does make me uneasy. Like my brother, I fear people with that view ignore our only functional way of dealing with the most important issues of the day. So you are right, I get my buttons pushed when people place ignernce above science. But the big question is - why are we sitting here writing at this keyboard while the game is on? Actually I'm sitting here at half time.

Geez Yank, how can I keep up? You get so many things about 2/3 right so fast it just begs clarification point by pont, but if I do that, you aren't going to read it anyway, but just restate what you already said, which is what this reply is. Are you putting out your thoughts, or just trying to tweak me again?

Eugenics was never more than pseudo science. Start by defining the word "Science". My definition is the objective search for truth. Objective means you make no pre-assumptions, clear your mind, and look at observed reality. Any other approach is just nonsensical.

What is life? Hell I don't know. Don't claim to know. Don't need to know. What I know is every religious person on planet earth doesn't know any more than I know. Scientists are making more and more detailed observations of how life works. They are getting close to understanding how it started. But the mythical institution you call "science" isn't claiming to know the answers to the large philosophical questions. Maybe someday they'll understand it, maybe not, but their job is to make better and better observations.

I'll take your word that cooked beans look the same under a microscope. But you know darn well each bean cell has been altered chemically by cooking.

You said the purpose of life is procreation. I totally disagree with that. All I said is life doesn't need a purpose. Maybe it has one, maybe not. All evolutionary theory says is we are descended from the winners. Those who fail to procreate aren't winners. But the idea that the ultimate purpose is procreation is the basis of Mormon theology, not mine.

Species are evolving gradually, as I said. In your 4 score and 10 you will notice species evolution about as much as you observe the mountains rising. Nuff said.

Man has not evolved much if any in the past 100 years nor in the past 10,000 years. Diet's changed, environment has changed. If you were teleported back to 1847 or back to 10,000 BC, you'd fit in very well.

I don't think of science, or the scientific method, to be another form of religion, but dogma in any field is the soul of indocterination and misinformation. when concepts become off limits to question, whether in politics, religion, or the sciences, it indicates to me, a lack of a sense of historical savy. the history of human thought shows a consistent change of concept.

ps I didn't mean ta ster yer stew about gittin after Yank, a good lively discussion is whats interestin. jist hope intelligent folks can vigorously discuss differences without hatin one another.

NJCA

Zactly. People who take this attitude that science is religion and religion is science have been a real problem lately. You approach these people and try to present them a case for why such and such is a problem such as co2 emissions and this attitude becomes an insurmountable road block. The attitude is that, hey, in your belief system co2 emissions are a problem; in my belief system they aren't. And one belief system is just as valid as any other belief system. So why are you trying to impose your belief system upon me?

I'm suspecting just a bit that these people are just playing tit for tat here a bit. Thye been wanting to get God into government and we liberals have been giving them a rash of grief over that agenda. "You can't just go writing your belief systems into the laws of the land," we tell them.

And so now they're rather giving this back to us in the form of "OH Yeah. Well you can't go writing your belief system of global warming into the law of the land either. And I'll tell you another thing too, Mr. smart elec secular humanist liberal. You can't just go teaching your religion of evoution as the only explanation for how it went down either. Because it's the same exact deal. What you liberals are all about, see; you want cart blanche to impose your religion on people while you're about trying to destroy ours."

Have I characterised your view there, Yankie? That's kind of how I read your comments.

And I keep saying over and over and over that no, we're not out to do you out of your religion here and there isn't perfect symmetry between global warming, evolution, and religious belief systems. Global warming and evolution aren't just belief systems just like any other religious belief system. So what's the difference?

Well the difference is the difference between our society going down the toilet and it's not going down the toilet. Let's be honest about religion here. Catholicism vs Mormonism isn't a life or death question. We could worship Therathuster and could probably function just fine as a society. After all, a society did worship Therathuster and their empire lasted probably longer than ours will have. I'm convinced we could worship nobody at all and we could do just fine, provided we have ehtical standards.

But.

Global warming being a legitimate concern vs. it not being a legitimate concern, that is a life and death deal here. It's not just a matter of opinion and anyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's opinion. On this point large numbers of us just have to get this right or it could be curtains for the human race. It's kind of like this train is headed for a wall. Is that wall real, or is it an illusion? We have to get that question right.

To my mind, science isn't the end all be all of everything but science and only science is usefu for determining whether a wall is really there or not. The wall is there. That's not my opinion. That's been established through solid peer reviewed science from many different perspectives.

Religion seeks to get to the fundamental values that guide us. Which is a wonderful necessary pursuit. To my mind though there's a fundamental value even more fundamental than the most fundamental of your fundamentalist religion, and that is that survival is job one.

Those bleached bones of that civilization that over-extended itself; those people had a good religion too. Their religion was every bit as good as yours. But their science was crappy. If those bones could talk to us, they might tell us that getting the science right is important.

Why? Why do we need to survive? If all this is how you say, then it shouldn't matter so much. Maybe all those elite globalists are right after all, and all that really needs to survive is enough of them to start over.

No, What is important for now is that we PAY THEM, for the privilege of living. And you are just one of the useful idiots who help them get what they want. Belief in God is a lot bigger problem to them than it is to you, so it's real important to extricate that notion from the minds of the masses.

No sir, we can't have a bunch of ignoramuses trusting in a mythical God instead of their noble liberal politicians, at least they are for real. Next thing you know these stupid religionists will be crowding up our space and competing with us for our things, and polluting our planet. No scientist would ever do that.

I guess you figure if you say all this stuff enough times it will somehow make it all true.

You know, not to wax critical or anything. And I do like you, Say. And I stand here full of remorse that the Patriots were humiliated in front of Billions of people. My grandson and I actually drove around the actual stadium just before the great moment began. Uh Where was I? Oh, yes. You don't even make sense. Pay WHO for the privilege of living? You're over my head.

Well ok, no problem as long as you'll admit it. I guess I just get weary of people making science into something it isn't, just so that religion will be something it isn't. One should not preclude the other. We don't disagree so much about effect, as we do about the causes of it.

Yeah that was awful, those Patriots falling to pieces like that. It wasn't just getting beat it was getting humiliated. Not that I'm such a big fan or anything, but I would have liked to see them get their perfect season. But they just didn't make any plays... let alone anything Stuipbowl worthy. All it would have taken was one... just one good play to beat those arrogant Giants who won on nothing but a brutal defense. Even that last drive, Manning only saved it by pure luck, and if the Pats had got the ball back in the 2 minute before the NG's scored again, the Patriots would have sneaked into the hall of fame.

Nope I'm not trying to tweak you again , thats too easy , just trying to have you think again , LOL. 2/3 right ? well by golly my dear old Dad would be proud . LOL.

Actually Cactus I dont know for the most part if I believe in a God or not . But I find it interesting that some folks feel having a believe in a God is some sort of weakness or handicap when it comes to intelligence . Such arrogant ass's these folks can be when you think about it . I mean science has its theories , religions have their faith . And me ? Well I have the leftover bullshit between the two of them that has made me the wonderful person that I am , Yup so much better than the both of you folks , I know your both not completely right . But hey I wont hold that against you , your both only doing what you have been taught and you just cant help yourselves , either one of you enlightened folks . LOL.

I'm not really trying to be a asshole with you Jim , just found it best to start a third point of view between folks talking about religion and science , its the jack Mormon tendencies I cant help myself from either , always somewhere in the middle ya know !

see the off colored guy between you smug folks ? well thats me , all eyes and no mouth . LOL

The way I got it figured, that last touchdown pass the Giants were employing some kind of wizard to make that work. Or maybe it was an evil scientist who has developed a mind ray. I guess, being a rationalist, I have to go with the ray.

No see... it was simple Football eugenics's... and you missed it? That receiver was extra tall... and he just reached up an extra foot or so higher than all those other inferior defender specimens. Watch and see... this will very likely become an important part of the evolution given a few more years, and it happened right there with the whole world watching.

Either that, or those Patriots were being punished, for trying to cheat with those video tapes.. or something.

Sam Harris “Letter to a Christian Nation”
http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nat...02142976&sr=1-1

Sam Harris “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason”

http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-T...02142976&sr=1-2

Christopher Hitchens “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religi...02142976&sr=1-3

Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard...02143129&sr=1-1

Aayan Hirsi Ali “Infidel”
http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-...02143163&sr=1-1

Aayan Hirsi Ali “The Caged Virgin”
http://www.amazon.com/Caged-Virgin-Emancip...02143163&sr=1-3

Puts me in mind of back when I was struggling through college. Is this darned college education really worthwhile? Or this more a system designed to protect the job market from having to report more unemployment? A lot of this stuff I'm being taught here seems to me more about warehousing 20-something-year-olds to keep them from flooding the job market and providing employment for sociology professors.

Well I mulled over this and mulled over this. And I never came up with a satisfactory answer. I graduated before I could come up with a satisfactory answer. And having graduated, in retrospect I think getting a college education was a good idea.

To be or not to be. To survive or not survive.

Hold that thought. I've got to go something to survive and then we can get back to that question.

Yeah, surviving probably is a good idea, even if we don't know why. Maybe it's like some divine proclivity we inherited from our primative ancestors.

I guess I'm not seeing you in middle between relgioninsts and anti-religionists, Yankie. I'm seeing you over there in the shrinking crowd of maladaptives. The only thing they're between is another in a long line of excuses for being maladaptive.

Come on, Yankie. Over here is the fun group. Over here is where interesting engaging challenges are being met with intelligence and creativity such as you and I possess a great deal of. Your talent is wasted over there with the cynical excuse makers whose creativity is devoted to making excuses. What wasted lives those loosers lead. You belong over here, Yankie.

This has been a message from the Mormons.

Or rather, the Mormons of tomorrow. Mark my words, Yankie, to read the history books of tomorrow, you will find that Mormons invented environmental ethics. Yes, they got it direct from the Prophet who got it direct up from the man upstairs. And then the saints cheerfully with a heart full of song put their shoulders to the wheel and set an example that was uplifting and an inspiration for all the world to witness of how communites steeped in ethical values became models of sustainable sound stewardship. Ok yes, at times their faith was tested and even at times seems about to fail, but it came through in the end.

Survival. There is the ultimate test of faith. If we blow it and fail to rise to the challenges ahead of us, it wasn't faith that we were living by but kidding ourselves. If we last through the century it will be because we got beyond the fake stuff to the real article of faith.

I'm not about attacking peoples' faith, only their living in delusion land and trying to pass that off as faith. I'm positively counting on peoples' genuine faith. Positively counting on it.

Gosh Chaster , try as I might I've always found my self in the middle between religion and science , I'm sorry you cant see that . Maladaptive , well thats a word you dont see every day, Are your sure its only found on the religious side of the fence ? Well I'm not so sure about that . I'll have to look that word up later to see what it really means . Heck , I'm sure as heck not trying to Persuade you into or out of your thoughts . Nope just asking questions to find how you explain things , you know , things that I wonder about from time to time .

But you know , there is a couple of words I'd like you to look up and refresh your memory some .

Disapprove & disagree .

From where I stand it seems both sides have lost meaning to these words .

Just about every time I have a discussion with either churchy folks or wanttabe scientist it turns out the same .

If I disagree with something they intrepid this disagreement o as a disapproval of them and their message . And then they have a tendency to lash back with a emotional personal attack as if I attacked them first .

I think you know what I'm trying to say here Chas, and to be honest I find this as the first break down of a conversation thats destine to go south quickly . I could go on with other signs of a sinking conversation , but I think it all starts with these two misunderstood words.

Anyway , you can take this as a excuse from a excuse maker but I kinda like being a independent voter between the election of science and religion , then I can choose and express things how I want too with out feeling obligated to agree with something I haven't thought about first or took the time to look into .

In a world S's& R's of us's and them's I'd just as soon be a me or a it . BYE

The issue of dogma and bias affecting science is a real concern and a good point to bring up. For example, until relatively recently, most scientists were men, and science suffered and (and in some cases still suffers) from a male bias. This bias has been readily evident in medicine, human evolution, paleontology, and animal behavior. The influx of women into the sciences resulted in challenges to predominant views, and with enormous implications for the fields listed above. This is not to say that we've replaced male bias with female bias, which would be no improvement. The point is, we've been able to recognize this type of bias and correct for it. What science provides is a method to continually challenge and test prevailing wisdom.

I looked up Maladaptive , its worse than I thought about you , you think everyone who disagrees with you is CRAZY . You see what I mean ? You singled me out and attacked me personally because I disagreed with you. But do you know what ? I could attack you just as personal but I'm bigger than that , lots bigger

OK , maybe thats just a little over said what I said , if you understood what I said , it just that I said it and said it till Isa cant say it no more , WERE all crazy Chaster and nobody more than YOU. You take 1st. & 3rd in the crazy department you raving nut job! Tell me that description below aint got your name al over it .


In psychology, a behavior or trait is adaptive when it helps an individual adjust and function well within a changing social environment. A maladaptive is a behavior or trait that is not adaptive — it is counterproductive to the individual.

Maladaptivity is frequently used as an indicator of abnormality or mental dysfunction,


This message was a response from the jackmormons and not necessarily the views or opinions of the one and only Yankie , ----and thank God for that !

Damn, furnace, sometimes i get this fleeting thought that you might actually "get it".
Can you understand the responsibility that comes with that? Nobody else here does, you can take that to the bank.

I think you are wrong. You forgot about me. I get it. I just don't believe it anymore.

Uncaduff,
Why did you replace your mister-smiley-at-the-dentist avatar with the movie reel avatar? I liked Mr. Smiley. And, dang. You were right about this topic.

No. You don't get it. Those are all contradictory statements. Five in a row.

Being and an real visceral liberal (Like Laura is) is not the same as pandering to the left.

btw Laura, I read wiki on Christopher Hitchens, and I can see exactly where he is coming from with the "islamofacist" bent that you were saying you didn't follow? Basically it's still religious extremism that he supports the war against. It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic, that he hasn't got past. (Ignoring the Jewish roots? ) But as a true liberal you wouldn't even go there.

This is the reason why the flip flopping that they accuse Romney of gets any traction at all. He said all the right... left leaning things, and then when it came crunch time.. he couldn't follow through. (probably that Mormon conscience they worry about) If he had flipped instead of flopped... the left would not be making an issue of it.

This might sound like it's not part of this discussion but it is.. it very much is.

You see, the Democrat Liberal Chaster wants to own the big fancy house (with solar panels) right on the edge of the wilderness area. And he resents the hell out of the Republican Conservative Yankie developer who wants to come along and annex the next mile in and develop it into big fancy mansions. (to sell to more liberals) It spoils his pristine view. That is pollution. Laura is only worried about the turtles.

Relax uncaduff....

she said mental dysfunction, not dental misfunction, you still have a few more years.

(just go easy on the jerky)

I have experienced being spoon fed sugar coated lies from the cradle that everyone believed because the "right" person told them to. I much prefer to look at both sides of the coin and come to my own logical conclusions. I do get it. But my perspective is enhanced by trying to be open minded and allow all perspectives an equal part of my attention before I make a decision. At least I try to.

That was exactly my point. That stuff is all propaganda.

but ok the turtles had nothing to do with it.. lol You may not know like we do here that frogs, turtles, snakes, reptiles, bugs, bats, and all manner of creepy crawly things are close to her heart. It's a tough job... but someone has to do it.

yank, thats rather profound. the root of the word science; (Gr.) means the love of; or the study of truth. the priestly cast will tell us religion is the same thing. the histories of both are riddled with conclusions arrived at through insufficient data, wistful thinking, or fraud. dogma; is the unquestioning acceptance of these conclusions.
the answer, I believe, is in the individual cultivating a love of truth to the point that one is not bound down by dogma, whether under the banner of science,or religion. if something works for you , use it till you find a better way, but don't expect everyone to be held to your beliefs.

You don't know the difference between myth, theory, and faith?

Maybe one way to think about the difference is to consider the Ansazi civilization. We don't know too much about it except what we can infer from the remains of their impressive buildings and their bones. Seems their basic story was they were clever creative people who had developed agriculture and flourished for awhile. Thing is, ironically, it was some good luck what done them in. There was this brief peiod of good climate and abundant resources. In those good times their population soared. And so, when the good times, as good times do, came to an end and they went into a prolonged drought, they suffered a massive die off. Ouch. I imagine a few survivors went on to survive elsewhere, but for that society and culture, it was curtains.

What's the difference between myth, theory, and faith? I suspect that the Anasazi's developed excellent myths and their fatith was top notch. What we do know for sure was that their science wasn't up to snuff, which is why we have nothing to study about them but their bleached bones. Those wonderful myths they had and their wonderful faith were wonderful things, but they don't do a whole lot of good to people who aren't among the living.

The difference with science, see, is that it can save your bacon if you A. develop and maintain its high standards and B.) if you pay attention to its findings.


Maybe another way to think of it. Your myths are about possiblities, passions, dreams. That's an essential part of what makes a life or culture a living breathing entity.

Your science is a study of the obvious.

Well, you kind of need both. You need your dreams, but you can't go around being entirely at war with the obvious either. I mean it's good to have some creative tension between the obvious and the dreams - that sure has been the story of my life - but you do have to pay some attention to the obvioius just in order to have the luxury of dreaming. You get too detached from the obvious realities that make your life possible, then the luxury of continued dreaming ends.

Utah's culture of today comes down to this: it is at war with the obvious. We're living off the planet's capital. This is not sustainable. I'm not talking myth here. I'm not talking faith here. I'm talking about what is right in front of your face.

I wasn't singling you out as a maladaptive, Yankie. I merely suggest that you're getting along by going along with a maladaptive culture. Well, we're all guilty of that to some degree. But that excuse isn't adequate. Together, we need to bodily move this culture from the self-destructive path this culture is on. It's only together that we can do this. That's why I get a bit testy with you, Yankie, and with you, Say. I can't seem to get you off the couch and get you involved in this program. Honest to God, you sound for anything like some zonked out hippies. Hey man, it's like all relative. Myths, dreams, reality, hey man, it's like all one big dream.

Hopefully, you will, as did we hippies, find out from the school of hard knocks that this attitude is maladaptive.

I realize that sounds so shrill and dogmatic to put it in those terms. I don't think that is the case though. I believe I'm just being a realistic dreamer here, in touch with the obvious, in touch with faith in people, and in touch with the myth that the good guys win.

Visceral? I support my opinions and contentions with facts, which I don't recall anyone finding to be in error. This makes me cerebral. Geesh.

As long as we take if for granted that your "facts" are facts... you know, give or take a a few hundred million years, I don't mean to be so nitpicky as to miss the point.

Well Chas I think this is a simplistic way too view the Anasazi and the reasons for their success and failure . The anasazi as a group went from simple hunter gatherers to a stable society of extensive irrigation systems , trade routs, and developing technologies to improve there standard of life . The question is not so much what happened to them , but how they got to the level they accomplished .

Yes they became a victim of natural causes like so many other cultures have suffered , and yes they overexploited their resources , But what helped these mere nomadic wanderers to devlope to the levels they reached ? What was the glue that held them together for centuries ?

I feel it was their religious believes that bound these people together to form a religious form of government or leadership . In fact Chas , what current government or culture can not trace its footsteps back to a religious believe ?

If you look at every culture that rose to a level we'd call civilized, unity of believe came first and then science , philosophy and the arts .

If there had been no religious believes or as you call them myths the historical record clearly shows across the centuries our science levels would most likely be at the hand to mouth level of a hunter gather. Do you agree?

Interesting enough if you look at the anasazis first cousin the Aztecs when Cortes came he destroyed their culture by destroying their myths or believes . Soon a very developed people in terms of science construction and engineering abilities regressed back to simple farmers . To this day the once greatness of these people hasnt returned . Has it ?

When I hear people talk how myths or faith are a sign of weakness and ignorance , well I laugh out loud at those who think this way , Heck , if it wasnt for faith , myths or religious theories we'd still be living the life of a hunter gather

Chaster , that my friend is a fact and no theory . So yeah Chaster I know how important faith has been for our survival and the most important cause for allowing the study of science to take place in the first place . But you cant see that can you ?
You see religion only holding back science , but I doubt it has ever acerd to you science was built on the back of religious efforts that came before the study of science .

Oh by the way Chaster , I believe in soil and water conservation , I'd like to see air pollution go away . Why is it you feel if I dont buy into your global warming theory I or any other arnt concerned about the environment ? Isn't this being just a bit ignorant and certainly mythical on your part ?

Well, it's mainly a matter of timing, I guess. 20 years ago, to be objectively skeptical about humanity's role in global warming was a reasonable stance.

At this late date, however, it's less a function of objective skepticism and more a function of stubborn stupidity. I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to characterize today's continued resistance to this.

I've been getting into the physics 101 of the case for co2's role in climate. With about 2 pages of doing the rudimentary physics, you can get an approximation that actually is quite close to what the sophisticated climate models are telling us in terms of how much heating results from increasing CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Just do the physics and do the numbers.

Climate, of course, has all these feedback loops that make it spectacularly complex and impossible to completely characterize with models. Still, the basic physics is well developed and rigorously vetted to where we have a high level of confidence in it, cerntainly enough confidence to base public policy on it.

When people regard climate physics and the predictions based on it as no more valid than just a matter of opinion, well, that sure isn't my father's kind of a Republican. My father's kind of Republican is, above all, a person thoroughly grounded in reality. My father's life is a statement of being thorougly grounded in reality. He got this from being a survivor, a survivor of the Great Depression and a survivor as a soldier in the Big One. And yet, my father has been squarely among the most hostile dogmatic hold outs on the subject. This has been one of the great mysteries of this topic to me. Here are these conservative people whose lives are statements of being in touch with reality, and yet, on climate change, suddenly, there's this disconnect. Suddenly, their minds couldn't go beyond some kind of impenetrable barrier. Why? This is still a mystery to me.

I'm not sure whether my father has come around on this yet, but he sure isn't quite as brash about it as he used to be. Then again, he's never come to me and apologized for attacking my persona rather than considering the merits of this concern whenever I mentioned them to him. That's another part of the mystery to me. This issue triggered something deep within right wingers. It wasn't enough to just disagree with those concerned about global warming. Somehow it became essential to trash the persona of anyone who raised these concerns. What is that about? It's not about conservatism; that is for sure. My guess of what that's about, it's attacking someone else as a means of shielding from view some hidden thing about yourself you don't want to examine.

Holy cow, could that apply to me too?

There's a ray of hope for our future.

Isn't that proof that God exists and that he loves football? Isn't that proof that he wanted to put some excitement into the Superbowl? That play where Manning got out of a sack and passed to Tyree is so improbable, that only God could have orchestrated it; it isn't possible for mortal men to do such a play.

Now, less tongue-in-cheek...isn't that the same reasoning most people who have faith promoting incidents use?

Never take anything for granted. Always critically review facts.

I'm happy being like me! Give her a hug for me, and let her keep all the frogs, snakes, and snails she brings home!

I will. And I already do. We have a "pet" cat that is always there to greet us when we get home and a collection of snails.

Heck Chaster dont apologize for me being stupid and stubborn , cause I am .

Its always been that way , the only thing I can bring to the conversation of global warming are questions . I'm not as intelligent as you and have all the answers , global warming to me is still a theory . I'm glad you understand how co2 and temperature works , great for you . I'd be happy just to have my questions answered , Just answers , no assumptions or guesses , just a consistent answer , you know just as consistent as the laws of physics should be .

Its silly of me but I could never understand how the average mean temperature was falling from the 1930's to the mid 1970's while during this same time period the use of carbon fuels being injected into our atmosphere were shy rocketing thousands of percent increases . To me as simple as I am that's like saying gravity makes water run up hill . I'd show the charts like I did before , but I like I said , you already know . I understand numbers , so why dont you run the numbers you've been talking about and then show me how this happened . Surely you can do that , right ?

They say global warming is melting our polar caps , they say the reason for this is caused by man , but whats melting mars ice caps ? cant be man , so what is it ?
National graphics suggested it was solar activity from the sun , OK , maybe it is , but if earth is closer to the sun than mars couldn't earths caps be affected the same way ? I'll have to flip a coin , cause it takes someone smarter than me to explain this , someone like you Chas .

Another thing I dont get is why the Gore's predictions are different than the Ipcc and why the Ipcc have changed their predictions . Maybe this is a dumb question , maybe they got it right this time , or maybe Gore . Hope someone tells me why this is , maybe you can .

I mean Chas , you talk about opinions , well who's is right ? Gores or Ipcc, ? And was Ipcc's first prediction more of a opinion than the last predictions ? I'm confused here Chas , whats your opinion based on fact ?
Is it Gore or ipcc prediction #1 or perhaps prediction # 2 ? Will there be any more opinons or predictions Chas ? I dont know what to think . But you're the luky one cause you already know , dont you ? So tell me what you know . Have we seen the last of opinions and predictions ?

There's other excuses I could say why I dont buy into global warming, but that's enough for now . Yup Chas I'm stubborn and dumb , but I'm going to use you for my excuse if you dont take the time to help me out some .

Yup just like you Chas I'm going to blame everything on someone else , some how this must make me look just as smart as you , which I'm not and wont pretend any different . LOL

Let's see. How can we make this be about God?

Yankie, for the love of God, will you listen to me?

" Its silly of me but I could never understand how the average mean temperature was falling from the 1930's to the mid 1970's while during this same time period the use of carbon fuels being injected into our atmosphere were shy rocketing thousands of percent increases . To me as simple as I am that's like saying gravity makes water run up hill . I'd show the charts like I did before , but I like I said , you already know . I understand numbers , so why dont you run the numbers you've been talking about and then show me how this happened . Surely you can do that , right ?"

As I heared it, particulates in the atmoshpere were one factor for that drop in temperature. Once we started getting a handle on particulate emissions, that effect began to subside. Course, with China coming on line with their horrible levels of emissions, yes, that could mask out some of the effects from CO2. Thing is, with the warming that already has already occurred, we're getting some positive feedback kicking that may overwhelm that.

People say, hey, solar forcing is thousands of times more significant than CO2. Yes, true. And yes, solar forcing isn't exactly constant. It fluctuates. The climate models account for all those inputs. And the fact remains. You run the models with all the data and exclude any effect of CO2 increase, and you just can't account for all of the warming trend over the 20th century. You just can't. You add in the effect of CO2 increase, you get good agreement between the climate models and the temperature data.

People have cast a lot of doubt on these climate models, but notice how none of these nay sayers has produced a better climate model. There's where the rubber meets the road. If a guy genuinely does have a better understanding of climate, the acid test is whether a better climate model can be built from it. So where are these better climate models that do other than predict warming resulting from increased CO2? There aren't any. Or, show me any. There are lots of climate models, and they all give slightly different predictions, but every danged last one of them predicts that upping CO2 results in warming.

Course it's not possible with today's state of knowledge to predict precisely what solar forcing is going to do. It could go down and we'd have cooling. Assuming solar forcing stays somewhat constant, we can predict with a high level of confidence that CO2 forcing will result in further warming.


" They say global warming is melting our polar caps , they say the reason for this is caused by man , but whats melting mars ice caps ? cant be man , so what is it ?
National graphics suggested it was solar activity from the sun , OK , maybe it is , but if earth is closer to the sun than mars couldn't earths caps be affected the same way ? "

That web site at realclimate.com deals with that. I'll go find that link in a bit.

"Another thing I dont get is why the Gore's predictions are different than the Ipcc and why the Ipcc have changed their predictions . Maybe this is a dumb question , maybe they got it right this time , or maybe Gore . Hope someone tells me why this is , maybe you can . "

Well, I wouldn't look to Al Gore for speciffic predictions. He, like us, is a consumer of the science not a producer. Broadly speaking, I think ole Al has things about right.

Of course you're right in asserting that we consumers of science have no business in being advocates on what the science says. At the same time, though, there comes a time when you have to act on the best information you have. The best information we have today as near as I can read what the egg heads are telling us, we all have to reduce our carbon footprints by about a factor of five over the next century or we're toast. I don't believe that or disbelieve that. I merely think that is a possiblilty with a high enough level of probablilty that to ingore it would be maladaptive. Maladaptive as in playing a game of Russian roulette with about 5 chambers loaded with our kids' futures.

Well once again you heard it wrong . Particulate matter in our air world wide has grown leaps and bonds starting in the 1970's , its true America's particulate matter
fell off from what it had been . But while we were falling off in the 70's the rest of the worlds particulate matter was really taking off .

For anyone to suggest the cooling trend from the 1930's to the mid 70's was due to increasing particulate matter is incorrect . If this was the case our cooling trend would have continued with the the increasing levels of particulate matter . If anything this growth of particulate matter could suggest it was the cause of global warming and not any cooling affect if you consider the time frame .

I hope you read this Chas , but promise me you will scroll to the bottom sheet and look at the chart of proportion and time frame concerning particulate matter increase .

Listen Chas , I will we be adding to this post with other info I want you to check out , please look at this stuff also . I do think its probable as you say a game of Russian roulette is going on , as Lara arva said , scrutinize the facts , yup befor you pull the trigger.

http://ies.lbl.gov/drupal.files/ies.lbl.go...ndbox/50881.pdf

this statement below comes from a study that James Hansen ( your hero) was involved with .

Results show that the global sulfate burden doubles from 1875 to 1950, and again from 1950 to 1990. Black carbon, which has a substantial biomass burning fraction, increases by about 30% between 1875 and 1950, and by another 50% between 1950 and 1990. Since sulfate increases faster than the carbonaceous aerosols, the global fraction of the aerosol mass that is sulfate also increases (doubles) from 0.2 to 0.4 during the century.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/d2_koch.html

You can check out the rest of the study , but I think it is very safe to say particulate matter through out the last century was constantly increasing upwards and there was never a downward trend that might support your assumptions you gave to me concerning a global cooling trend.

So the question still remains , with the ever raising Co2 levels from the 30's -70's why was there a cooling trend during the same time period ? This cooling trend contradicts at the very roots of the global warming theory , that with increased Co2 levels temperature will increase .

If the global warming theory can not account and explain past known conditions that took place , it certainly shouldn't be used to predict the future of unknown conditions . The pieces dont fit the puzzle Chas as I see it . Can you show me one or two pieces of the global warming puzzle we can call fact with out any exception or explanation ? Isn't this what good science is suppose to do , answer questions ?

Questions ? If you cant answer my questions than your just as stupid as I am . Fact is Chas you MIGHT be stupider cause you're not even asking any that I ever heard or really checking out the answers from what I can tell .

Chaster, I totally agree with you. I think it it logical and probable God was created by early man as a friend when no one else of intelligence was there and, out of natural human need, wanted someone to understand and love him unconditionally.

Remember the question I asked before? Why does man have to reach outside of himself in moments of trial before he accesses the strength that already lives within him and uses it? Why can't we just be strong by ourselves? Of course, the answer: because we are social creatures and that is our nature. True. But maybe once we see ourselves as we truly are, and see our dependence on a mere idea and how it effects our progress, we can break it. Maybe that epiphany will be sufficient cause to help us be strong when we need to be strong for no other reason than we need to do it. To recognize our need for human comfort and go get it. To increase our own efficiency in dealing with life and thus forward our own evolutionary progress as a species.

Within an epistomological post constructionist concept of God - sorry, bbgae, didn't mean to hijack your thoughtful exploration of God into this thing that Yankie and I have been butting heads over even though there's no harem at the end of it - in fact we seem to driven off just about all the females until recently and are in danger of doing it again - -

Ok, Yankie. You have forced my hand. I am going to have to do some actual homework and actual brain thinking now. Yes, it has come to that. You have challenged me.

Meanwhile, some food for thought.

This is kind of neat. "A Simple Experiment to Demonstrate the Effects of Greenhouse Gases."

Here's the link to the abstract:

http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/V...age=1&chapter=0

It costs $16 to buy the paper from this site. I think this will make a great science fair project for my boy.


Also, there are a number of good tutorials at the level of kind of sort of technically literate boneheads such as ourselves. Here are a few links to get you started:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html
www.realclimate.org
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Holy cow, bbgae, there's some deep thoughts. Where does this come from? I'm guessing these thoughts didn't arise out of your upbringing within the FLDS. How is it that your mind still works so beautifully after Warren's indoctrination? I remember your mentioning your listinening to those infamous Warren "educational tapes" that were Warren's idea of an education.

For me it was the Smothers Brothers show on CBS back in the 60s. Had it not been for them, I'm thinking I'd be a brain dead slack jawed saint by now.

You know, though. I'm not so sure that looking to something greater than oneself when confronted with great challenges is entirely self-serving machinations of ego. Just because some flim flam artists have hijacked God for self-serving purposes, I'm not quite ready to write the whole deal off. Cactus Jim and I, see, we're agnostics, not atheists. We've both had forrays into post-Mormon spiritual explorations. I think I can c