Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also

If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our
century is not the warmest century in "human" history?

demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
It appears to be more global cooling than global warming, as you might
expect considering the fiery origins of the planet.

not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

When has global warming happened in the past?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view


The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts.
When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because
the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal
temperature..

Global warming can happen because of increased CO2 levels, or increased
solar luminance. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL
MASS EXTINCTION'S.

Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not
there.
Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life


Note: "faith" means believing in something in the abscence of objective
proof.

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos. I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.

I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos. I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.

I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

I was very tired when I wrote that last posting. I am going to take a nap
and hope the fogginess of the mind goes away. It was a bit gibberish.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Nad R wrote:
Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos. I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.

I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

I was very tired when I wrote that last posting. I am going to take a nap
and hope the fogginess of the mind goes away. It was a bit gibberish.

I'm a big fan of siestas :O)
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand
years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago
global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were
roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice
ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I
view which I reject.

Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as
"absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this
seemingly same definition

To my ear "facts are not all there" implies the existence of facts not
put into evidence.

Correct! in my book of philosophy. I believe in evolution of man even
though all the facts are not there. Someday the facts may be there. If a
system has contradictions I will dismiss the theory as false. I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief. I know for others,
contradictions in a belief system does not matter.

The last "ice age" (not counting the movie) was 11,000 years ago. We are
in an "inter glacial period at present (The Holocene). The "mini ice
age" from 1000 CE to 1450 CE was a small change unless you lived in
Iceland, where even the Inuit were having a hard time of it.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages

I know the sun has
a cycle every eleven years for sun spots. Not sure about long term
temperatures. The earths magnetic field can flip flop changing the
environment, but no sure about its effect on temperature.

I imagine when the Sun turns into a red giant in a billion years the Earth
will warm up a whole lot.

Hey, let's not push. It will be 5 billion years before the Sun goes "red
giant" on us. You made me think that I was running out of time;O)

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

Thanks for the Jared Diamond cite.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ja...ieties_collaps
e.html

If you like weekends, thank a labor union.

==
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Nad R wrote:

I believe in evolution of man even though all the facts are not there.

Genetic engineering and DNA sequencing are facts. The current model for
human evolution is a best guess based on current evidence and that will
certainly change as new evidence is uncovered. What will not change is
the chemical basis for evolution - inheritance and breeding both of
which are statistical in nature. There will be change in a lot of the
details in our understanding of genetics (RNA activity, protein folding,
all sorts of stuff) but not how basic DNA-RNA-protein works and not
how DNA encodes the next generation and not statistical population
models.

I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief.

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it. Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that. Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
civilized society.

I am not positive however I am not sure but was the ice age, 11,000 years
ago caused by a super volcano or meteor impact, rather than the Sun. I am
fairly certain the mini ice ages was caused by volcanos.

There have been a lot of cycles of ice ages and warm ages in
geologically recent past. Those are too evenly repeated to have
volcanic causes. The "little ice age" could easily have had a volcanic
cause.

Garden center today had some great spring sales today, free hotdogs, donuts
and coffee. Soon to enjoyment comes.

Today they had a type of bromeliad I had not seen before. Flattened red
leaves that looked like a hand sticking up out of the main green leaves.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it.
How do you differentiate being poisoned from awareness of hypocrisy?

Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that.

Comparison with the known leads to an understanding (correct or not).

Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
civilized society.

Then why do my tax dollars (not optional) go to printing, "In God We
Trust" on our currency? Or do you contend that we aren't a civilized
society?

Bush's 3rd term: OBAMA


If you like weekends, thank a labor union.

===
--
- Billy
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it.

How do you differentiate being poisoned from awareness of hypocrisy?

Awareness of hypocricy is acknowledging the errors of a specific
religion. Look carefully and any faith will have some problems. To
assume that all suffer from the same problems is to be poisoned. They
do not.

There's a further issue not just with Buddhism not addressing deity.
All or almost all religions tell stories. Do not confuse the fact that
a couple of very popular religions make the mistake of claiming their
stories are literally true with the fact that stories get told. Those
are two separate topics. To most faiths the stories are fiction that
teaches. To a couple of faiths the stories are supposed to be literally
true that also teach.

Is there actually a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? No. It's a
tale about chasing get rich quick schemes, complete with the gold
disappearing after a day. The real gold in the rainbow is the warm
glow in our hearts when we watch a rainbow. Two levels of mythical
meaning in the same tale, both of which are true and neither of which
appear in the tale itself. That's how the tales of other faiths work.
It is in fact a tale from one of the other faiths.

Did Odin really turn into a one eyed snake, drill into a mountain,
secude a maiden, retrieve the mead of inspiration, return it home, and
dribble some onto humanity as he returned? No. It's an adventure tale
for the children, a barrage of sexual innuendo for young couples, a
view of the cycles of life for the elderly.

Did Sampson really lose his strength because his hair was cut? If there
even was a human named Sampson. No. Becoming a kept man might have
had a bit more to do with it. The hair is a symbol for changed social
status not a literal source of strength.

Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in
civilized society.

Then why do my tax dollars (not optional) go to printing, "In God We
Trust" on our currency? Or do you contend that we aren't a civilized
society?

Civilization is a floating point not a binary number. Putting "In God
We Trust" on the coinage about the time of the US Civil War and on the
paper currency about the time of WWI was a departure from the principles
of freedom of religion. Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance
about the time of the Korean War was also a departure from the
principles of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion must include
freedom from religion.

Both in both cases they can be viewed as a description of the majority
of the population not as harassing atheists. And in both cases it's
more generic than the majority might have liked. The US Constitution
forbids establishing a state religion but it does not forbid noticing
that the majority of the population is religious. I don't like either
situation but I understand how and where the line gets drawn. That I
would draw the line in a different place is less important than that the
line does get drawn - The government can't fund any specific religion
and can't drive out any specific religion, but the government can
acknowledge that religion is popular with the majority.

No civilization is perfect in any of its stances. These two examples of
how freedom of religion and separation of church and state can be bent
without being broken. The bending is the bad part, the departure from
the 1.00 value. The not breaking part is the good part, adding another
dimension. The US in specific and the west in general lead the world in
separation of church and state and religious freeodm. The US screws it
up on certain points. The logo on the money and the words in the Pledge
are among the screw ups.

Rosemary at the store yesterday. It didn't have as much aroma as I
expected.

Long pepper in my eggs this morning. It's not as hot as round
peppercorns. Not sure how to describe the flavor. Somewhere like
Worchestershire Sauce or cloves. As if those two have enough in common
for such a description to make the slightest sense. So now to try long
pepper flavored spice cookies! Gluten free as usual. I figure the
tee shirt will say "Uncle Dag went on a caravan with the Varangian Guard
and all we got was this recipe for spiced cookies flavored with an
exotic southern spice".

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it.

How do you differentiate being poisoned from awareness of hypocrisy?

Awareness of hypocricy is acknowledging the errors of a specific
religion. Look carefully and any faith will have some problems. To
assume that all suffer from the same problems is to be poisoned. They
do not.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.

I guess what bothers me is your out and out dismissal of Nad's
revelations, not that they are superior or inferior to your's. I'm
inclined to see religions as power structures (and we all know what
power does) that place themselves between the believer and their god.
That the god of love and mercy can be morphed into Jerry Falwell's god
of jealousy and revenge, is beyond my ability to reconcile.
That we are called on to worship this god is offensive to my democratic
principals. Call it hubris, if you will, but I have a much easier time
believing that a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies,
especially if it exhorts its followers to reason.

Many good things have been done in the name of god, the Quakers come to
mind, as well as religiously funded clinics, schools, and water
projects. I can relate to an extent to Nad's situation, in that when I
was a teenager I started to question the church I belonged to, when they
shunned a church member who became pregnant out of wedlock. I briefly
considered converting to Judiasm, but the examination of hypocrisy that
I had started on with Christianity soon overwhelmed any possibility that
I could believe in Judaism. Buddhism (not a religion, but still a
belief) seems the only hypocrisy free belief, until you come to the
philosophical schism between Hinayana, and Mahayana Buddists.

I won't post again on this thread, bbut I will read any response that
you may have.

-----

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An
individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my
comprehension, such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble
souls.
- Albert Einstein

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein

-----

If you like weekends (8 hr./day & 40 hr./week), thank a labor union.

===
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Nad R wrote:

I believe all
religions have contradictions therefore a false belief.

Based on your experience with one religion and your having been poisoned
by it. Check. You are going to believe that all religions are alike
and that's that. Doesn't really matter as religion is optional in

There are dozens and dozens if not hundreds of religions in this world.
Only evolution stands out over others as an explanation of our existence
without some other supernatural being creating humans. Theory of evolution
is what I believe in that seems the reasonable for our existence on this
planet. Not because of one religion being poisonous.

I see humans as the cause for the destruction of our environment and
atmosphere of this planet and no god to save us. Therefore only humans must
make decisions that can save this planet for future human survival.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)