Why do you deny that you are a right wing conservative? It is so obvious from your statements. I'm not buying what Russian scientists 40 years ago thought against our modern ones. You are just finding fake facts to support your paranoid delusions.
Show us an article by a legitimate writer for a trusted site or news paper. You can't do it.
Global warming is real and caused by us.
Scientists About To Create Artificial Life
well, the thread isn't about political convictions anyway, but a certain position may look 'right wing conservative' and still the person isn't related to the respective political group at all 
Aside from the fact he's insisting on the right to personal armed resistance AGAINST possible actions by the government and making sarcastic jokes about the economic and political elite of his country.
Both doesn't exactly qualify someone for that category - I hope this isn't blurred by my European point of view about 'right wings'
Your points and quotes don't convince me any more or less than Gary's - strictly scientifically speaking... I'm not that uneducated in this domain, as I've collected minerals as fossils once and spent a fair time on geologic literature.
Scientists from the former USSR may appear humble regarding wealth and glamour, but they've been up earlier in the high parts of the planet's atmosphere - and just look around at their talented programmers...
There are NO facts (in the strict sense) about the origin of oil, since noone has (or can) watch it's genesis.
And about global warming - a simple hick-up of the sun can fry us all within a couple of seconds.
It didn't happen for 5 million years ?
that doesn't change it's probability - look at Hubble's photos to enjoy some of the more dramatic catastrophees in full color.
And then a few blockheads call themselve smart by copying a pattern and call it 'creation of life' ?
For their own vanity, fame and glory they risk a complete ecologic system - stupid white men.
Remember Conrad Roentgen ? How many of his collegues died from cancer due to standing in the middle of the electron beam - for science sake...
Only decades later they've learned that ANY dose of radiation adds up in the body - when I was a schoolboy they even used X-Ray machines in the local shoe shop to find a perfectly matching pair... science, yes.
It is absolutely NOT the point that people learned from mistakes and now can build less invasive imaging tools.
It's only about SCIENCE as a reason to justify a specific action which is wrong as it's consequences are NOT predictable in any way - let alone by morons.
cheers, Tom
Aside from the fact he's insisting on the right to personal armed resistance AGAINST possible actions by the government and making sarcastic jokes about the economic and political elite of his country.
Both doesn't exactly qualify someone for that category - I hope this isn't blurred by my European point of view about 'right wings'
Your points and quotes don't convince me any more or less than Gary's - strictly scientifically speaking... I'm not that uneducated in this domain, as I've collected minerals as fossils once and spent a fair time on geologic literature.
Scientists from the former USSR may appear humble regarding wealth and glamour, but they've been up earlier in the high parts of the planet's atmosphere - and just look around at their talented programmers...
There are NO facts (in the strict sense) about the origin of oil, since noone has (or can) watch it's genesis.
And about global warming - a simple hick-up of the sun can fry us all within a couple of seconds.
It didn't happen for 5 million years ?
that doesn't change it's probability - look at Hubble's photos to enjoy some of the more dramatic catastrophees in full color.
And then a few blockheads call themselve smart by copying a pattern and call it 'creation of life' ?
For their own vanity, fame and glory they risk a complete ecologic system - stupid white men.
Remember Conrad Roentgen ? How many of his collegues died from cancer due to standing in the middle of the electron beam - for science sake...
Only decades later they've learned that ANY dose of radiation adds up in the body - when I was a schoolboy they even used X-Ray machines in the local shoe shop to find a perfectly matching pair... science, yes.
It is absolutely NOT the point that people learned from mistakes and now can build less invasive imaging tools.
It's only about SCIENCE as a reason to justify a specific action which is wrong as it's consequences are NOT predictable in any way - let alone by morons.
cheers, Tom
Some of the early articles were hype. Dr Venter himself says that the creation of synthetic life will require more work . He seems confident however that they can do it, at which point the theists will have to take back their statement that only god can create life. It will be a simple bacteria, not a monkey with a human brain.
Also I have to point out that if you think religion is corrupt, then you have absolutely no idea how corrupt the scientific world is. The sums of money available for scientific research are huge, do you not think there is more than a slight potential for corruption there? The pharmaceutical industry in particular is one of the sickest and greediest forces on this planet.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Gary is not speaking scientifically strict, that's a gross misstatement. He never offers sources for his claims and when he does he often misinterprets the sources content (and in the last case, he doesn't even read the first paragraph to the end). He insists on his oppinions be accepted as facts. I don't care if he's making sarcastic jokes about the elite of this country or the pope, that doesn't give him the right to bullshit.astroman wrote:well, the thread isn't about political convictions anyway, but a certain position may look 'right wing conservative' and still the person isn't related to the respective political group at all
Aside from the fact he's insisting on the right to personal armed resistance AGAINST possible actions by the government and making sarcastic jokes about the economic and political elite of his country.
Both doesn't exactly qualify someone for that category - I hope this isn't blurred by my European point of view about 'right wings'
Your points and quotes don't convince me any more or less than Gary's - strictly scientifically speaking...
oops, I've spoilt that sentence...
from a purely scientific viewpoint... Braincell's points and quotes don't convince me any more or less than Gary's - because both are theories
...and both referred to the same Wiki entry regarding Abiotic Oil, it did not read like a wierd story imho, some pros - some cons.
cheers, tom
from a purely scientific viewpoint... Braincell's points and quotes don't convince me any more or less than Gary's - because both are theories
...and both referred to the same Wiki entry regarding Abiotic Oil, it did not read like a wierd story imho, some pros - some cons.
cheers, tom
bingo-i've already given you names of very well respected scientists(Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences not good enough?) who've written books and papers. if you really care about the truth, it'll be easy to check my sources.
braincell, you don't think russian scientists know anything about petroleum? hmmm, i wonder how they managed to become the world's leading producers of petroleum(more than saudi arabia) in just a few short years when british and american oil companies said that "fossil fuels" aren't possible in those locations? how did they know to drill so deep, deeper than "fossil fuel" could ever be found(below sedimentation layers), to find among the highest quality, purest and most plentiful crude on the planet? just lucky, i guess....
you don't have to agree with me. i'll still say you're wrong. it amuses me how threatened you are to find that you might be wrong. an intelligent man might not agree with me, but upon being shown evidence, he would at least accept the possibility. finding out that you have been lied to is worse than not finding out for the brainwashed, infantile and dependant.
but, back to the topic, as i said before, which is no offense to anyone here or there in any way, is that it's monstrously irrresponsible to introduce manmade creatures or plants of any size, on purpose or by accident into an environment that is not even .000001% understood. it is stupid. it would be so even if the environment was understood 95%(the first figure is closer to the truth). it is arrogant, disrespectful and shows a hatred of life and a death wish. it is insanity.
astro, you didn't spoil that comnment, he was just having a hard time reading. it clearly stated that YOU were speaking strictly from a scientific point, when you said that neither argument had swayed you at this point.
bingo's wiki referred to the abiotic wiki because the abiotic wiki entry wasn't kooky looking and there are those who would squash even the idea of it. the wiki is a signpost. from there you can research further if interested, or not. there is nothing hokey or smelling of the carnival side show. THE OIL COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE THE MOST TO PROFIT FROM PEAK OIL.
speaking of oil company profits, in america, most of the media is owned by the world's largest arms manufacturer the Carlyle Group, which has on it's board, G. Bush Sr., oilman, and the Queen Elizabeth, British Petroleum. Rupert Murdoch, an ardent promoter off eugenics and global warming controls FOX. THEY support peak oil. you will not hear of abiotic oil in the LA Times, the NY Times or the famous Chicago Tribune, or on FOX.
bingo's wiki referred to the abiotic wiki because the abiotic wiki entry wasn't kooky looking and there are those who would squash even the idea of it. the wiki is a signpost. from there you can research further if interested, or not. there is nothing hokey or smelling of the carnival side show. THE OIL COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE THE MOST TO PROFIT FROM PEAK OIL.
speaking of oil company profits, in america, most of the media is owned by the world's largest arms manufacturer the Carlyle Group, which has on it's board, G. Bush Sr., oilman, and the Queen Elizabeth, British Petroleum. Rupert Murdoch, an ardent promoter off eugenics and global warming controls FOX. THEY support peak oil. you will not hear of abiotic oil in the LA Times, the NY Times or the famous Chicago Tribune, or on FOX.
Might rather call him Dr. Wan*erbraincell wrote:Some of the early articles were hype. Dr Venter himself says that the creation of synthetic life will require more work . He seems confident however that they can do it, at which point the theists will have to take back their statement that only god can create life. It will be a simple bacteria, not a monkey with a human brain.
what does he know ? the fiddling alone is beyond any reason - what are biohazard signs and regulations for in laboratories ?
who's so naive to assume any such creation can be controlled - nuclear power is a fine form of energy, but the human race is too stupid and too greedy to handle it.
As experience tells... as it seems to be with the bees dying from side effects by genetic manipulations, as it seemed to be with the source of BSE.
(the correlation between application of a drug against fly bite, massaged into the back of the animals and the appearance of the proteine changes in their spine was strangely downplayed)
Who did expect this change of tissue into a deadly infectuous substance, and took precautions, scientifically speaking ?
you know it's simple to take an Amphet*m*ne molecule and 'modulate' it into the direction of Mesc*line... some see colored circles, other die from liver coma, that's just science applied.
and who says that a bacteria is 'primitive' lifeform ? that is respectless
have you seen the pic where a single cell amobea defends itself with proteine rockets ?
Do you really think that Dr. Wannabe has even a minimal understanding of what nature is about ?
If he had, he'd stop this nonsense.
cheers, Tom
favourite book - Goethe - Faust
Notwithstanding astroman's continued reasonableness, there seems to be an idea put forth from the defenders & warriors of Scientific Materialism that nowhere in human history have we been as 'advanced' as we are 'now', To look at the 'primitive' cultures of a few thousand years ago and revel in our supposed current sophistication is to say that their quaint highly rationalized notions of the world are so much lesser than ours. And here's a discussion where even 40 years (a generation or so) is enough for ideas to become stale. Why? Both the ancient highly rationalized 'primitive' reality and our current systems of agreed upon reality are just that, highly rationalized and agreed upon. Woopity fucking do...
The russians seem to have had a model at one time that allowed them to find a lot of oil, and then over here we have another model that does the same. Just because the latter model is 'ours' and 'newer' that makes it suddenly imperfect? These are just models, intellectual abstractions, that were created from a process that only seeks to find the most suitable model for the current circumstance. That's the scientific method btw, something that never seeks to define the philosophical abstract notions of 'truthiness' and 'rightness' (ie, 'right' in some sense that transcends the current circumstance and becomes 'the truth'), Explanations can be tested to be either more or less suitable for a given circumstance, that's it.
It's the human element that takes a simple explanation and attempts to substitute it for the reality that's at hand, to hold the model (rather than what's in front of you) up as 'truth'.
Reducing the conversation to the level of staking out intellectual territory like it's your mating ground doesn't do anything for these theories we're discussing, they're impartial models and simple abstractions born of our brains capacity to want to describe everythign around us to the Nth degree. Modelling out vast edifices of what might have happened 'millions of years ago' so that we can feel powerful in our intellect.
The russians seem to have had a model at one time that allowed them to find a lot of oil, and then over here we have another model that does the same. Just because the latter model is 'ours' and 'newer' that makes it suddenly imperfect? These are just models, intellectual abstractions, that were created from a process that only seeks to find the most suitable model for the current circumstance. That's the scientific method btw, something that never seeks to define the philosophical abstract notions of 'truthiness' and 'rightness' (ie, 'right' in some sense that transcends the current circumstance and becomes 'the truth'), Explanations can be tested to be either more or less suitable for a given circumstance, that's it.
It's the human element that takes a simple explanation and attempts to substitute it for the reality that's at hand, to hold the model (rather than what's in front of you) up as 'truth'.
Reducing the conversation to the level of staking out intellectual territory like it's your mating ground doesn't do anything for these theories we're discussing, they're impartial models and simple abstractions born of our brains capacity to want to describe everythign around us to the Nth degree. Modelling out vast edifices of what might have happened 'millions of years ago' so that we can feel powerful in our intellect.
The problems with the bees kind of seems to closely mirror the listed effects of the newer nicotine based pesticides that have been phased into use by corporate growers. Another possible explanation stems from the practice in which commercial bees are trucked around a lot and could easily communicate a plague beyond what would have been natural). Then there's the mite/mold/bacteria plague theories...and yet we still don' thave any real answers....
Last edited by valis on Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
That's not correct Astroman. This link to Wiki clearly states that the hydrocarbons from fossil fuels "formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years."astroman wrote:oops, I've spoilt that sentence...
from a purely scientific viewpoint... Braincell's points and quotes don't convince me any more or less than Gary's - because both are theories
...and both referred to the same Wiki entry regarding Abiotic Oil, it did not read like a wierd story imho, some pros - some cons.
cheers, tom
that reminds me on a telly feature about ancient Nubia, where the Pharoahs digged their gold...valis wrote:... Both the ancient highly rationalized 'primitive' reality and our current systems of agreed upon reality are just that, highly rationalized and agreed upon. Woopity fucking do...
... Modelling out vast edifices of what might have happened 'millions of years ago' so that we can feel powerful in our intellect.
recently a smart company - btw using Russian satellite technology - re-checked the area for possible new mines
whenever they found a promising location and finally arrived ... they found the ancient egypts had already been there and exploited the spot, leaving only an empty tunnel
cheers, Tom
astroman wrote: what does he know ? the fiddling alone is beyond any reason - what are biohazard signs and regulations for in laboratories ?
who's so naive to assume any such creation can be controlled - nuclear power is a fine form of energy, but the human race is too stupid and too greedy to handle it.
cheers, Tom
favourite book - Goethe - Faust
I hope any regulations we require will not be dictated by the church like the total ban on government funded new stem cell lines. Weigh the biohazard risk of this research to the risk of dumping 26.7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually.
According to Gary, the government can't do anything right, however I disagree on this. The NIH (National Institute of Health) has had enormous success in research on cancer treatment and many other illnesses, but now for the first time in 30 years the NIH has to face budget cuts. This is a direct result of the war in IRAQ and the idiotic manned mission to mars. Let's heal people instead of killing people.
yeah, that's right.
the people that brought you cancer will cure you of it.
listen Mary Shelley, you don't have to be religious to know that this kind of engineering is madness.
the biohazard of this engineering is light years beyond co2 in the atmosphere. plants live on co2 which makes oxygen and cools the atmosphere. that number sounds like a lot of co2, but it's a drop in the hat compared to a large volcanic eruption....
valis and astro- you have crystalized my thoughts exactly.
the people that brought you cancer will cure you of it.
listen Mary Shelley, you don't have to be religious to know that this kind of engineering is madness.
the biohazard of this engineering is light years beyond co2 in the atmosphere. plants live on co2 which makes oxygen and cools the atmosphere. that number sounds like a lot of co2, but it's a drop in the hat compared to a large volcanic eruption....
valis and astro- you have crystalized my thoughts exactly.
Braincell, over the past century the US guv' has dumped INSANE quantities of nuclear, chemical & biological weapons & waste, in their own waters & those of other countries all around the world. They even put the waste in bombs & strategically drop it on other countries telling everyone they're doing it for reasons that no doubt have absolutely F all to do with why they ARE actually doing it. (although I do believe that it could indeed have mostly religious reasons) .. talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 
Also, if you want to talk about US money wasted (outside the war mongering) what about Donald Rumsfeld saying about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 TRILLION in transactions." .... So, did he say that? Is that why the financial section of the pentagon was targetted immediately afterwards? Seriously, what do you think about that? Or do you prefer not to think about it? .. Rather convenient events some might say!!
Also, if you want to talk about US money wasted (outside the war mongering) what about Donald Rumsfeld saying about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 TRILLION in transactions." .... So, did he say that? Is that why the financial section of the pentagon was targetted immediately afterwards? Seriously, what do you think about that? Or do you prefer not to think about it? .. Rather convenient events some might say!!