wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:03:33 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), BOfL
wrote:
How can there be an idea of perfection or a perfect state of being, if
such a thing has never existed or been experienced previously? Such a
concept can only come from an extrinsic source, something outside of
the human experience, ergo the possibility of "God.") Perhaps
someone sometime will provide some reasonable answers to this
conundrum. No one has yet, to my satisfaction.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
And what answers would be adequate?
Many want proof, but dont know what the proof should be.
BOfL
What I was hoping to do was to point out what seems to me to be a bit
of an irony - a contradiction of dogmas of those that are wholesale
subscribers to global warming alarmism and also adopt a stoic,
clinical definition of evolution and death. It's difficult for me to
imagine how the conflict of those perspectives can be reconciled. I'm
more than willing to be enlightened if for some reason I'm confused in
comprehending those perspectives.
Some things can be changed by human beings and some things can't. If
global
warming is caused by human beings then presumably we can stop it as well.
If
global warming is likely to lead to consequences we don't want then we may
want to stop it. Also we seem to have the means to stop it or alleviate
it,
by reducing co2 output, and maybe other techniques. So if we can and want
to
stop it why not? Its the same principle we apply to everything, for
instance
if you are uncomfortable, and you can change that, then why not? If you
can
forsee that leaving a pan on the stove is going to burn what you are
cooking
then turn down the heat or take it off the cooker?
I don't necessarily disagree with this. It is a point of contention,
though, as to whether or not the pan is being left on the stove with
the heat on. Even still, to elaborate on your analogy, if it is
obvious that the pan is going to be warming by a measurable degree
over the next 1000 years or so, who's to say that it won't be
something that will bring about an adaptive evolutioinary change,
perhaps even a desirable one, as local climate change has done for the
ground finch;
The desirable adaptive change, IMHO, will be better use of resources, such
as recycling, alternative energy sources and greater protection for the
natural enviroment. This is good whether AGW is real or not.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8QR...age&q=&f=false
Science has also determined that the sun will eventually exhaust its
fuel to the point that it will bring about cataclysmic change, a
deadly change for life is it is now. Should humankind also resist an
inevitability which appears to be a part of the natural order of the
universe, a matter of atrophy?
Of course. I think this not likely to happen for billions of years. If we
are not all over this and quite a few other galaxies, possibly in various
dimensions by then, I would be shocked. Also we will almost certainly have
the means to either relocate the Earth to another star or even repair Sol if
we really want to.
I'm not confessing this to be my view.
I'm simply questioning current, popular thought.
I personally think that if climate change could compel man to find a
way to expand out across the universe, as it compels birds to evolve
on a microevolutionary scale, climate change may not be such an
alarming peril afterall.
Not sure there is a need to compel human beings to explore, its naturally in
us, and I'm sure it will happen.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access