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

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.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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?

On Aug 25, 10:03*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To continue with your stove metaphor; what if it takes 5 000 years to
reduce the heat by 1 notch? 5 000 years of doing everything right.

It's too much effort for most people and they are content to be
bamboozled by the people who conduct tests (sponsored by fuel creation
or fuel intensive industries) that show that mankind is innocent as a
lamb and have had no effect on global warming

This is an unpopular viewpoint however. I expect to be flamed for it.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Errol
wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:03*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To continue with your stove metaphor; what if it takes 5 000 years to
reduce the heat by 1 notch? 5 000 years of doing everything right.

It's too much effort for most people and they are content to be
bamboozled by the people who conduct tests (sponsored by fuel creation
or fuel intensive industries) that show that mankind is innocent as a
lamb and have had no effect on global warming

This is an unpopular viewpoint however. I expect to be flamed for it.

If we can't be sure that we can decrease global warming measurably on
a millennial scale, how can we be so sure we will dramatically
increase the global temperature in a much shorter period of time?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Errol" wrote in message
...
On Aug 25, 10:03 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To continue with your stove metaphor; what if it takes 5 000 years to
reduce the heat by 1 notch? 5 000 years of doing everything right.

It's too much effort for most people and they are content to be
bamboozled by the people who conduct tests (sponsored by fuel creation
or fuel intensive industries) that show that mankind is innocent as a
lamb and have had no effect on global warming

This is an unpopular viewpoint however. I expect to be flamed for it.

= If all this GW theory is true then its taken about 60 years to cause the
problem, so hopefully a similar or shorter time period we can put it right.
And if it took 5000 years to put it down one notch that would imply to me
that if that effort hadn't been made it might well have gone up a lot, like
1000 notches.

On Aug 25, 4:03*am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
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?

Geez, that sounds a lot like the way adults approach the world.
Children, on the other hand, want mommy and daddy to be there planning
everything out and taking care of them and seeing to it that they
don't have to experience any scary thoughts.

So I guess there's a consistency after all; the children among us want
magical answers, and the adults deal with the hard facts that science
teaches.

-tg

Giga Giga 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?

However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the
fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

On Aug 25, 7:07*am, BAR wrote:
Giga Giga 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?

However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the
* fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

That's interesting. Could you please provide the data to support your
claim?

-tg

tg wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:07 am, BAR wrote:
Giga Giga 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?
However, the more sun light that is shed on the actual "data" that is
used as the basis for proponents of the human caused global warming the
fewer the scientists who support human caused global warming become.

That's interesting. Could you please provide the data to support your
claim?

Yes, it is all in the public domain. If you keep up with current events
you shouldn't have any problem finding the information on your own. Or
if you are just looking at the issue from one side then you will never
see the info and it will not matter what data I provide to support my
position.

The most interesting thing is that "Climate Change" legislation in the
US has suddenly taken a back seat to "Health Insurance Reform", its
current name of the day. Why nobody would support climate change
legislation when they found out that it was just a means to transfer
income.