Real Fiero Tech

Really? Completely wrong? Source please. Comical? Maybe. Explain the recent weather pattern changes then please.

The first hit from Google brought this up-

"The 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake was an undersea megathrust earthquake of moment magnitude 9.0 that struck the Indian Ocean off the western coast of northern Sumatra, Indonesia on December 26, 2004 at 00:58:49 UTC (07:58:49 local time in Jakarta and Bangkok; 08:58:49 local time Malaysia). A couple of hours later a tsunami, a great wave or more appropriately a "wall of death" slammed across the shores of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Maldives, Somalia, South Africa and was felt even as far away as Mexico. The death toll may raise past 150,000. 80,000 deaths from Indonesia alone. More than 510,000 injured and 3-5 million people have been displaced.

The earthquake that unleashed deadly tidal waves on Asia was so powerful it made the Earth wobble on its axis and permanently altered the regional map. “Based on seismic modelling, some of the smaller islands off the south-west coast of Sumatra may have moved to the south-west by about 20 metres. That is a lot of slip.â€

lucky80 wrote:Completely wrong? Source please.

Source? Isaac Newton. F = ma. No force was applied to the earth, therefore no change in earth's rotation occured. The only way that the earth's rotation could change from a single event is if it acquired angular momentum from a meteor impacting tangentially.

Yes, the earth's axis can "wobble" due to changing mass distribution within the planet. This effect is exceptionally tiny. To even mention it is to overstate its importance. The masses are significant, but the relative motion was less than 50 yards. For comparison, 6 degrees at the surface of the earth is over 400 miles. What you said differs from reality by a factor of ~14,600.

lucky80 wrote:


Sorry, Shaun, but it was religious people, not religion that said the Earth was the center of the universe, and back then you either went along with what was believed or you were burned as a witch. Nowhere in the Bible, in any version, does it say the Earth is the center of the universe, it was common belief back then, and since the religious leaders held more power than the government leaders (in most "civilized" countries), you are correct in spirit, but not in fact. I know my history quite well, thank you. I also know most major religions quite well, though I currently don't practice any religion.

It was religious people then. Religious people teach religion. Actually the church said the earth was flat and tought people it was flat. Yes it doesnt' say that in the bible, but it was still religion and religious teachers taht made that claim. There are also a lot of things not in the bible that catholcism and christianity teach to its followers. Why is that so?

What do you think religion is? Its the practice by people that make religion what it is. If there wasn't anyone to practice a religion, then it wouldnt' exist.

lucky80 wrote:Really? Completely wrong? Source please. Comical? Maybe. Explain the recent weather pattern changes then please.

I love weather pattern changes! If they didn't change then it would be sunny here everyday of the year, the same temperature everyday of the year, the same cloud cover every day of the year, so on and so forth. And in iowa it would be flooding everyday of the year. God bless climate change. ITS NOT A BAD THING!! ITS A GOOD THING!!

Did you know that recent evidence has surfaced that places australia at the equator? And in this evidence is rocks that don't naturally belong to australia. How did they get there? The theory is that at one time, the entire planet was covered in ice. Now if this is true, then that means the earth warmed up from a global ice age all on its own with absolutely no help from carbon emissions from human beings!! OMG!! The climate changes without humans? But thats impossible!!!

Climate change occurs daily. If the climate didn't ever change then we wouldnt' be here.

You know where the climate doesnt' change? The dark side of the moon.

You know iowa is flooded this year, and the crops subsequently ruined. But I am willing to bet that within the next 2 years that the farmers there will have some of the biggest crop productions ever! Why? Because the flooding brought silt and nutrients back to the soil in the area. Think of the egyptians and the Nile river. That river flooded every year and the egyptians depended on it for a good crop. HTey didn't complain and blame it on global warming! But oh my god the climate changed and it caused flooding long before SUV's and us burning oil! But how is that possible?

Chris-Nelson wrote:EB, please empirically go through all of these assertions point by point.

Thank you. :salute:

please?

Shaun41178(2) wrote:
Climate change occurs daily. If the climate didn't ever change then we wouldnt' be here.

No it doesn't. There's a difference between weather and climate.

The point about climate having continuously changed over the course of the time is true though. Although, I don't beleive that proponents of global warming theory dispute this, rather they argue that humans have rapidly increased the speed of this change.

Sometimes when I fart, islands move 20 meters from the blast and the Earth's axial tilt changes a few degrees.

Unsafe At Any Speed wrote:

Shaun41178(2) wrote:
Climate change occurs daily. If the climate didn't ever change then we wouldnt' be here.

No it doesn't. There's a difference between weather and climate.

The point about climate having continuously changed over the course of the time is true though. Although, I don't beleive that proponents of global warming theory dispute this, rather they argue that humans have rapidly increased the speed of this change.

Al Gore can suck a cock... his movie is baseless and his graphs are misleading... Humans may be causing a couple % points on the warming trend, but it's the sun...

These beurocrats want nothing more than to tax us on our every breath. Their are real environmental problems out there, let's focus on those.

DiggityBiggity wrote:

Unsafe At Any Speed wrote:

Shaun41178(2) wrote:
Climate change occurs daily. If the climate didn't ever change then we wouldnt' be here.

No it doesn't. There's a difference between weather and climate.

The point about climate having continuously changed over the course of the time is true though. Although, I don't beleive that proponents of global warming theory dispute this, rather they argue that humans have rapidly increased the speed of this change.

Al Gore can suck a cock... his movie is baseless and his graphs are misleading... Humans may be causing a couple % points on the warming trend, but it's the sun...

These beurocrats want nothing more than to tax us on our every breath. Their are real environmental problems out there, let's focus on those.

I'm not saying that I agree with them. Rather I think it is kind of important to at least understand the basis of the opposition's argument before it's disputed. More than one post has seemed to assume that the proponents of global warming theory disregard that climate change has happened before humans, which is not true. I just wanted to clear that up.

Yes I ran off my mouth with my facts not exactly straight. Google "Benjamin Fong Chao Tsunami" He's with NASA, has a degree in earth science. It was his statements which I remembered incorrectly and I'm sure my memory was tainted with some of a less than sober conversation with a stoner/genius crackpot/conspiracy theorist friend of mine.

Anyway Dr Chao said that the earthquake that caused the tsunami, resulted from/caused a change in the tectonic plates which changed the circumference of the earth by a few millimeters and the polar axis by an inch or so.

As far as the comments about religious people vs religion, shaun, that is precisely why after going to church 2 or 3 times a week for 14 years I haven't been at all in 8 except for the occasional wedding or funeral. I have no issue with religion. I can't stand hypocrisy.

EDIT: oh yeah, the WMD stuff and smallpox equipment was from Richard Preston's book "The Devil In The Freezer". He was on a UN weapons team after Kuwait, and currently works for the CDC. That book scared the shit out of me.

DiggityBiggity wrote:EB, you need to resize your image.

How do u do dat?

Xanth wrote:Silly EB, Math is for Sinners.

LOL - so is logic....apparently. Maybe they have a calculus test at the gates of Hell, so I won't be able to enter.

Kohburn wrote:

EBSB52 wrote:

chuck wrote:Christians like science. Jesus died for all mans sins.

Uh, most don't like science.

I'm a Christian, and I love science.

I don't like theories that change ever 5 years being taught as fact because it confuses people that don't know how to think for themselves.

but sure go ahead an insult away.

PLease post examples of where scientists write findings as facts or proof. Please try to find contemporary examples. Honest, reputable scientists refrain from using the word, "proof" at all and use the word, "fact" very carefully if at all. The closest they get is to call some phenomenon a, "law." Soe refuse even that word.

If you want to hear people making BS arguments go to church or to court, they use the word, "proof" constantly, as they have to becuase they lack real evidence so they have to grandstand it.

COURT: They use degrees of proof, which is like using degrees of pregnant, silly and pathetic; you thought Salem was done.

CHURCH: They use BS about the sun shines, trees grow and birds sing, hence that's proof you can feel Jebus in your heart...... now the dish is comming around, give to my new Cadill..... er, I mean, give to Jebus.

SCIENCE: They use evidence and conclusions, perhaps laws for things like gravity. Then these findings are carefully drawn up as pier reviewed journals for their piers to pick apart. Science disproves all they can to hopefully be left with 1 hypothesis that is not disprovable, then they call that a theory, no where near calling it absolute.

Kohburn wrote:

EBSB52 wrote:You'll not admit this, but you believe in Jebus for 1 reason; your parents do/did and raised you that way.

or because of life experiences and personal realization through the process of independant thought.

EBSB52 wrote:Most people's beliefs, religious and other, are very close to that of the peope who raised them..... it's simple socialization.

"Most" people don't think for themselves, and most of the "christians" that were raised by christian and got to church twice a year and spend the rest of their life not living as one are christian in name only because they choose to call themselves one.

I think your main problem is that you are confusing organized religion with actual Christian faith.

but we've gotten into religion discussions before and it was obvious a long time ago that you are just on a soap box and uninterested in seeing another view.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or because of life experiences and personal realization through the process of independant thought.


Sounds like it's right out of a textbook. The point is, there generally isn't a whole lot of deviation from most beliefs of person that they did not receieve from their environment as they grew up.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Most" people don't think for themselves, and most of the "christians" that were raised by christian and got to church twice a year and spend the rest of their life not living as one are christian in name only because they choose to call themselves one.

Yea, I'm not neccessarily talking about going to church, I'm talking about general ideology, religious, political, etc. Activities are often seperate from ideologies, however attitudes drive actions so there is oftena correlation.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think your main problem is that you are confusing organized religion with actual Christian faith.


I don't see how you could make that conclusion. Remember, religion, even if practiced away from church, is a cult and church is a tax-free business. I realize they are different entities with different agendas, but I didn't confuse them or convolute them. Demonstrate where I've done that.

As for the cult remark, even this forum has a cult-like resemblance, I have a bad reputation, hence I'm outed in many respects. A clique at work is a form of a cult, so I'm not inferring that all religions draw the anarchist symbols and sacrifice chickens, just that they are some degree of cult; those who either don't want to play, ignore the pecking order or are refused admission are outed. An example of this is seen in this thread, I bet Brian is directly on board with my opinion here, yet he won't jump in to support me as I'm outed. I've read before in P.F.F. shit like, "I hate to admit, but I agree with EB......" That's cult-like behavior, such as licking Cliff's ball to gain credence and move up in the pecking order. Hell, they're so pathetic that they even have an enumerated system there called the rating bar to measure your place in their cult, here it's more casual and less prevalent. So is religion a cult? OF course it is. Remember Amway? That was a fucking serious cult and people figured it out and I think it essentially dissolved and resurfaced under a different name.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but we've gotten into religion discussions before and it was obvious a long time ago that you are just on a soap box and uninterested in seeing another view.


Not true, I've had theories for a long time, I just did a few minutes of research and put it to math. The correct Bible thumper answer is that there is no time relationship in heaven, but still going from a time continuum to a place where there is none still has an orifice that has a time relationship, until you get past that point. Again, it brings the, "twilight Zone" element even greater when we talk heaven has no time relationship and we're awake 24/7 and nobody works, etc...... When populations were small anda few people died everyday, it might be more pallatable to think there was an admissions process to heaven, now with 6.5B people and 150k per day dieing, well, the Bible didn't account for that....... Jebus and God works in mysterious ways..... at least it's been a while since I've heard that crap....

lucky80 wrote:Right. Science is so much more believable than religion.

1000 years ago science said the earth was the center of the universe.

500 years ago science said the earth was flat.

Today science is screaming "Global Warming". How old does science say this planet is? ~4billion years you say? How long have we been keeping track of weather patterns? ~160 years? Now I don't know what kind of education most of you had, but I would have failed my HS science project if I had made an assertion like that based on a control group that was only a .00000004% sample.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Science is so much more believable than religion.


Obvious sarcasm, but what I like about science is their approach; science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to. Science bears its evidence and begs others to disprove their assertions, religion lays down the law and calls those who even question them a bunch of liars and fools.


>>>>>>>>>>>>1000 years ago science said the earth was the center of the universe.

500 years ago science said the earth was flat.



As for the earth's shape, that's one of my favorite examples and I wan't to research who said what and when. It went from:

- flat

- round

- sphere

- oblate spheroid

It can and may change either by it actually changing shape or by some new discovery. In the early days, as most things wre governed by the church, they probably did use absolute words, today and the last 100 years or more they have gotten away from that and they use words like, "evidence" and, "findings."



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Today science is screaming "Global Warming". How old does science say this planet is? ~4billion years you say? How long have we been keeping track of weather patterns? ~160 years? Now I don't know what kind of education most of you had, but I would have failed my HS science project if I had made an assertion like that based on a control group that was only a .00000004% sample.


Science is drawing evidence from the depletion of the ozone layers as probablility that we will begin to heat up. They use things like the depletion of polar ice as that we are warming, then draw conclusions to that effect. So we have just started using petrolium-based fuels just over 100 years now, the ozone has depleted recently, polar ice has been declining for X number of years, so they draw a correlation. Can they show evidence in a vacuum that burning petroleum fuels depletes the ozone? Can they establish that ozon depletion causes global warming and polar ice melting? Is there another alternate cause or another simultaneous cause? These are all questions that science would beg you to answer, the scientific model; one that asks questions rather than call you a fool for asking - get it?

4 billion years I say, no, science states 3.5 to 4.5B years or so. They do so thru dating methods. Are they wrong? Become a scientist and disprove them, they would love you to. Become and minister, father, etc and disprove the Bible, they will oust you. Gte what my theme is? Science might be wrong all or in part, they are just very honorable in their approach as compared to the pathetic approach religion takes.

chuck wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080610/ts ... 2ltj4PLBIF Your scientific dating guesses just went from 120 million years to 40 million years. How long can the guessing game keep up until you start to doubt it?

I read the entire article and then word-checked it and didn't find teh word, "proof" or, "prove." So what they have done is to revise or at least draw criticism to their previous theory, right? Are they revising their theory or deciding whether they should revise it? Are they possibly looking for a coincidental factor? The thing is, sciene states all day long that they don't know and are excited about these findings, religion, when it is discoverd that new evidence demonstrates that their beliefs are BS, they call the discoverers satanists trying to test the faith of their followers. Can you guys see my point here is not who's right or wrong, but which method is honest and credible? Methodology: Christianisty and most/all religions are not credible.


"The investigators, led by Nathan Smith of the University of Chicago, say the two dinosaurs are so similar the two land masses of South America and Australia could not have been separated for so many millions of years beforehand."

It is possible that these dinosaurs did evolve in simular fashion in different time frames, never know. There is no, "proof" just educated guesses. Want proof, go to court or church. Every time a guy gets convicted with PROOF and then exonerated by more reliable contradictory PROOF, then the original PROOF is BS. Just like the PROOF they offer for sale in church is the same BS, even tho it might accidentally be right. Get it guys, I'm just critiquing the methodology, not the truth.

Shaun41178(2) wrote:

lucky80 wrote:Right. Science is so much more believable than religion.

1000 years ago science said the earth was the center of the universe.

500 years ago science said the earth was flat.

Actually religion said the earth was the center of the universe and it was science that proved otherwise.

Actually religion said the earth was flat, and science proved it wasn't.

if you didn't go along with the church you were a heretic and was burned or excommunicated. Galileo was excommunicated from the catholic church because he said the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Excommunication meant that when you died you were going to hell, no way around it. I mean seriously, do you think someone is going to hell because some guy with a white pointy hat sitting in a chair and his fellow minions say so? Who aer they to judge?

Learn your history please.

200 years ago the church claimed we were the only forms of life in the whole universe. I think if you asked the pope that question today, he might not know what to say considering what science has realized as far as how life can live in the most inhospitable places even if it is in the microbial fashion. Its still life. And if that is possible, who is to say other intelligent life isn't possible.

Global warming is a hoax. Some scientists are idiots. Not everyone is buying into it. Todays youths are being brainwashed and its going to be used to create a tax just for being alive.

Hell Australians are already being taxed on newborn babies. Why? Because of their "carbon footprint" that the babies are going to leave on the planet. Yep being taxed as soon as you are born. Not sure if it has to be paid every year, or just at birth, but I am sure its going to be a tax that will have to be paid every year just like when you have to get new license plate tags.

Did you know when license tags were first introduced, it was done on the premise that it would help find stolen cars, and that you would only need to ever buy just one? Hell it was an easy sell to the public because who wants their car stolen and not able to be found? Yep renewals didn't exist, you bought one plate and that was it. Now you have to buy a new one every year.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if you didn't go along with the church you were a heretic and was burned or excommunicated. Galileo was excommunicated from the catholic church because he said the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Excommunication meant that when you died you were going to hell, no way around it. I mean seriously, do you think someone is going to hell because some guy with a white pointy hat sitting in a chair and his fellow minions say so? Who aer they to judge?


Exactly, Darwin's 5-year expodition of the Gallapigo Islands was funded by the church, so many of his findings were not detailed until years after his death; he had to be careful how he presented them. Who is called the father of genetics? Is it Mendelin or something like that? W/o reserching it, he did genetics research on plants and made theories of it, he was right on, but didn't get credit for it until after he was long dead. I think he was alive in the 1700's. The thinking then was that Jebus decided who looked like what, not some silly icky gooey stuff inside your body called genes and chromosomes. Remember, they did surgeries on people w/o gloves and w/o washing hands between them in that era.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>200 years ago the church claimed we were the only forms of life in the whole universe. I think if you asked the pope that question today, he might not know what to say considering what science has realized as far as how life can live in the most inhospitable places even if it is in the microbial fashion. Its still life. And if that is possible, who is to say other intelligent life isn't possible.


Yea, that will fuck the church if they find life on Mars.... especially if they are Martians, green in color with a cyclopse eye elevated from their forehead on an appendage. They will look at cartoons as brilliant!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Global warming is a hoax. Some scientists are idiots. Not everyone is buying into it. Todays youths are being brainwashed and its going to be used to create a tax just for being alive.


I dunno, is it? WHat's causing the polar melts? Just a cycle or???? I donno.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hell Australians are already being taxed on newborn babies. Why? Because of their "carbon footprint" that the babies are going to leave on the planet. Yep being taxed as soon as you are born. Not sure if it has to be paid every year, or just at birth, but I am sure its going to be a tax that will have to be paid every year just like when you have to get new license plate tags.


Good, here in the US we give tax incentives to have babies, something we really need - more fucking people. The rest of the world has caught on far before us in that we have too mnay people,they just can't control it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you know when license tags were first introduced, it was done on the premise that it would help find stolen cars, and that you would only need to ever buy just one? Hell it was an easy sell to the public because who wants their car stolen and not able to be found? Yep renewals didn't exist, you bought one plate and that was it. Now you have to buy a new one every year.


Is that to say we don't need road taxes? They have to come from somewhere, unless we apply Brian's modle of no taxes yet roads just grow from the ground.

Shaun41178(2) wrote:Just a sidenote and a derail of the original topic, but do you know why the US govt gave GM and the big 3 huge tax breaks to build SUV's instead of giving tax breaks to invest money into building more fuel efficient cars?

Its because the gas guzzling suv's got horrible gas mileage. The worse mileage it gets, the more gas you have to buy, the more gas you have to buy, the more tax revenue is generated for the federal govt. Its a fucking scam!!

California has passed a ton of laws to have all these super fuel efficient vehicles to be on the road, and in the meantime their tax revenue on gas has gone down the shitter compared to what it used to be. So they have to raise the taxes on it!

Just think about it, if people stopped driving completely and used public transportation or 80 mph skooters to get around, the govt would lose billions in revenue every year which would have to be made up somewhere else.

They don't want that of course, which is why fuel economy hasn't changed much in the past 25 years. Hondas in the 80's were getting 40-50 mpg. What do we get today from hondas? 35-40. And thats considered good by most people. WTF happened to 40-50?

I dunno man, I think the car makers produce what sells. There was a greater market for SUV's, hence they made more. If they lose tax revs due to fewer gallons sold, do u think they have a problem raising the tax per gallon sold? Come on, I don't think so.

Unsafe At Any Speed wrote:Okay, of all the arguments you could've picked, you picked this one? The logistics of sorting people into heaven? Weak point. I mean seriously, if an entity has the power to create all that exsists and there is some sort of other plane such as heaven, I don't think normal time constraints are going to apply to either.

I do agree there are many flaws with organized religion, but this argument is weak. If you want to dwell on time constraints why not point out the conflict between the age of the planet as chronologically explained in the Old Testament and scientific dating?

No, I don't think it's weak, it's jus another example that does 2 things:

- Evidences the rediculous methodology of religious logic

- Brings religion further out of our grasp and further into the Twilight Zone, making it more incomprehensable


We've discussed that here already, as far as the dating; long earth vs short earth. My argument here just demonstrates the improbablity of the logistics of the so-called process of going north or south after death. Of course true thumpers will use it as a test of faith and push them even further to the myth of Jebus.

For the record, I'mnot saying there is no God or that Jebus / God isn't real and existant, just that it seems very improbable.