Finally, an environmentalist who is friggin honest!!! I'm so tired of people claiming they are against ANWR because of it may ruin the sex lives of friggin elk! I don't care about the elk that lives thousands of miles away, who will just have to find another way place to slap the fat. I've gotten desperate enough to do it beside a dumpster in my high-school days... Trust me, the elk will get by just fine!
Of course, we both know that we are going to burn the oil anyway. Personally, I'd just much rather it come from Alaska than from some place full of people that want you and I dead. I also like the idea of using 100% of the profit off the oil that comes from ANWR to invest in renewable, enviro-friendly sources of energy (although, I seem to be the only one bringing that idea up! Bush quit taking my calls after he got elected.)
OK now that I got that off my chest, I need to get back to giving you serious props for telling it like it is! I'm impressed.
Scientists with the federal Energy Department paid $4.6 million to drill for the hot ice just below the surface of the Milne Point well, which is situated northwest of Prudhoe Bay
I guess Prudhoe Bay is OK. As long as it's not in ANWR a few hundred miles away. I guess there is no wildlife at Prudhoe Bay.
What for? Surely this is just another presidential exercise in sticking it to the Commies?
True, but there are other benefits. Learning how to colonize space would be a biggie in my book. Besides, if we can't go to the moon, we don't stand a chance at going to Mars, Europa, Titan, or possibly beyond our solar system. The moon is the first step.
I can't think of any reason why bullying shouldn't be protected by the first amendment.
Hate speech? Racial slurs? Slander? Is there a difference between calling someone "shorty" and calling someone a "(insert your most vile racial slur here)"?
(of course, I assume we are talking about verbal bullying and not the weggie kind)
None of the activities you mention are speech. Posting nasty messages about someone online clearly is speech. Don't tell me you can't see the difference.
Bullying can include threats, slander and/or attacks. For example, years ago on an old dialup BBS, someone sent me an ASCII bomb that hosed my computer so bad it had to be restarted. While I saw it as a learning experience and laughed it off, others may not be so thick skinned. Dialup BBS's are gone, but I understand modern equivalents can be used for even more nastiness. While I don't play with IRC anymore, I understand you can do nasty things with someone's computer through it. Is that considered free speech? I does qualify as bullying.
Is calling the 10-yr old chubby girl "Fatty Patty" until she breaks down in tears free speech? What about racial slurs? I guess what I'm asking is: Is hate speech protected under free speech?
While I think this law is stupid as well, it is because of enforcement reasons, not free speech.
Give me a friggin break! Since when is bullying protected under free speech rights? What the hell is NOT protected under free speech? Can I smoke at work as a protest against the proletariat? Can I smack around some ACLU lawyers to show my displeasure with NAMBLA? Would the ACLU protect my right to do so? Could 9-11 be considered "Protest Terrorism"?
I love the Bill of Rights more than the next guy, but the ACLU needs to get a friggin grip!
Actually, there is a GPS in the cameras that tells a central computer where the camera is and which direction it is pointing. The computer calculates where the line should be and draws it.
It's a bit more complicated than that, but that is it in a nutshell.
Also, I understand that it costs about $10K a game to do, or at least it did when it first came out.
They believe they are so smart and enlightened that if only the government would force everyone to live to the precise ideals pictured in their heads, the world would be a better place, and they would feel all emotionally fulfilled as self-loathing humans.
That sounds the exact same complaint against religious fundamentalists.
Watch a sporting event such as football or especially baseball. You will see the ads placed around the stadium change. I'm not talking about those "scrolling" signs, those are real, but computer generated signs that are not really at the stadium.
Also, how do they move that yellow line so fast in football?
I am fairly crazy myself. I think most human beings do not survive childhood undamaged. What's interesting is all the different ways we can be damaged and crazy, and still remain sane in other ways. Just because someone's mental abilities have been damaged by being forced to accept illogical, unproveable assumptions on faith does not mean they aren't still smarter than me. And just because I feel they are absolutely wrong about this one point does not mean they can't be right about others. Also, falling victim to a cleverly devised con does not necessarily make a person any less than someone who hasn't.
Fair enough. I agree that religion can be a damaging factor in people's lives, especially childhood. You don't need to look beyond many of the world's conflicts to understand that.
I guess our main disagreement is from based on this: I see the Universe as so large and complex that there is no way my feeble mind can grasp it. I see no possible way that such balance can come from such chaos to make it all exist, much less work. I see the mathematical odds of random chance creating not just life, but organs as complex as eyes and features such as self awareness to be too great to happen without Divine intervention.
You see the Universe as so large and complex that there is no way our feeble minds can grasp it. If there is something we don't understand, we are naturally inclined to believe it must be "magic" or some other explanation that we CAN understand. However, with all of our technological advances, we understand that what was yesterday's magic can be explained with simple science. To continue to believe in nonsensical explanations for the mis or not understood is pure ignorance caused by a failure to understand history.
Am I close? If so, at least we can agree on the first part about our feeble minds.
btw... what religion do you practice? Since you asked... Basic, plain-jane Christian. If it ain't in the book, we don't do it. For example, confession, no marriage for priests, Mardis Gras, fish on Friday, the Pope and so on are man-made rules. I guess it would be close to Baptist without all the no-dancing and book burning BS. I remember as a teen in a youth-group, someone asked if it was a sin to kiss. The youth leader responded with, "it's a sin NOT to, just don't let it get out of hand!" I am currently split between two churches. One my wife likes, one I like. Basically, they are both pretty much the same; small, southern, tight-knit communities (not communes!) One of the preacher's daughter watches our child twice a week while my wife teaches (so we are obviously not Catholic).
I'm certainly not super-Christian and not nearly as "devout" as I should be. But, I am a believer and I know I have much room for improvement. I am not without sin so I certainly will not cast the first stone. You could even say I live in a glass house as far as that goes! Still, I don't take kindly to people who insult my religion or religion as a whole. I just don't think it's anyone's place to insult someone based on religion. To me, that is no different than someone religious ridiculing someone who is NOT religious and trying to force their beliefs on them.
The biggest contributing factor to my views on religion came when I was in Kuwait for the Army in 1992-1993. I was looking for a souvenir to take home to my mother who took my deployment harder than I did. I was in a jewelry store looking at a gold medallion that said "Allah" in Arabic. I told the shop owner that I wasn't sure as I was a Christian and didn't want give my mother the gift of blasphemy. The shop owner looked at me confused and said, "Why? Allah is Allah. God is God. Your God is the same as my God and is the same as the Jewish God." I think it was the fact that he said that he and a Jew worshiped the same God that threw me the most. This showed me that this guy's beliefs were just as strong and just as valid as my own. So I put away my cross-shaped dagger and decided to let him live. (OK, that last part was a joke)
I think your wrong... By definition all people who label themselves and practice a religion are closed minded.
Depends on the religion. I'm not so conceited as to label my religion the one and true religion. While I believe it is, it would be wrong to assume that your faith is any less correct than my own. Of course, there is a limit. Those that kill in the name of their Religion of Peace or those that believe in something as ridiculous as Xenu get frowned upon, although I normally won't come out and say it out of respect.
Do you have any proof that your religion is the correct one? Nope. That's why it's called faith.
What are the odds that you were born into the correct religion? I don't think your stupid, but you are ignorant and brainwashed. Nil. I found my religion on my own. I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to call me ignorant. I researched several religions before I found the one I am in now. Is self-brainwashing possible?
Actually, I just wanted to point out the hilarity of you saying that Plato, Aristotle or Aquinas were deranged. Maybe an Einstein quote will be better received:
Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Do you consider the Theory or Relativity to be the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic
Your appeal to authority is equally pathetic, the last refuge of a person who's arguments have all been demolished You obviously have no understanding of the Authority to which I appeal.
I was not trying to prove first cause. My studies in philosophy show that there are two sides to that coin, both with valid arguments and my link reflected that. That debate has gone on for centuries and it's not going to be solved on a slashdot thread. My point was merely to show you some of the people you consider to be either insane or mentally incompetent because they have argued on a side different than your own. I think it shows how bigoted and conceited you are to think that those who have different beliefs or views than your own are somewhat less than you are.
So I see your Appeal to Authority and raise you one Appeal to Ridicule, an Appeal to Novelty and at least three Ad Hominems.
Sorry dude, but the OP isn't stereotyping your religion, Christianity I assume. He's stereotyping the lunatics of Christianity: creationists. Saying creationists are rabid lunatics is equivalent to saying jihadis are. Both are fringe cults that have some *local* support in some backwards communities, but are not representative of their wider religions: Christianity and Islam respectively.
Maybe so, but anyone who believes in God, Goddess or even a series of Gods, believes in Creationism (ID however could refer to a "seeded" or terraformed planet). Now if he was referring to some sort of back-woods book-burning witch-dunking zealots, then he may want to look for a term other than Creationist that encompasses all faiths.
Religions, as a rule, mix common sense rules with some amount of logic-defying ridiculousness.
You may be interested in First Cause. (AKA, the Cosmological argument)
I am not so conceited as to think I hold a candle to historical philosophical figures such as Plato, Aristotle or Aquinas. I think it's funny that you want to say that these founders of modern philosophy are suffer from some sort of mass psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia. It is the definition of Irony that you would accuse the founders of logic to be guilty of logic-defying ridiculousness. It would require an unfounded religious-like faith in the existence of your own superior intellect to think that you at a level beyond the great minds of history.
Not when the first thing you should do is turn off the heater. Wow. You're proving the point.
Ah, I get it now. You must live in an area that has separate controls for AC and Heat. In the places I've lived (Texas and Michigan), there is one thermostat with a switch that has the options of AC-Fan-Off-Heat. It is impossible to have more than one item selected at a time. So when you say someone has the heat on and turns on the AC, I can only assume that the heat gets turned off at the same time.
In my case, yes. I thought that quoting the Book of Genesis would give that away. However, Creationism, or the belief that a supreme being created... well everything... is not limited to Judeo-Christian beliefs. For that matter, every major religion believes in Creationism, so my defense of that belief is not necessarily a defense of Judaism or Christianity, but religion as a whole.
Yes. I take it personally when my belief system is used as a synonym for stupid, ignorant or "intellectually backwards". Just as, say a Muslim would takes it personally when Islam is equated to terrorism, or sci-fi fan is equated with "Trekker" (or Trekki, if forget which). I can usually take someone hitting a nerve in stride, but that nerve has been rubbed raw.
The reason I say you'd have to buy into Creationism, is because in Creationism, God created man, and no other species. That would be the only explanation for how an intelligent species could exist without there being the possibility for other intelligent species.
Well, there is nothing that says we are not the first intelligent species in the universe. I agree that it is HIGHLY unlikely, but someone has to be the first. Also don't assume that everyone who believes that God created man believes that God stopped there.
It's not that Creationists lack common sense. It's that they are so rabid about anything that might possibly in some world conceivably be a challenge to their beliefs, that they refuse to accept anything outside their little book. If they were open-minded at all, they wouldn't be pure Creationists. Just that simple.
There are "jihadis" that are even more rabid in their beliefs, but to say that all Muslims are equally closed minded is just as offensive as your argument. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you mean any disrespect, but stereotyping religions is no different using stereotypes as a basis for racism.
But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED?
Well, that's the Catch-22 we all face. If global warming wipes out man-kind as many have suggested, or at least a large portion of it, many will say, "See, we told you so but you wouldn't listen. Now see what YOU did." Even if all forms of energy are banned, you'll say, "YOU waited too long and now it's too late. YOU should've listened!" Of course, any theories that global warming is a natural form of climate change (change, meaning warmer or cooler, it has to go one way or the other!) will be rejected outright.
On the other hand, if disaster doesn't strike and global warming is no big deal, then people like you will pay yourselves on the back saying, "Good thing we sounded the alarm or we'd all be dead now. Good job everyone!"
Basic probability also suggests that it is extremely unlikely that we are an isolated occurrence...You'd have to buy into Creationism to think that such as we could never have happened anywhere else.
That's like saying "You have to attend Star Trek conventions and speak Klingon to believe in intelligent life outside our solar system". Just as there are whacked out "Creationists" who believe the Earth was created in 6 24-hr periods, there are whacked out groups that believe in extraterrestrial life. Need I bring up Xenu or that cult wearing Nike's that castrated themselves and committed suicide thinking a comet was the "mother ship"?. There are whack jobs in any belief system.
Why do you consider Creationism and common sense to be mutually exclusive? I believe in God, which means I have to accept that "God created the heavens and the earth" (in that order:-). However, I'm not so naive as to limit an infinite God to a single planet, with a single intelligent species. There is nothing in the Bible that states that man is alone in the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, an environmentalist who is friggin honest!!! I'm so tired of people claiming they are against ANWR because of it may ruin the sex lives of friggin elk! I don't care about the elk that lives thousands of miles away, who will just have to find another way place to slap the fat. I've gotten desperate enough to do it beside a dumpster in my high-school days... Trust me, the elk will get by just fine!
Of course, we both know that we are going to burn the oil anyway. Personally, I'd just much rather it come from Alaska than from some place full of people that want you and I dead. I also like the idea of using 100% of the profit off the oil that comes from ANWR to invest in renewable, enviro-friendly sources of energy (although, I seem to be the only one bringing that idea up! Bush quit taking my calls after he got elected.)
OK now that I got that off my chest, I need to get back to giving you serious props for telling it like it is! I'm impressed.
Why ruin Alaska for natural gas?
We are already drilling at Prudhoe Bay. Are you implying that the drilling there has done no damage? The why not drill at ANWR?
Scientists with the federal Energy Department paid $4.6 million to drill for the hot ice just below the surface of the Milne Point well, which is situated northwest of Prudhoe Bay
I guess Prudhoe Bay is OK. As long as it's not in ANWR a few hundred miles away. I guess there is no wildlife at Prudhoe Bay.
What for? Surely this is just another presidential exercise in sticking it to the Commies?
True, but there are other benefits. Learning how to colonize space would be a biggie in my book. Besides, if we can't go to the moon, we don't stand a chance at going to Mars, Europa, Titan, or possibly beyond our solar system. The moon is the first step.
I can't think of any reason why bullying shouldn't be protected by the first amendment.
Hate speech? Racial slurs? Slander? Is there a difference between calling someone "shorty" and calling someone a "(insert your most vile racial slur here)"?
(of course, I assume we are talking about verbal bullying and not the weggie kind)
None of the activities you mention are speech. Posting nasty messages about someone online clearly is speech. Don't tell me you can't see the difference.
Bullying can include threats, slander and/or attacks. For example, years ago on an old dialup BBS, someone sent me an ASCII bomb that hosed my computer so bad it had to be restarted. While I saw it as a learning experience and laughed it off, others may not be so thick skinned. Dialup BBS's are gone, but I understand modern equivalents can be used for even more nastiness. While I don't play with IRC anymore, I understand you can do nasty things with someone's computer through it. Is that considered free speech? I does qualify as bullying.
Is calling the 10-yr old chubby girl "Fatty Patty" until she breaks down in tears free speech? What about racial slurs? I guess what I'm asking is: Is hate speech protected under free speech?
Someone talks shit, get up in their face and make them back it up or back the fuck off.
They may be kinda hard for the crippled kid who receives shit every day because he has to use a walker.
While I think this law is stupid as well, it is because of enforcement reasons, not free speech.
Give me a friggin break! Since when is bullying protected under free speech rights? What the hell is NOT protected under free speech? Can I smoke at work as a protest against the proletariat? Can I smack around some ACLU lawyers to show my displeasure with NAMBLA? Would the ACLU protect my right to do so? Could 9-11 be considered "Protest Terrorism"?
I love the Bill of Rights more than the next guy, but the ACLU needs to get a friggin grip!
I could be wrong, but I believe that was an XP limitation. You are correct though, if you want to go beyond 4GB, you must go to 64-bit.
I assume that the article is talking about 64-bit, other wise it would be saying, "In order to get maximum performance from Vista, Max Out the RAM!"
Actually, there is a GPS in the cameras that tells a central computer where the camera is and which direction it is pointing. The computer calculates where the line should be and draws it.
It's a bit more complicated than that, but that is it in a nutshell.
Also, I understand that it costs about $10K a game to do, or at least it did when it first came out.
They believe they are so smart and enlightened that if only the government would force everyone to live to the precise ideals pictured in their heads, the world would be a better place, and they would feel all emotionally fulfilled as self-loathing humans.
That sounds the exact same complaint against religious fundamentalists.
Maybe now when Lucas re-remakes the Star Wars movies, we'll see some good acting!
Watch a sporting event such as football or especially baseball. You will see the ads placed around the stadium change. I'm not talking about those "scrolling" signs, those are real, but computer generated signs that are not really at the stadium.
Also, how do they move that yellow line so fast in football?
I have to wonder if qemu and the kernel's kvm will allow me to dedicate an entire core to a DOS image.
Or you could just boot off of a DOS formatted USB key. I remember hearing that the Athlon64 would run all OS's down to DOS 2, I believe.
I am fairly crazy myself. I think most human beings do not survive childhood undamaged. What's interesting is all the different ways we can be damaged and crazy, and still remain sane in other ways. Just because someone's mental abilities have been damaged by being forced to accept illogical, unproveable assumptions on faith does not mean they aren't still smarter than me. And just because I feel they are absolutely wrong about this one point does not mean they can't be right about others. Also, falling victim to a cleverly devised con does not necessarily make a person any less than someone who hasn't.
Fair enough. I agree that religion can be a damaging factor in people's lives, especially childhood. You don't need to look beyond many of the world's conflicts to understand that.
I guess our main disagreement is from based on this:
I see the Universe as so large and complex that there is no way my feeble mind can grasp it. I see no possible way that such balance can come from such chaos to make it all exist, much less work. I see the mathematical odds of random chance creating not just life, but organs as complex as eyes and features such as self awareness to be too great to happen without Divine intervention.
You see the Universe as so large and complex that there is no way our feeble minds can grasp it. If there is something we don't understand, we are naturally inclined to believe it must be "magic" or some other explanation that we CAN understand. However, with all of our technological advances, we understand that what was yesterday's magic can be explained with simple science. To continue to believe in nonsensical explanations for the mis or not understood is pure ignorance caused by a failure to understand history.
Am I close? If so, at least we can agree on the first part about our feeble minds.
btw... what religion do you practice?
Since you asked...
Basic, plain-jane Christian. If it ain't in the book, we don't do it. For example, confession, no marriage for priests, Mardis Gras, fish on Friday, the Pope and so on are man-made rules. I guess it would be close to Baptist without all the no-dancing and book burning BS. I remember as a teen in a youth-group, someone asked if it was a sin to kiss. The youth leader responded with, "it's a sin NOT to, just don't let it get out of hand!" I am currently split between two churches. One my wife likes, one I like. Basically, they are both pretty much the same; small, southern, tight-knit communities (not communes!) One of the preacher's daughter watches our child twice a week while my wife teaches (so we are obviously not Catholic).
I'm certainly not super-Christian and not nearly as "devout" as I should be. But, I am a believer and I know I have much room for improvement. I am not without sin so I certainly will not cast the first stone. You could even say I live in a glass house as far as that goes! Still, I don't take kindly to people who insult my religion or religion as a whole. I just don't think it's anyone's place to insult someone based on religion. To me, that is no different than someone religious ridiculing someone who is NOT religious and trying to force their beliefs on them.
The biggest contributing factor to my views on religion came when I was in Kuwait for the Army in 1992-1993. I was looking for a souvenir to take home to my mother who took my deployment harder than I did. I was in a jewelry store looking at a gold medallion that said "Allah" in Arabic. I told the shop owner that I wasn't sure as I was a Christian and didn't want give my mother the gift of blasphemy. The shop owner looked at me confused and said, "Why? Allah is Allah. God is God. Your God is the same as my God and is the same as the Jewish God." I think it was the fact that he said that he and a Jew worshiped the same God that threw me the most. This showed me that this guy's beliefs were just as strong and just as valid as my own. So I put away my cross-shaped dagger and decided to let him live. (OK, that last part was a joke)
I think your wrong... By definition all people who label themselves and practice a religion are closed minded.
Depends on the religion. I'm not so conceited as to label my religion the one and true religion. While I believe it is, it would be wrong to assume that your faith is any less correct than my own. Of course, there is a limit. Those that kill in the name of their Religion of Peace or those that believe in something as ridiculous as Xenu get frowned upon, although I normally won't come out and say it out of respect.
Do you have any proof that your religion is the correct one?
Nope. That's why it's called faith.
What are the odds that you were born into the correct religion? I don't think your stupid, but you are ignorant and brainwashed.
Nil. I found my religion on my own. I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to call me ignorant. I researched several religions before I found the one I am in now. Is self-brainwashing possible?
Your appeal to authority is equally pathetic, the last refuge of a person who's arguments have all been demolished
You obviously have no understanding of the Authority to which I appeal.
I was not trying to prove first cause. My studies in philosophy show that there are two sides to that coin, both with valid arguments and my link reflected that. That debate has gone on for centuries and it's not going to be solved on a slashdot thread. My point was merely to show you some of the people you consider to be either insane or mentally incompetent because they have argued on a side different than your own. I think it shows how bigoted and conceited you are to think that those who have different beliefs or views than your own are somewhat less than you are.
So I see your Appeal to Authority and raise you one Appeal to Ridicule, an Appeal to Novelty and at least three Ad Hominems.
Sorry dude, but the OP isn't stereotyping your religion, Christianity I assume. He's stereotyping the lunatics of Christianity: creationists. Saying creationists are rabid lunatics is equivalent to saying jihadis are. Both are fringe cults that have some *local* support in some backwards communities, but are not representative of their wider religions: Christianity and Islam respectively.
Maybe so, but anyone who believes in God, Goddess or even a series of Gods, believes in Creationism (ID however could refer to a "seeded" or terraformed planet). Now if he was referring to some sort of back-woods book-burning witch-dunking zealots, then he may want to look for a term other than Creationist that encompasses all faiths.
Religions, as a rule, mix common sense rules with some amount of logic-defying ridiculousness.
You may be interested in First Cause. (AKA, the Cosmological argument)
I am not so conceited as to think I hold a candle to historical philosophical figures such as Plato, Aristotle or Aquinas. I think it's funny that you want to say that these founders of modern philosophy are suffer from some sort of mass psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia. It is the definition of Irony that you would accuse the founders of logic to be guilty of logic-defying ridiculousness. It would require an unfounded religious-like faith in the existence of your own superior intellect to think that you at a level beyond the great minds of history.
Not when the first thing you should do is turn off the heater. Wow. You're proving the point.
Ah, I get it now. You must live in an area that has separate controls for AC and Heat. In the places I've lived (Texas and Michigan), there is one thermostat with a switch that has the options of AC-Fan-Off-Heat. It is impossible to have more than one item selected at a time. So when you say someone has the heat on and turns on the AC, I can only assume that the heat gets turned off at the same time.
the judeo-christian god no doubt.
In my case, yes. I thought that quoting the Book of Genesis would give that away. However, Creationism, or the belief that a supreme being created... well everything... is not limited to Judeo-Christian beliefs. For that matter, every major religion believes in Creationism, so my defense of that belief is not necessarily a defense of Judaism or Christianity, but religion as a whole.
Hit a nerve, I see.
Yes. I take it personally when my belief system is used as a synonym for stupid, ignorant or "intellectually backwards". Just as, say a Muslim would takes it personally when Islam is equated to terrorism, or sci-fi fan is equated with "Trekker" (or Trekki, if forget which). I can usually take someone hitting a nerve in stride, but that nerve has been rubbed raw.
The reason I say you'd have to buy into Creationism, is because in Creationism, God created man, and no other species. That would be the only explanation for how an intelligent species could exist without there being the possibility for other intelligent species.
Well, there is nothing that says we are not the first intelligent species in the universe. I agree that it is HIGHLY unlikely, but someone has to be the first. Also don't assume that everyone who believes that God created man believes that God stopped there.
It's not that Creationists lack common sense. It's that they are so rabid about anything that might possibly in some world conceivably be a challenge to their beliefs, that they refuse to accept anything outside their little book. If they were open-minded at all, they wouldn't be pure Creationists. Just that simple.
There are "jihadis" that are even more rabid in their beliefs, but to say that all Muslims are equally closed minded is just as offensive as your argument. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you mean any disrespect, but stereotyping religions is no different using stereotypes as a basis for racism.
But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED?
Well, that's the Catch-22 we all face. If global warming wipes out man-kind as many have suggested, or at least a large portion of it, many will say, "See, we told you so but you wouldn't listen. Now see what YOU did." Even if all forms of energy are banned, you'll say, "YOU waited too long and now it's too late. YOU should've listened!" Of course, any theories that global warming is a natural form of climate change (change, meaning warmer or cooler, it has to go one way or the other!) will be rejected outright.
On the other hand, if disaster doesn't strike and global warming is no big deal, then people like you will pay yourselves on the back saying, "Good thing we sounded the alarm or we'd all be dead now. Good job everyone!"
Basic probability also suggests that it is extremely unlikely that we are an isolated occurrence...You'd have to buy into Creationism to think that such as we could never have happened anywhere else.
:-). However, I'm not so naive as to limit an infinite God to a single planet, with a single intelligent species. There is nothing in the Bible that states that man is alone in the universe.
That's like saying "You have to attend Star Trek conventions and speak Klingon to believe in intelligent life outside our solar system". Just as there are whacked out "Creationists" who believe the Earth was created in 6 24-hr periods, there are whacked out groups that believe in extraterrestrial life. Need I bring up Xenu or that cult wearing Nike's that castrated themselves and committed suicide thinking a comet was the "mother ship"?. There are whack jobs in any belief system.
Why do you consider Creationism and common sense to be mutually exclusive? I believe in God, which means I have to accept that "God created the heavens and the earth" (in that order