V-for-Vendicar wrote:
1) the vast majority of the media and press,
2) the majority of the scientists,
3) all of the scientific press, both journals and textbooks,
4) all of the environmentalists,
5) the vast majority of anyone with an advanced degree,
6) the UN,
7) the IPCC,
8) the WMO,
9) all professional scientific societies, but the Petroleum Institute,
10) "The one world government conspiracy," whatever and whoever that is,
11) NASA,
12) Wikipedia,
13) the British Antarctic Survey,
14) the NOAA,
15) Realclimate.org,
16) . . . and now the Hadley Center.
17) The Royal Society
18) The Royal Astronomical Society
19) The National Academy of Sciences
20) The American Physical Society
21) The American Institute of Physics
22) The Woods Hole Research Centre
23) The American Chemical Society
24) The USGS
25) The NCAR
26) The NRDC
27) The Union of Concerned Scientists.
28) The National Wildlife Federation.
29) The U.S. EPA
30) Accuweather
31) Greenpiece
32) The world Conservation Union
33) The Sierra Club.
34) The board and article reviewers of the journal Nature
35) The board and article reviewers of the journal Science
36) The staff of Scientific American magazine
37) The staff of New Scientist Magazine.
38) And lets not forget - Al Gore.


watch-dog" wrote
They are Liberals and Socialists, and the same lot was telling us the
Universe was Static some years back.

"The universe was Static some years back."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH................

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNN N

cite it.

Or is there no facts to confirm the universe before the bang and expansion?


--

http://Talk-n-Dog.org
********* Koom-Bay-Ya *********
When you can't deny the truth, silence it?
? Talk-n-Dog ?

"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
...


"The universe was Static some years back."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH................
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN

"watch-dog" wrote
Or is there no facts to confirm the universe before the bang and
expansion?

The Mindless KKKonservative can't even formulate a valid, parsable
question.


You seem to have difficulty with this issue of the static universe. Plato,
and most Of the philosopher's did in fact believe in what is called a static
universe. this means that the universe always existed, and always was as it
is, and furthermore means that the universe has to be the way it is.

It was of course it was the great Christian philosopher saint Thomas Aquinas
that finally cracked open this philosophical puzzle, and was able to move
philosophy to the next level. St. Thomas Aquinas clarified the Christian
point of view that God was NOT part of the universe, and Furhtmore that the
universe did NOT have to exist. By the way this Christian point of this view
is Unique among any of the large widely adopted religions of the world. In
other words, the concept put forth by saint Thomas Aquinas was that the
universe did not have to exist, and thus answered the other question of:

who created God then?

answer:
the answers very simple, and something that is eternal does not have a need,
or cause (or beginning). (somting that is etertnal does not have a
beginning, and therefore does not need a creator).

In fact in even at the turn of the century and up to the nineteen twenties
there was a good number of scientists and people who that still hung on to
the idea of the static universe. The reason why so many scientist to fairly
recent historic times believed in the static universe is very simple:

If you don't believe in a static universe, then your now faced with the idea
and concept that the universe was created, or *caused*. Of course with
technology, satellites, telescopes and the discovery of things like fusion,
it became painfully obvious that the stars in this sky were not balls of
light hanging by some imaginary string, but they were balls of fusion with a
limited fuel supply. thus the body of evidence and knowledge was increasing
to a point that most educated people could easily conclude that the stars as
they are could NOT have always existed.

Of course the problem with the big bang, is now all the scientists were
forced to adopt the Christian point of view that the universe was
caused...and IS NOT STATIC! (so this is why the static universe is so
prevalent along a lot of scientists, because they tend to be somewhat anti
Christian in their viewpoints, and adopting the cost universe means that
there also adopt in the point of view to his innocence a Christian point of
view).

Since the stars have a limited life Spans, and things don't have to be as
they are, then we have a philosophical problem here to solve. We can use
philosophy to show that a triangle must have three sides, and many of the
early philosophers stated that if the universe is static, then everything
must be the way it is, just like that triangle (it HAS to be that way). In
fact a good number of philosophers stated that we don't have to use
empirical science and observation because if the universe is static then it
has to be the way it is without a cause.

So there was a portion of the scientific community that grudgingly accepted
that the universe is not static. since universe is not static, then it's
caused, and has a beginning. Furthermore this means that now you have to
explain how this process happened.

Amazingly enough, the average scientist now has adopted a Christian point of
view that of the universe had an instant point of time for its creation.

So in the issue of science and philosophy, the static versus the caused
universe is a rather big issue, and the widespread adoption of a cost
universe really plays into the hands of the Christian point of view.

Super Turtle.

Green Turtle wrote:
(FST Commentator): "Here's the official, stolen, government training
film of the secret plan to deal with an alien uprising."
(Martial music swells in the background)
(NCO-In-Charge Commentator): "Classified ultra-secret! Air Force
generals only! Ten-hut! At ease mens (sic), take your seat!"
(The General): "This is General Curtis Goatheart. If you are viewing
this film, then we are under extraterrestrial attack. Beware- your brain
may no longer be the boss! If you are beginning to doubt what I am
saying, you are probably hallucinating. Listen carefully!"
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "What to do if an alien appears! ONE!"
(The General): "Drop beneath the seat of your plane and look away."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Avoid eye contact."
(NCOIC): "THREE!"
(The General): "If there are no eyes, avoid all contact."
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "How to identify alleged sightings! ONE!"
(The General): "Pie plates, or as reflections in the atmosphere."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Dry cleaning bags filled with marsh gas, or..."
(NCOIC) "THREE!"
(The General): "Mass insanity!"
(One second burst of ringing alarm bell)
(NCOIC): "How to inform your wife, and others under your command!"
(Bugle blowing reville in the background, faint drumbeat, soft clatter
of dinnerware)
(General's Wife): "...Can I freshen that up for you?..."
(The Colonel): "I don't know how she got that requisition..."
(General's Wife): "Oh, she gets it in the back..."
(The Colonel): "Well, she's not allowed to have them unless she's..."
(Another Officer): "Unless she's related to the (undecipherable) of the
PX..."
(Sound of a spoon repeatedly striking a water glass)
(The General): "Honey and men- I have something awesome to reveal to you."
(The Colonel): "Well, go ahead, sir."
(General's Wife): "Go ahead."
(The General): "Two flying saucers have just landed on my plate."
(Long moment of silence)
(The Colonel): "Well, turn away sir- I'll eat them."
(Nervous laughter)
(Sound of a spoon repeatedly striking a water glass)
(The General): "Men- our greatest fear is realized- we are under attack
from superior consciousness."
(The Colonel): "The eggs, sir?"
(The General): "They're only the beginning."
(More nervous laughter)
(Another Officer): "Can I have some more of those flapjacks?"
(The General): "All right, men- questions? Questions?"
(The Major): "Ah, sir?"
(The General): "Yes, Major?"
(The Major): "Ah, pass the ah, syrup, General?"
(The General): "That's a good idea, Chuck, but syrup won't stop 'em!"
(Another Officer): "But, sir..."
(The Colonel): "Ah, sir?"
(The General): "Colonel?"
(The Colonel): "Are you nuts?"
(The General): "H-Hmmm! That is just exactly what they want you to
believe! (chuckle)"
(The Colonel): "The eggs, sir?"
(The General): "Let's just call them 'the phenomena' "
(The Colonel): "Well, if I may respectfully submit, sir, I think you've
got your phenomena
scrambled, General."
(More nervous laughter)
(General's Wife): "What about my eggs, dear?"
(The General): "Honey- they're in- everybody's eggs!"
(The Colonel, slightly sarcastically): "Good lord!"
(Faint drumbeat, soft clatter of dinnerware in the background)
(The General's wife begins sobbing hysterically, but softly)
(Another Officer): "I think I'm going to have to leave this table..."
(The Major): "...another cup of coffee, sir- settle you down a bit..."
(NCOIC): "CONCLUSION!"
(The General): "They think he is insane. Yet he outranks them. His
option- command!"
(NCOIC): "ONE!"
(The General): "He seals off the area."
(NCOIC): "TWO!"
(The General): "Secures the cooperation of local officials."
(NCOIC): "THREE!"
(The General): "Obtains expert scientific susistence (sic)."
(NCOIC): "FOUR!"
(The General): "Evacuates all government employees, and..."
(NCOIC): "FIVE!"
(The General): "...bombs aliens back to stone age!"
(Martial music swells up in the background)
(NCOIC): "END OF FILM!"

From "Everything You Know is Wrong" by The Firesign Theatre (1974)

"The universe was Static some years back."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH................
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN

"watch-dog" wrote
Or is there no facts to confirm the universe before the bang and
expansion?

The Mindless KKKonservative can't even formulate a valid, parsable
question.

MMMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
...
A more realistic version


Seems quite clear you have difficulty with basic reason and philosophy. It
is this process of reason that drives our science, not the other way around
(science cannot drive our philosophy).

About the only people that are willing to reverse this process, and throw
out reason in place of pre-conceived nations is people like you, or the
IPCC.

At the end of the day, were here posting to make our points, and convince
people of our positions. Your response is devoid of any intellectual debate,
and therefore accomplishes nothing to convince people reading this thread of
your point of view.

It means, you taking the low ground, and refusing to debate and reason! You
are avoiding thinking.

In a sense, your capitulating here because you cannot attack the lines of
reason being used here...

Your responses are conceding your side to us.....


Super Turtle

"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
...

"Green Turtle" wrote
Seems quite clear you have difficulty with basic reason and philosophy.

Reason and philosophy are most often opposites.

Hence I don't follow philosophy, as it has been sterile since the time of
Plato.



Ah, but you just answered with a philosophical statement!!

It is like the person who claims there are no absolutes.

I wonder, is that person absolutely absolute there are no absolutes?

Super Turtle.

"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
news:%RHFj.31715


Children are often fascinated by such thoughts - for 5 seconds. Just
long enough for them to
realize the foolishness of pondering the self contradiction further.


Yes, but you have a knack for those child like contradictions! Once again
you in denial here!

You are the one contradicting yourself. And, making
statements like there is nothing new since Plato is about as narrow minded
as people who at the turn of the century said there will be no new
inventions.

I am amused to see that you have made it a major sign post in your
miniscule intellectual life.

Your the one trying to deny the need for reason/philosophy here.

The problem here is you have no interest in your intellect to make valid
conclusions here, and yet you still spend the time to make posts here? Why
is that?

The basic problem here is these liberal people are not well versed in proper
reason, and thus they are easily seduced by political movements like the UN
and the IPCC in place of proper philosophy/reason to make sensible
conclusions here...

You do realize that one can't make valid conclusions when contradictions
exist for that conclusion? If you do grasp this concept, you sure don't show
it in your posts...

Super Turtle.

A more realistic version

Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was beginning.
Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's you !!
CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
CATS: All your base are belong to us.
CATS: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....

Operator: Captain!! *
Captain: Take off every 'ZIG' !!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'ZIG'.
Captain: For great justice.

Green Turtle wrote:
"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
...
"Green Turtle" wrote
Seems quite clear you have difficulty with basic reason and philosophy.
Reason and philosophy are most often opposites.

Hence I don't follow philosophy, as it has been sterile since the time of
Plato.



Ah, but you just answered with a philosophical statement!!

It is like the person who claims there are no absolutes.

I wonder, is that person absolutely absolute there are no absolutes?

Super Turtle.


You answer philosophy with conundrum?

Green Turtle wrote:

"V-for-Vendicar" wrote:

A more realistic version

Seems quite clear you have difficulty with basic reason and philosophy.

It's called "logic" and "critical reasoning", actually..

It is this process of reason that drives our science, not the other way
around (science cannot drive our philosophy).

You'd prefer some silly superstition to be indoctrinated instead?

--All your base are belong to us..