Whether man made global warming is real or not is a not a political issue, it is a scientific issue. If you want the truth as best as current science can give you are supposed to trust the scientific consensus on the subject not a minority of doubters.
There is a scientific consensus on man made global warming. This consensus is not an opinion, but a conclusion based on OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTATION, MODELING, and (((PEER REVIEW))).
I looked for all the well established scientific organizations engaged in geologic, climatic, and meteorologic research and their official statements on man made global warming. This is what I have so far.
(Stay tuned for official statments from NASA's Goddard Space Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.)
Why do cons make global warming a political issue?
The first part of your question is wrong...
Only the liberals are talking about global warming.
The rest of your question is useless fodder. Global warming is crap.
Reply:Why do Dems REFUSE to let scientists talk????????????
Reply:Ummm... no, the question should be: "Why do liberals make global warming a political issue?"
Conservatives hardly ever talk about it, except to laugh.
Reply:Another liberal lie in the form of a Yahoo question DEBUNKED!!!
Cons making Global Warming a political issue!!! LOL!!
Ask Mr. Gore why he preaches Global Warming all while using more utilities to heat and cool his own home in one month than the average citizen uses in a YEAR!!!!
Hope he's driving a Prius to make up for it? But I doubt it.
Reply:I've got some sad news for you. In science "consensus" means nothing and proves nothing.
Good luck, I hope this helps.
Reply:Because libs are trying to convince the world that a political solution is needed.
Reply:Um it became a political issue when Al Gore made it a political issue and last I heard, he was a Democrat.
Reply:Yea remember We made a Movie About it and sent around Al Gore the republican mouth piece and he won an Oscar.... Oh wait that was you demon Crats
Reply:Are you telling us AlGore went to the "Dark Side" %26amp; is now a CON? Oh my!
Reply:I was taught that a scientic hypothesis is only that until proven. Give me proof, not consensus!
NASA has noted that the atmosphere of MARS has risen by an average of 0.6 degrees C over the last 20 years, Earth has risen by 0.65. Can't be human caused on Mars...maybe the 0.05 degree difference on Earth is caused by human activity. Earth's average temperature was 2 degrees warmer than now between 1400 and 1600AD during the "Medieval Warm period" - there were no fossil fuels burnt during that period.
These are "inconvenient truths" for global warming alarmists.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Can a con ever be convinced he is wrong?
Cons won't believe the "liberal media", the "activist judges", and mainstream historians and economists. Now it seems they won't trust government sources (census, bureau of economic analyses, whitehouse.org, department of labor, etc) or scientific organizations like NASA, the American Meteorological Society, or the U.S. Geological Survey.
What source will cons accept besides Fox News?
I will not cite THREE examples.
Can a con ever be convinced he is wrong?
You can lead a conservative to logic, but you can't make him think.
Reply:don't confuse them with facts
Reply:OK, you've thrown down the gauntlet, so let me prove that Cons are a lot more sophisticated and shrewd than you give us credit for.
Let's start with economists. The economists advising Ronald Reagan (Galbraith, Samuelson) told him the USSR was economically rock solid, and was growing faster than the U.S. Ha!!! Reagan knew better. Score one for the Cons.
NASA: did you know that NASA is convinced global warming is due to simple increased solar radiation? Other planets such as Mars are warmer too. NASA scientific data has shown most of the changes of temperature are due to changes in the Sun. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto all have global warming right now.
NASA has said that great temperature changes are normal. Just 10,000 years ago, the earth warmed up remarkably in less than 20 years. There were not many people around at that time. Back around 750AD, Greenland was so warm it was colonized, and had crops growing and livestock grazing in meadows.
NASA:
"Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over ONE OR TWO DECADES, the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age "
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/study/p
THIS GLACIER DIDN'T EXIST 7,000 YEARS ago. And that was after the Ice Age.
"A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all"..."Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest"
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internat
Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/g
How is it going for you, big guy? Still so convinced Cons are just ignoring facts? The truth is, we know far better than Libs which facts are real, and which are concocted statistics, manipulated to direct the gullible and naive American public. I'd rather believe Bill O'Reilly than Hillary Clinton. Most rational people would too.
So, I'll listen to NASA. I'll listen to any credible organization that isn't being bribed or coerced to follow the Liberal directives.
Ask yourself one question: the evidence I have presented is never revealed by the Liberal media, is it? Don't you realize they are just playing all for fools? Do you want to spend you life having scum like George Soros laughing his @ss off at you?
Reply:I think a con on Yahoo can be convinced they are wrong just as easily as a liberal/dem can be convinced they are wrong.
What source will cons accept besides Fox News?
I will not cite THREE examples.
Can a con ever be convinced he is wrong?
You can lead a conservative to logic, but you can't make him think.
Reply:don't confuse them with facts
Reply:OK, you've thrown down the gauntlet, so let me prove that Cons are a lot more sophisticated and shrewd than you give us credit for.
Let's start with economists. The economists advising Ronald Reagan (Galbraith, Samuelson) told him the USSR was economically rock solid, and was growing faster than the U.S. Ha!!! Reagan knew better. Score one for the Cons.
NASA: did you know that NASA is convinced global warming is due to simple increased solar radiation? Other planets such as Mars are warmer too. NASA scientific data has shown most of the changes of temperature are due to changes in the Sun. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto all have global warming right now.
NASA has said that great temperature changes are normal. Just 10,000 years ago, the earth warmed up remarkably in less than 20 years. There were not many people around at that time. Back around 750AD, Greenland was so warm it was colonized, and had crops growing and livestock grazing in meadows.
NASA:
"Rapid changes between ice ages and warm periods (called interglacials) are recorded in the Greenland ice sheet. Occurring over ONE OR TWO DECADES, the warming of the Earth at the end of the last ice age "
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/study/p
THIS GLACIER DIDN'T EXIST 7,000 YEARS ago. And that was after the Ice Age.
"A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers here at all"..."Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest"
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internat
Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/g
How is it going for you, big guy? Still so convinced Cons are just ignoring facts? The truth is, we know far better than Libs which facts are real, and which are concocted statistics, manipulated to direct the gullible and naive American public. I'd rather believe Bill O'Reilly than Hillary Clinton. Most rational people would too.
So, I'll listen to NASA. I'll listen to any credible organization that isn't being bribed or coerced to follow the Liberal directives.
Ask yourself one question: the evidence I have presented is never revealed by the Liberal media, is it? Don't you realize they are just playing all for fools? Do you want to spend you life having scum like George Soros laughing his @ss off at you?
Reply:I think a con on Yahoo can be convinced they are wrong just as easily as a liberal/dem can be convinced they are wrong.
Why do conservatives keep denying the scientific consensus on global warming?
I looked for all the well established scientific organizations engaged in geologic, meteorologic, and climatic research and their statements on man made global warming. This is what I got so far.
(Stay tuned in the future for official statments from NASA's Goddard Space Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.)
Why do conservatives keep denying the scientific consensus on global warming?
simple
since the source of power of the conservatives are big businesses, and big businesses make their big money by polluting our world, thus they deny the scientific consensus on global warming such that no laws could be passed to save the planet and interfere them making money
Reply:Another 2 points, Crops (food if you can't put 2 and 2 together) and other vegetation will flourish and thereby neutralize any inbalance. There is a clue in the word "Green House" gases.
Weather forecasters can't even guarantee an accurate forecast beyond 3 days.... and you are trying to predict the future. Good luck...... Keep buying into the lies.
Reply:Ummm what consensus. The National Organization for Climatologists came out with a statement signed by over 9,345 climatologists that states there is NO consensus since the data is NOT solid. Right now global warming is still classified as theory amongst scientists not fact. Real science embraces debate, not discourages it. Only those with a hidden agenda try to squelch debate and opposing views. Show me one scientist that can absolutely claim global warming is real and that will be the first one. Mars is undergoing a warming too, with the same conditions but you ignore that, how scientific can you really be?
Piece of advise, stop reading blogs and go to another topic, this one is beyond your comprehension.
Thanks for the easy 2 points.
Reply:science wasn't always their best subject in school.
(Stay tuned in the future for official statments from NASA's Goddard Space Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.)
Why do conservatives keep denying the scientific consensus on global warming?
simple
since the source of power of the conservatives are big businesses, and big businesses make their big money by polluting our world, thus they deny the scientific consensus on global warming such that no laws could be passed to save the planet and interfere them making money
Reply:Another 2 points, Crops (food if you can't put 2 and 2 together) and other vegetation will flourish and thereby neutralize any inbalance. There is a clue in the word "Green House" gases.
Weather forecasters can't even guarantee an accurate forecast beyond 3 days.... and you are trying to predict the future. Good luck...... Keep buying into the lies.
Reply:Ummm what consensus. The National Organization for Climatologists came out with a statement signed by over 9,345 climatologists that states there is NO consensus since the data is NOT solid. Right now global warming is still classified as theory amongst scientists not fact. Real science embraces debate, not discourages it. Only those with a hidden agenda try to squelch debate and opposing views. Show me one scientist that can absolutely claim global warming is real and that will be the first one. Mars is undergoing a warming too, with the same conditions but you ignore that, how scientific can you really be?
Piece of advise, stop reading blogs and go to another topic, this one is beyond your comprehension.
Thanks for the easy 2 points.
Reply:science wasn't always their best subject in school.
Does this USGS document make its case for a "systems-science" oriented comprehensive coastal plan?
Agency references in "A Plan for a Comprehensive Coastal Program to the capabilities of the United States Geological Survey:
"The USGS has a fundamental role, as a Federal agency, to ensure the standardization of information required for broad national application %26amp; to provide that information consistently across jurisdictional boundaries."
"The USGS has an unmatched capacity to integrate research %26amp; information across the scientific disciplines to address interdependent issues, to provide the regional context required to develop %26amp; assess local solutions %26amp; national priorities, %26amp; to maintain longterm research %26amp; monitoring efforts needed to identify %26amp; respond to critical and emerging issues."
If you are interested in the subject of climate change, rising sea levels, and how the U.S. is preparing for it, I suggest you read the whole document, 42 pages long.
Living on the west coast, in an area assessed as being between a medium to high risk, I want to know as much as I can.
Does this USGS document make its case for a "systems-science" oriented comprehensive coastal plan?
I have the 100 meter sea level rise map posted at my desk. I live on the east coast, and it just so happens that my properties are right near the line. I asked the college dept. if there was a USGS table of towns and cities with an exact elevation and coordinates, they said they didn't think so.
Are you aware of such a table? Thanks.
It's kind of an academic question, it will take thousands of years for Antarctica to melt, but it would be an interesting conversation piece, and who knows, maybe my descendants will still own the land.
Reviews
"The USGS has a fundamental role, as a Federal agency, to ensure the standardization of information required for broad national application %26amp; to provide that information consistently across jurisdictional boundaries."
"The USGS has an unmatched capacity to integrate research %26amp; information across the scientific disciplines to address interdependent issues, to provide the regional context required to develop %26amp; assess local solutions %26amp; national priorities, %26amp; to maintain longterm research %26amp; monitoring efforts needed to identify %26amp; respond to critical and emerging issues."
If you are interested in the subject of climate change, rising sea levels, and how the U.S. is preparing for it, I suggest you read the whole document, 42 pages long.
Living on the west coast, in an area assessed as being between a medium to high risk, I want to know as much as I can.
Does this USGS document make its case for a "systems-science" oriented comprehensive coastal plan?
I have the 100 meter sea level rise map posted at my desk. I live on the east coast, and it just so happens that my properties are right near the line. I asked the college dept. if there was a USGS table of towns and cities with an exact elevation and coordinates, they said they didn't think so.
Are you aware of such a table? Thanks.
It's kind of an academic question, it will take thousands of years for Antarctica to melt, but it would be an interesting conversation piece, and who knows, maybe my descendants will still own the land.
Reviews
How do Evolutionists explain…?
How do Evolutionists explain the perfectly manufactured, balanced and concentric ringed spheroids found in 3-billion year rock strata when apes, did not appear until 50 million years ago according the Evolution/Uniformitarian Model?
These sophisticated stones that are billions of years old and rotate on their axes, captured the attention of Mr. John Hund of Petersburg fifteen years ago. Hund's previous journey to the Gestoptesfontein mine near Ottosdal in the Northern Province is where he found a stone just like the one he read about and saw in the Klerksdorp museum.
While playing with the stone on a very flat surface at a restaurant one day, Hund realized it was very well balanced. He took it to the California Space Institute at the University of California to have tests done to determine just how well balanced it was. "It turned out that the balance is so fine, it exceeded the limit of their measuring technology and these are the guys who make gyrocompasses for NASA. The riddle of the rotating stone spheres completely baffles even the NASA scientists.
”The stone is balanced to within one-hundred thousandths of an inch from absolute perfection,” explained Hund. Nobody knows what these stones are. One NASA scientist told Hund that they do not have the technology to create anything as finely balanced as this, yet they were created by someone approximately 2.8 billion years ago despite Modern Man did not appear until 100,000 years ago. Additionally, most shocking, he stated the only way that either nature or human technology could create something so finely balanced would be in zero gravity. Clearly, they are a product of a former global technoculture that once thrived upon the Earth, but was annihilated indicating that civilization is not linear as linear evolution teaches, but cyclic and recurrent meeting periodic cosmo-cataclysmic discontinuities as relayed by Plato, himself, and modern Free Thinkers like Cremo and Thompson, authors of “Forbidden Archaeology”.
Here is an extract of Mr. Hund's letter:
The existence of the sphere came to my attention ca 1977 while removing endangered rock engravings from the site where pyrophyllite or "wonderstone", as it is commonly known in the region, is mined on the farm Gestoptesfontein (meaning plugged fountain) near the little village of Ottosdal about 110 km from Klerksdorp in South Africa's Northwest Province.
I was intrigued by the form of the spheres, grooves around the middle and the fact that they are as hard as steel, while the material (pyrophyllite) in which they are found, is as soft as limestone with a count of only 3 on the Moh scale.
As you probably know, pyrophyllite (Al2 Si4 O10 (OH)2) is a secondary mineral and the deposits were formed by a process of sedimentation. On Gestoptesfontein volcanic activity was responsible for the forming of outcrops varying in height from about 10 to 100 meters. The smooth and relatively soft surface on the slopes was ideal for the prehistoric dwellers (San) to make their engravings of animal and abstract designs.
On Gestoptesfontein these outcrops were "swan" into huge pieces by means of twisted steel cables running zigzag on pulleys for several kilometers. These blocks were then sawn by the same method into more manageable pieces of about 500 x 500 mm. Occasionally the "sawing cable" got stuck on one of the metal spheres embedded in the pyrophyllite.
They vary in size from " 30 – 50 mm in diameter and have perfectly concentric grooves round the center as if they were molded. Inside the hard "shell" some have a spongy substance, while in others it resembles charcoal.
Inquiries were made from all over the world about this phenomenon. Countries include Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, England, USA, Norway, France and Botswana. Institutions such as the University of South Florida, Miles Price and Associates, the Society for Physic Advancement (S.A), Kokkolan Kaupunchi (Finland), Esotera (Germany) Geologisches Institut der Universiteit Pleicherwall (Germany), the Department of Philosophy UICC (Chicago), Danfoss (Denmark), Illustreret Videnskab (Coppenhagen), Louisiana Geological Survey, Gale Research Company (Michigan) and Search and Research Institute of Florida also made inquiries.
I wrote NASA HQ, to confirm or deny this in 2000, and never received a reply. Mr. Hund's letter was removed from the Klerksdorp Museum page, afterwards, when I checked back some time later, and the page re-designed.
Image: http://www.ufologie.net/htm/transvaalsph...
How do Evolutionists explain…?
You are asking a hard question that they can not answer.
Since it can not be answered, it will be dismissed as a fake.
But, don't ask the evolutionist about their history of fakes or false assumptions:
Java man, Nebraska Man, and the others.
How many missing links were found using pig teeth?
Great question.
Reply:Both question and answer display a complete lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. I suggest both of you visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ Report Abuse
Reply:read the book why people believe weird things
feel free to write skeptic magazine tho.
http://skeptic.com
could be many explanations.
Reply:The fact that you do not know all the details of anything does not make it the works of a supernatural being. I'll bet you drive a car- but don't really know exactly how it works, so you must believe that god designed that too. If the bible had declared that the world was flat, creationists would be claiming that satellite photographs of a round earth were fakes. The incomplete understanding of evolution is certainly not evidence of creation, which has no proof at all.
The most efficient geometric shape is a perfect sphere. Anything in a flexible, flowable state, such as a liquid (or molten metal) naturally wants to assume that shape. The only reason more things aren't formed as round objects is that either they weren't in a position to allow free forming or gravity put them in contact with some other surface, distorting them.
Think about it. Lead shot (shotgun pellets) are perfect metal spheres, and they aren't machined or formed in molds- they are dropped as a molten spray inside a tall tower. In the free fall the droplets are unaffected by gravitational distortion- and so become round, balanced spheres. They also cool and harden while falling, and thus retain the shape when they land. It's not a miracle- it's physics, science and understanding.
Of course none of that is visible to a creationist. It's hard to see anything except the inside of your belly button from their position.
Reply:Too long, didn't read.
Reply:Maybe its source is of earth origin - maybe some human beings will be able to travel into the past with the use of some device and they left that object behind. Maybe its just part of their trash. More likely in could just be an oddity of nature.
Just remember just because a bunch of people get together somewhere for a summit - like this idiots in Tehran trying to deny that the Holocaust occurred - doesn't mean that adds anything to something.
Reply:Bubbles occur naturally in nature, and they're damn near perfectly round. Some astronomical bodies are an order of magnitude closer to being perfectly spherical than the rocks you describe.
Reply:A creationist that says the Evolutionist are wrong is a person that don't believe in the god that they proclaim exist. The Evolutionist that says the normal unfolding of circumstances means there is no GOD. IS as the bible says - A FOOL.
You don't have to believe, but if you think that you know all of the answers, YOU ARE A FOOL. Too bad most of the Creationists, close their eyes and minds to greater understanding. GOD wants us to understand, so we must all seek answers at all time.
Reply:That does not look very precisely balanced to me.
Reply:Evolutionists cannot explain every imaginary question from non-scientist public. No need...
Let's see, if creationists can explain and PROVE anything they say... Let's start with the god...
Reply:That is one heII of a long story but the fact any one can defend a hoax and confuse any expert with all that information.
I fail to see why you brought the apes in..
spit,, I used to work in a warehouse, trade school but with what I absorbed was simple.. the damm things formed in space in an asteroid like a snowflake and landed here in your mud bed, so much for magic.
I won't be back to read your rebuttal,, silly people waste their time.
Reply:Your facts aren't quite right - of course you probably got them from Forbidden Archeology - that's why you're inaccurate. You shouldn't just read one account and believe it hook, line and sinker - don't be a chump! If you want to be scientific you need more data. Here's some:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/sphe...
Reply:As Mr. Hund's hoax, maybe? That is assuming that any of the information that you gave above is actually reliable, which I doubt. There's generally not much to be gained by getting all of your information off of internet sites like "ufologie.net."
Edit: No, I actually looked for any type of credible research on these speres, and could find none. Any mention I've seen is in the context of popular "mysteries/conspiracy/aliens built the pyramids" books, TV shows, or web sites. It's all heresay and conjecture. Very dubious sorts of information. You should be less credulous about extraordinary claims. Just because Charleton Heston narrates a TV show about something doesn't make it reliable information.
Reply:Once again... newspaper articles are not scientific evidence. Take an evolutionary biology course. Also perhaps a chemistry course, an introductory hominid fossils (anthropology) course, a philosophy of science course.... and then come back and discuss evolutionary theory.
Reply:Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read. Sounds like a hoax.
Reply:Have a look at the images on this link, and tell me the similarities between it and your image. The image you link to, if examined closely, reveals that the parallel lines around the circumference have regular spacing, like stitches. There is also some pixelation or blurring on the top of the sphere, where the emblem would be. What you have, is a cricket ball, painted, or otherwise computer-altered, or a cast of one. The older balls would have fewer lines of stitching, compared to the modern ball, pictured.
What you are perhaps trying to do, is demonstrate how hoaxes can influence beliefs, or you have been duped yourself. Keep believing if you want to, but there is your probable answer.
These sophisticated stones that are billions of years old and rotate on their axes, captured the attention of Mr. John Hund of Petersburg fifteen years ago. Hund's previous journey to the Gestoptesfontein mine near Ottosdal in the Northern Province is where he found a stone just like the one he read about and saw in the Klerksdorp museum.
While playing with the stone on a very flat surface at a restaurant one day, Hund realized it was very well balanced. He took it to the California Space Institute at the University of California to have tests done to determine just how well balanced it was. "It turned out that the balance is so fine, it exceeded the limit of their measuring technology and these are the guys who make gyrocompasses for NASA. The riddle of the rotating stone spheres completely baffles even the NASA scientists.
”The stone is balanced to within one-hundred thousandths of an inch from absolute perfection,” explained Hund. Nobody knows what these stones are. One NASA scientist told Hund that they do not have the technology to create anything as finely balanced as this, yet they were created by someone approximately 2.8 billion years ago despite Modern Man did not appear until 100,000 years ago. Additionally, most shocking, he stated the only way that either nature or human technology could create something so finely balanced would be in zero gravity. Clearly, they are a product of a former global technoculture that once thrived upon the Earth, but was annihilated indicating that civilization is not linear as linear evolution teaches, but cyclic and recurrent meeting periodic cosmo-cataclysmic discontinuities as relayed by Plato, himself, and modern Free Thinkers like Cremo and Thompson, authors of “Forbidden Archaeology”.
Here is an extract of Mr. Hund's letter:
The existence of the sphere came to my attention ca 1977 while removing endangered rock engravings from the site where pyrophyllite or "wonderstone", as it is commonly known in the region, is mined on the farm Gestoptesfontein (meaning plugged fountain) near the little village of Ottosdal about 110 km from Klerksdorp in South Africa's Northwest Province.
I was intrigued by the form of the spheres, grooves around the middle and the fact that they are as hard as steel, while the material (pyrophyllite) in which they are found, is as soft as limestone with a count of only 3 on the Moh scale.
As you probably know, pyrophyllite (Al2 Si4 O10 (OH)2) is a secondary mineral and the deposits were formed by a process of sedimentation. On Gestoptesfontein volcanic activity was responsible for the forming of outcrops varying in height from about 10 to 100 meters. The smooth and relatively soft surface on the slopes was ideal for the prehistoric dwellers (San) to make their engravings of animal and abstract designs.
On Gestoptesfontein these outcrops were "swan" into huge pieces by means of twisted steel cables running zigzag on pulleys for several kilometers. These blocks were then sawn by the same method into more manageable pieces of about 500 x 500 mm. Occasionally the "sawing cable" got stuck on one of the metal spheres embedded in the pyrophyllite.
They vary in size from " 30 – 50 mm in diameter and have perfectly concentric grooves round the center as if they were molded. Inside the hard "shell" some have a spongy substance, while in others it resembles charcoal.
Inquiries were made from all over the world about this phenomenon. Countries include Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, England, USA, Norway, France and Botswana. Institutions such as the University of South Florida, Miles Price and Associates, the Society for Physic Advancement (S.A), Kokkolan Kaupunchi (Finland), Esotera (Germany) Geologisches Institut der Universiteit Pleicherwall (Germany), the Department of Philosophy UICC (Chicago), Danfoss (Denmark), Illustreret Videnskab (Coppenhagen), Louisiana Geological Survey, Gale Research Company (Michigan) and Search and Research Institute of Florida also made inquiries.
I wrote NASA HQ, to confirm or deny this in 2000, and never received a reply. Mr. Hund's letter was removed from the Klerksdorp Museum page, afterwards, when I checked back some time later, and the page re-designed.
Image: http://www.ufologie.net/htm/transvaalsph...
How do Evolutionists explain…?
You are asking a hard question that they can not answer.
Since it can not be answered, it will be dismissed as a fake.
But, don't ask the evolutionist about their history of fakes or false assumptions:
Java man, Nebraska Man, and the others.
How many missing links were found using pig teeth?
Great question.
Reply:Both question and answer display a complete lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. I suggest both of you visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ Report Abuse
Reply:read the book why people believe weird things
feel free to write skeptic magazine tho.
http://skeptic.com
could be many explanations.
Reply:The fact that you do not know all the details of anything does not make it the works of a supernatural being. I'll bet you drive a car- but don't really know exactly how it works, so you must believe that god designed that too. If the bible had declared that the world was flat, creationists would be claiming that satellite photographs of a round earth were fakes. The incomplete understanding of evolution is certainly not evidence of creation, which has no proof at all.
The most efficient geometric shape is a perfect sphere. Anything in a flexible, flowable state, such as a liquid (or molten metal) naturally wants to assume that shape. The only reason more things aren't formed as round objects is that either they weren't in a position to allow free forming or gravity put them in contact with some other surface, distorting them.
Think about it. Lead shot (shotgun pellets) are perfect metal spheres, and they aren't machined or formed in molds- they are dropped as a molten spray inside a tall tower. In the free fall the droplets are unaffected by gravitational distortion- and so become round, balanced spheres. They also cool and harden while falling, and thus retain the shape when they land. It's not a miracle- it's physics, science and understanding.
Of course none of that is visible to a creationist. It's hard to see anything except the inside of your belly button from their position.
Reply:Too long, didn't read.
Reply:Maybe its source is of earth origin - maybe some human beings will be able to travel into the past with the use of some device and they left that object behind. Maybe its just part of their trash. More likely in could just be an oddity of nature.
Just remember just because a bunch of people get together somewhere for a summit - like this idiots in Tehran trying to deny that the Holocaust occurred - doesn't mean that adds anything to something.
Reply:Bubbles occur naturally in nature, and they're damn near perfectly round. Some astronomical bodies are an order of magnitude closer to being perfectly spherical than the rocks you describe.
Reply:A creationist that says the Evolutionist are wrong is a person that don't believe in the god that they proclaim exist. The Evolutionist that says the normal unfolding of circumstances means there is no GOD. IS as the bible says - A FOOL.
You don't have to believe, but if you think that you know all of the answers, YOU ARE A FOOL. Too bad most of the Creationists, close their eyes and minds to greater understanding. GOD wants us to understand, so we must all seek answers at all time.
Reply:That does not look very precisely balanced to me.
Reply:Evolutionists cannot explain every imaginary question from non-scientist public. No need...
Let's see, if creationists can explain and PROVE anything they say... Let's start with the god...
Reply:That is one heII of a long story but the fact any one can defend a hoax and confuse any expert with all that information.
I fail to see why you brought the apes in..
spit,, I used to work in a warehouse, trade school but with what I absorbed was simple.. the damm things formed in space in an asteroid like a snowflake and landed here in your mud bed, so much for magic.
I won't be back to read your rebuttal,, silly people waste their time.
Reply:Your facts aren't quite right - of course you probably got them from Forbidden Archeology - that's why you're inaccurate. You shouldn't just read one account and believe it hook, line and sinker - don't be a chump! If you want to be scientific you need more data. Here's some:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/sphe...
Reply:As Mr. Hund's hoax, maybe? That is assuming that any of the information that you gave above is actually reliable, which I doubt. There's generally not much to be gained by getting all of your information off of internet sites like "ufologie.net."
Edit: No, I actually looked for any type of credible research on these speres, and could find none. Any mention I've seen is in the context of popular "mysteries/conspiracy/aliens built the pyramids" books, TV shows, or web sites. It's all heresay and conjecture. Very dubious sorts of information. You should be less credulous about extraordinary claims. Just because Charleton Heston narrates a TV show about something doesn't make it reliable information.
Reply:Once again... newspaper articles are not scientific evidence. Take an evolutionary biology course. Also perhaps a chemistry course, an introductory hominid fossils (anthropology) course, a philosophy of science course.... and then come back and discuss evolutionary theory.
Reply:Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you read. Sounds like a hoax.
Reply:Have a look at the images on this link, and tell me the similarities between it and your image. The image you link to, if examined closely, reveals that the parallel lines around the circumference have regular spacing, like stitches. There is also some pixelation or blurring on the top of the sphere, where the emblem would be. What you have, is a cricket ball, painted, or otherwise computer-altered, or a cast of one. The older balls would have fewer lines of stitching, compared to the modern ball, pictured.
What you are perhaps trying to do, is demonstrate how hoaxes can influence beliefs, or you have been duped yourself. Keep believing if you want to, but there is your probable answer.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Is it time to believe in global warming know that it has created an island?
The US Geological Survey has confirmed its existence with satellite photos, that show it as an integral part of the Greenland coast in 1985, but linked by only a small ice bridge in 2002, and completely separate by the summer of 2005. It is now a striking island of high peaks and rugged rocky slopes plunging steeply to a sea dotted with icebergs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...
PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE TO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS
They will come here with links to youtube videos, editorials (read opinion articles) from political and media websites, copy and pastes from a wikipedia article (about individual scientists against the MAINSTREAM scientific consensus on man made global warming), and propaganda. For example, they will cite an MIT link saying there is global warming in Pluto (trying to convince you its the sun) without mentioning the fact that the scientist cited in the article says it has nothing to do with the sun.
Is it time to believe in global warming know that it has created an island?
I don't disbelieve the measurement of increasing global temperatures.
What *NONE OF YOU* have done...anywhere...even the scientists you lemmings follow because of "consensus"...is prove the percentage of global warming caused by man, and caused by natural variation of the sun. *THAT* is the science you ought to ask for.
Reply:I've yet to see any scientist who can tell conclusively how much man has contributed without using general vague terms. Why do so many who so strongly believe in Global Warming not believe that the Earth just recently came out of a little mini ice age (that's also been proven) in which scientist haven't been able to conclusively say why it occurred.
Something you might consider as well, as fresh water enters the Ocean the salinity of the ocean decreases. It's this salinity that runs the oceans currents that is so critical in our current weather patterns. When this stops (which it will as it has in the past) another ice age will occur (not warming).
Reply:Time will tell....
Reply:Global warming is one thing linking it to human activity is another. I believe in global warming because the Great lakes are the result of a huge glacier melting. Since the lakes are lakes and not Glaciers there must be global warming.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, and most of the previous events of global warming occured well before human activity could have possibly had any effect, I believe it is far more reasonable to assume the current global warming phase is a natural event than to make a leap that all previous global warming episodes were natural and this one time it was caused by humans. After all the ice caps on mars are also receding and they don't drive SUV's there, at least not yet.
Particularly when the loudest voices in this debate seen to have the agenda of using it as an excuse to strip us of freedom.
Reply:Green is good. When Greenland was discovered in the years before SUVs and America, the earth was warm enough for Greenland to be green instead of frozen white like it is now. We need global warming to make Greenland green again. We need more SUVs and more American CO2 to help global warming make Greenland green. Green is good. Global warming will make Greenland green again like when it was discovered. Global warming is good. Help make Greenland green again!
Reply:PEOPLE. with an agenda keep lying about this, and believe if they say it enough, that it will become a fact!
Wrong! There is no Global Warming, and the lies and fabrications that ALL the Scientist, Geologist, etc. agree to it, IS NOTHING BUT MORE LIES!
Reply:Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is an idiot.
Anyone who believes global warming DEFINITELY is caused mostly by man is an idiot also.
Reply:You know what other glacier melted? Take your pick of any part of the massive sheet of ice that used to cover most of North America or Europe. When did that melt? Before or after human industrialization?
I'm afraid science and logic simply don't support your whole theory.
Reply:Wow, if you just found out about it you are a moron, get an education. Nowadays, this is all they teach in schools, its because of you uneducated and ignorant people that dont know anything about global warming
Reply:so what ?
Reply:you fail to state that just as many if not more prominent scientist are not on board with your assessment. Whether or not it is man made is not the real issue, shouldn't we just accept the fact the earth is warming and the less crap in the air the better.
Reply:Believe what you want to, it will not change reality, and by the time the U.S. population stops bickering among themselves about meaningless trivia, it will all be over.
Reply:Ok how many times have we seen this question? My sister is a geologist and she doesn't buy this crap, so quit assuming that all of the geologists think this, and all of them agree with it. Nobody cares! Get on with your life! There is NO global warming!!
Reply:But...but...but... the Cons said Global Warming was a Myth!
Reply:IT IS A DANGER AND I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUNG FOLKS OUT THERE. i LIVE IN THE ARCTIC AND WE SEE THE DIFFIRENCE. PEOPLE NEED TO GET OFF THEIR BUTTS AND WALK AND BICYCLE INSTEAD OF DRIVING ALL THE TIME. i ONLY USE MY CAR WHEN NEEDED. IF I NEED ONLY A FEW THINGS I WALK OR BIKE. CARS ARE NOT ONLY A CAUSE OF POLLUTION, BUT ALSO OBESITY. WANT A GREAT WEIGHT CONTROL SOLUTION TO LOOK GREAT? GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND WALK!!!
Reply:Clearly the Earth is getting warmer. It warms and cools all the time.
Why in the world would anyone think the warming is a man-made phenomenon.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...
PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE TO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS
They will come here with links to youtube videos, editorials (read opinion articles) from political and media websites, copy and pastes from a wikipedia article (about individual scientists against the MAINSTREAM scientific consensus on man made global warming), and propaganda. For example, they will cite an MIT link saying there is global warming in Pluto (trying to convince you its the sun) without mentioning the fact that the scientist cited in the article says it has nothing to do with the sun.
Is it time to believe in global warming know that it has created an island?
I don't disbelieve the measurement of increasing global temperatures.
What *NONE OF YOU* have done...anywhere...even the scientists you lemmings follow because of "consensus"...is prove the percentage of global warming caused by man, and caused by natural variation of the sun. *THAT* is the science you ought to ask for.
Reply:I've yet to see any scientist who can tell conclusively how much man has contributed without using general vague terms. Why do so many who so strongly believe in Global Warming not believe that the Earth just recently came out of a little mini ice age (that's also been proven) in which scientist haven't been able to conclusively say why it occurred.
Something you might consider as well, as fresh water enters the Ocean the salinity of the ocean decreases. It's this salinity that runs the oceans currents that is so critical in our current weather patterns. When this stops (which it will as it has in the past) another ice age will occur (not warming).
Reply:Time will tell....
Reply:Global warming is one thing linking it to human activity is another. I believe in global warming because the Great lakes are the result of a huge glacier melting. Since the lakes are lakes and not Glaciers there must be global warming.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, and most of the previous events of global warming occured well before human activity could have possibly had any effect, I believe it is far more reasonable to assume the current global warming phase is a natural event than to make a leap that all previous global warming episodes were natural and this one time it was caused by humans. After all the ice caps on mars are also receding and they don't drive SUV's there, at least not yet.
Particularly when the loudest voices in this debate seen to have the agenda of using it as an excuse to strip us of freedom.
Reply:Green is good. When Greenland was discovered in the years before SUVs and America, the earth was warm enough for Greenland to be green instead of frozen white like it is now. We need global warming to make Greenland green again. We need more SUVs and more American CO2 to help global warming make Greenland green. Green is good. Global warming will make Greenland green again like when it was discovered. Global warming is good. Help make Greenland green again!
Reply:PEOPLE. with an agenda keep lying about this, and believe if they say it enough, that it will become a fact!
Wrong! There is no Global Warming, and the lies and fabrications that ALL the Scientist, Geologist, etc. agree to it, IS NOTHING BUT MORE LIES!
Reply:Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is an idiot.
Anyone who believes global warming DEFINITELY is caused mostly by man is an idiot also.
Reply:You know what other glacier melted? Take your pick of any part of the massive sheet of ice that used to cover most of North America or Europe. When did that melt? Before or after human industrialization?
I'm afraid science and logic simply don't support your whole theory.
Reply:Wow, if you just found out about it you are a moron, get an education. Nowadays, this is all they teach in schools, its because of you uneducated and ignorant people that dont know anything about global warming
Reply:so what ?
Reply:you fail to state that just as many if not more prominent scientist are not on board with your assessment. Whether or not it is man made is not the real issue, shouldn't we just accept the fact the earth is warming and the less crap in the air the better.
Reply:Believe what you want to, it will not change reality, and by the time the U.S. population stops bickering among themselves about meaningless trivia, it will all be over.
Reply:Ok how many times have we seen this question? My sister is a geologist and she doesn't buy this crap, so quit assuming that all of the geologists think this, and all of them agree with it. Nobody cares! Get on with your life! There is NO global warming!!
Reply:But...but...but... the Cons said Global Warming was a Myth!
Reply:IT IS A DANGER AND I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUNG FOLKS OUT THERE. i LIVE IN THE ARCTIC AND WE SEE THE DIFFIRENCE. PEOPLE NEED TO GET OFF THEIR BUTTS AND WALK AND BICYCLE INSTEAD OF DRIVING ALL THE TIME. i ONLY USE MY CAR WHEN NEEDED. IF I NEED ONLY A FEW THINGS I WALK OR BIKE. CARS ARE NOT ONLY A CAUSE OF POLLUTION, BUT ALSO OBESITY. WANT A GREAT WEIGHT CONTROL SOLUTION TO LOOK GREAT? GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND WALK!!!
Reply:Clearly the Earth is getting warmer. It warms and cools all the time.
Why in the world would anyone think the warming is a man-made phenomenon.
Wake up Al Gore! He's got another issue to make a "documentary" about. What can we do?
Today the very astute geologist of the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena stated that California faces an almost certain risk of being rocked by a strong earthquake by, everyone prepare, Gasp, by, 2037. Al, we need you! California and Earthquakes, This is unbelievable!
Al Help,
What can we do to reduce the threat of Californian Earthquakes?
Wake up Al Gore! He's got another issue to make a "documentary" about. What can we do?
What does his peer reviewed scientific reports say? I mean Dana will not believe the sun is warming us unless he has peer reviewed scientific reports to back that up. So, where is his peer scientific reviewed information. By the way, that Northridge Earthquake didn't occur because I have not seen peer reviewed scientific reports to prove that it did. Where is the scientific consensus on this matter? I think there has to be far more money thrown at this 'problem' and billions and billions of research money before we recognize anything.....
lol
Reply:Keep a couple weeks worth of food and water buried in your backyard away from any structures because the US Government won't be capable of helping you at least until that long.
I've lived in California my entire life and we've been warned since I was a child that "The Big One" could occur any day, so we well know the risks and preparations necessary.
Reply:There isnt much you can do, they are real.
At anytime one could hit.
I use to live there many yrs. after a while you just live with it don't think much abt them.
Get use to the idea that at any moment you might have one no matter where or what time it is.
Reply:Evacuate. If California is too dangerous a place to live, get out while you still can.
Reply:Unfortunately, earthquakes in California are real. Not enough controversy for his documentaries.
Reply:Move to Canada!
Reply:Lol!!!
Reply:don't think anything lol
Al Help,
What can we do to reduce the threat of Californian Earthquakes?
Wake up Al Gore! He's got another issue to make a "documentary" about. What can we do?
What does his peer reviewed scientific reports say? I mean Dana will not believe the sun is warming us unless he has peer reviewed scientific reports to back that up. So, where is his peer scientific reviewed information. By the way, that Northridge Earthquake didn't occur because I have not seen peer reviewed scientific reports to prove that it did. Where is the scientific consensus on this matter? I think there has to be far more money thrown at this 'problem' and billions and billions of research money before we recognize anything.....
lol
Reply:Keep a couple weeks worth of food and water buried in your backyard away from any structures because the US Government won't be capable of helping you at least until that long.
I've lived in California my entire life and we've been warned since I was a child that "The Big One" could occur any day, so we well know the risks and preparations necessary.
Reply:There isnt much you can do, they are real.
At anytime one could hit.
I use to live there many yrs. after a while you just live with it don't think much abt them.
Get use to the idea that at any moment you might have one no matter where or what time it is.
Reply:Evacuate. If California is too dangerous a place to live, get out while you still can.
Reply:Unfortunately, earthquakes in California are real. Not enough controversy for his documentaries.
Reply:Move to Canada!
Reply:Lol!!!
Reply:don't think anything lol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)