Remember me
▼ Content

This is funny



Page 2 of 2<12
29-09-2017 04:07
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So? Your point?

My point is that you are one of the ones who are directing people down the path indicated by this line in the Seventh Fire Prophecy. "The other road will be black and charred, and walking it will cut their feet." That's not science, as you said. It is prophecy. It is also prophecy that clearly indicates Climate Change as the demise of humanity. It was written down a long time ago, before Climate Change was even considered to be a threat. So if you want to make it a science then you can, by trying to figure out how the prophets knew the future. This is evidence that they did.

Just because someone made a 'prophecy' you instantly believe it to be true???
Just because the prophecy is claimed to be old you believe it to be true???

No, to both questions. I research things that I think might be true. Prophecy comes from God through men. God didn't just instruct a few people in the middle of a desert thousands of years ago, and then take a hike. We have prophecies from around the planet that basically describe the same thing, and they even include descriptions of the same players, good and bad. That particular prophecy says exactly what the AGW Alarmists should be concerned about [but aren't, yet]. You see, that's what happens if nothing changes. Humanity will have to walk down a road that is black and charred, because it just keeps getting hotter and hotter, until the source of additional heat is eliminated. [yeah, there I go again, using the word "heat," when I mean thermal energy. sue me, or bitch about it again] That means a reduction in CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases. CO2 will be around the longest, because it has a shelf life of hundreds of years. So even after we all die, it will continue to get warmer. Then it will continue to get colder for thousands of years, as the earth heads back into another glacial periods.

In reality, I'm thinking things will go a little quicker than the AGW Alarmists think it will though, because of the prophecies of this time. According to them, when humanity starts to realize what is going on, it will divide the people. Some will respond correctly, and some will not. It gets hot for both groups of people, but those who are prepared for it are the ones who make it through. Of course, those who don't even believe it is happening won't make it through. They won't be any better off than those who are waiting around on Jesus to come to their rescue just in the nick of time, and will do nothing for their own survival.

And yes, it will come down to people fighting for their own survival, everywhere. It's supposed to build up gradually, and just keep getting worse and worse over time, until the big finale, when what sounds like a Caldera eruption or possible a meteor strike occurs. It darkens the sky so bad you can't see the sun for days. When it's over, a new generation of people will be born. Those people will understand why we have to live in harmony with nature, and will not do the things we have done to survive.

Into the Night wrote:
This is known as a presentism fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
And you know what else. Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change. And a LOT more relevant than your rendition of Physics.

There it is...all hanging out pink and naked. You deny science in favor of religion and confuse religion with 'science'.


No, I keep religion and science separate. In fact, I deny religion. I accept science. I don't consider prophecy as religion. It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Funny you should claim I deny science, when the majority of scientists are in agreement about Global Warming being real. The only real scientific dispute is how much blame to put on humans for causing it to get warmer.

You are the one who is denying science, with your claim that gases do not even affect the climate.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-09-2017 04:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are denying the research that has already been done on CO2 and other atmospheric gases.

We know the properties of these materials. We've measured them. Nothing gives CO2 the power to add energy to the Earth. Nothing gives CO2 the power to prevent energy from leaving the Earth.


CO2 doesn't add energy to the planet.
CO2 doesn't prevent energy from leaving the planet.

CO2 [and other Greenhouse Gases] warm the air, slowing down surface cooling conduction to the air, thus raising the temperature of the surface slightly.


Paradox. It takes energy to warm the air, dumbass.

CO2 is not an energy source.

The Sun's output is effectively constant.

The only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.


It doesn't matter if you keep repeating the same bull shit over and over as you do. You simply have blinders on, and will not see the truth, because you don't want to know the truth. You just want to bask in the glory of making people feel better. The problem is that you are trying to make them feel better about destroying the future of humanity.

The Sun is the energy source. No one is disputing that.
The Sun Warms the Earth.
The Earth emits Electromagnetic Radiation as a Result of That Warmth.
Greenhouse Gases Convert Some of that Electromagnetic Radiation Into Thermal Energy, Adding to the Thermal Energy Already in the Air.
Surface Cooling Slows Down as a Result of That Additional Thermal Energy in the Air, Resulting in Additional Warming of the Surface.

You are again reducing entropy. Entropy always increases in any system. You are again violating the 2nd LoT.
You are again not allowing energy to escape. You are again violating the S-B law.

You can't just add energy to the Earth and forget about it. You can't just heat the lower atmosphere and forget about it.

You are still in paradox. Clear your paradox if you want to get any further.

GreenMan wrote:
See? And the Energy from the Sun DID NOT have to increase.

Because you again ignored the S-B law and the 2nd LoT, and are still arguing both sides of your paradox.

No, I am not ignoring the S-B Law or the 2nd Lot. I am applying them both in my understanding of what is going on.

By ignoring them??? You are still in paradox. You are still irrrational.
GreenMan wrote:
ogether, they describe it quite well. There is no paradox, except the one you create by not allowing the earth to get any warmer than it is by invoking a misunderstanding of those laws.

Those laws come from the conservation of energy law, which you also ignore.
GreenMan wrote:
There is something you keep bringing up called emissivity. It's a fudge factor.

It is not a fudge factor. It is a measured value. It is a constant.
GreenMan wrote:
You call it a measured constant.

Correct.
GreenMan wrote:
That's because grey bodies do not put out as much radiation as black bodies.

There are no ideally black bodies. All bodies are 'gray' bodies.
GreenMan wrote:
The earth is a grey body,

Correct.
GreenMan wrote:
so emissivity must be taken into consideration.

Correct.
GreenMan wrote:
If the emissivity decreases, then so does the radiation that the object puts out.

So does the absorptivity. Emissivity and absorpttivity are always identical.
GreenMan wrote:
That means that the object is retaining more energy from the original source of energy.

Violation of the S-B law. Violation of the 1st LoT. You can't create energy out of nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
That is not a paradox.


This particular statement is not a paradox, but it does violate the S-B law and the 1st LoT.
GreenMan wrote:
That is an application of those two laws.

No, It is a violation of them.

You can't create energy out of nothing.

Absorptivity is always the same as emissivity. If you reduce emissivity (by making something more reflective), you reduce absorptivity with it. The surface is cooler as a result, not warmer. You are literally trying to redefine the S-B law by the redefinition of one of its terms.

You can't trap heat.

No Holy Gas changes the emissivity of Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-09-2017 04:36
29-09-2017 04:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GreenMan wrote:
You see, that's what happens if nothing changes. Humanity will have to walk down a road that is black and charred, because it just keeps getting hotter and hotter, until the source of additional heat is eliminated.

Denying the 1st and 2nd LoT and the S-B law again.

GreenMan wrote:
[yeah, there I go again, using the word "heat," when I mean thermal energy. sue me, or bitch about it again]

Denying the concept of 'heat' as used in science too.

GreenMan wrote:
That means a reduction in CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. CO2 has no special properties to trap heat, add energy from nowhere into the Earth, conducts heat pretty much the same as any other gas in the atmosphere, and is pretty much the same temperature as the other gases in the atmosphere, ALL of which are radiating according to the S-B law.

GreenMan wrote:
CO2 will be around the longest, because it has a shelf life of hundreds of years.

CO2 does not have a 'shelf life'. It simply is.
GreenMan wrote:
So even after we all die, it will continue to get warmer. Then it will continue to get colder for thousands of years, as the earth heads back into another glacial periods.
...deleted religious doom and gloom...
More religious bullshit.
GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
This is known as a presentism fallacy.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
And you know what else. Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change. And a LOT more relevant than your rendition of Physics.

There it is...all hanging out pink and naked. You deny science in favor of religion and confuse religion with 'science'.

No, I keep religion and science separate.

Liar.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, I deny religion.

Liar.
GreenMan wrote:
I accept science.

Liar.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't consider prophecy as religion.

Guess what? It is. Accepting a prophecy as true is a circular argument, at least until the predicted event fails to happen. Then it's a void argument. If the predicted event DOES happen, it does not prove a prophecy is true.
GreenMan wrote:
It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Irrational. Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
Funny you should claim I deny science, when the majority of scientists are in agreement about Global Warming being real.

Consensus is not used in science. Consensus only appears in political or religious contexts. No one 'votes' on a theory of science. There is no 'elite' that 'owns' science. No peer review board, university, government agency, political group such as a scientific society, magazine, news source, scientist or group of scientists, owns science.
GreenMan wrote:
The only real scientific dispute is how much blame to put on humans for causing it to get warmer.

No science there. There are no scientific theories that cover that area.
GreenMan wrote:
You are the one who is denying science, with your claim that gases do not even affect the climate.

Inversion fallacy.

Science has no theory for how any gas can warm the planet. YOU are trying to introduce such a theory. You are basing that theory on 'global warming', which you can't even define.

A theory, scientific or not, can exist based on a fallacy. No theory can exist based on a void argument.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2017 04:58
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I still do. It was evil men, who came from European stock, that treated the tribes so horribly. Other Europeans, good men, tried to stop it.

You DO have a problem with contextomies. That's why I left the link in place, so people could restore the context of what I said and why, if they were interested.


I wasn't aware that any good white men were trying to stop the decimation of the native people of America. I thought they were all involved. The missionaries even got involved, by burning their chiefs at the stake if they wouldn't convert to Christianity. That always resulted in the missionaries getting killed, which always resulted in an excuse for the cavalry to be sent in and slaughter the whole village.

The native people went along with it. They did what they had to do to maintain their lineage through a time that was predicted to come. And they did it with pride, because they knew that their time would come.

This is a good example, called the Seventh Fire Prophecy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_fires_prophecy
[In case anyone is interested in reading it in its entirety.]

Even though this was written way before anyone was concerned about Global Warming, it said this about the time of the "Seventh Fire":

Seventh Fire Prophecy says:

It is this time that the light skinned race will be given a choice between two roads. One road will be green and lush, and very inviting. The other road will be black and charred, and walking it will cut their feet.


I'm thinking that is the one we have recently entered. And so does anyone else who is familiar with the prophecy and Global Warming.

See, Science and Religion do mix well.

But, uh, I wouldn't be slamming Europeans for coming over here and decimating the native people. That's not as bad as what the Republican Party [including the likes of you, Parrot Killer] are currently doing, because you guys are saying we should continue full steam in our current attempt to decimate the entire human species. And from the sounds of it, you are a direct descendant of some of those "evil" Europeans who came here.


Interesting reading GreenMan. I'll need to take the time to read it some more later. I am not sure if you know but I did let ITN know that if some of the things that I am pursuing work out that I'll ask Britain to return the remains of Pocahontas to the Powhatans. I am about 16 times removed (generations) her grandson. I don't think they'll find a Powhatan tribe today. This would kind of let people know that Native Americans have been through a lot. At the same time it might be in keeping with some of their heritage to become environmentalists.


Heh. The LAST thing most Native Americans were were environmentalists.


Sounds like you need to do a little research on Native American heritage.

I have.
GreenMan wrote:
They lived in harmony with nature, naturally.

Nope. The still don't.
GreenMan wrote:
What is it that you makes you think otherwise?

The way they never managed anything like trees, hunting, fishing, etc.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you have any examples of Native Americans doing any harm to the environment?

Go look at almost any reservation today.

The only one I have been on is the Hopi Nation near Four Corners. It was clean. But that isn't the one you are talking about, is it? They have had their problems there, too, but not like the ones elsewhere, where their reservations have been rendered ghettos. They were doing fine before our ancestors put theirs on reservations, and forced them to adopt white men ways.
That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about how they lived before being forced onto reservations. They weren't greedy, because they didn't own anything. They got up in the morning and went hunting, or to their garden, so they could eat. There was no industry to create pollution.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There is plenty to show what the Europeans were doing.

Redirection.
GreenMan wrote:
They had cut nearly every tree in Europe, when they discovered this continent.

They? Who are they? Are you talking about the British? The Brits aren't all of Europe you know.

Wasn't talking about just Britain.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Their rivers and streams were so muddy and polluted that you couldn't drink the water.

Guess they're dead then. I wonder who the current Europeans are, and how they managed to not only clean up the rivers but dispose of all the dead bodies from people that died from thirst?

Yes, they finally did clean up their act, after they got through disposing of the dead bodies.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
They brought that here.

Our rivers and streams are fine. Pollution in them is really pretty localized.

Thanks to the laws that protect the environment from greedy capitalists like you.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
According to their prophecies, they will take it back with them, too.

There you go with religion again.


Nah, prophecy isn't religion. Religions are based on accepted interpretation of fulfilled prophecy, or the promise of inclusion in the fulfillment. I don't follow any religion, and therefore don't have to accept any slant on what the prophets were warning us about. You could say I have my own religion, if you want, because I interpret the prophecies and use the understanding I get from them in my life. For example, I am concerned about Climate Change because of warnings received from scientific knowledge and from prophecy. They both say the same thing. It's going to get too hot to live. The prophets predicted that there would be a lot of people like you, that don't care.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, that is supported by Biblical prophecy as well.

Really??? Name the scripture. I'll bet you took it out of context.

Here's just one place that you are warned. I picked it, because it's the likes of you that this warning is meant for.

Deuteronomy 2 says:
68 "And the Lord will take you back to Egypt in ships, by the way of which I said to you, 'You shall never see it again.' And there you shall be offered for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you."


There are more places that it talks about a gathering, but that will keep you busy for a while. You should read the entire prophecy that begins on that page. It goes until the end of Deuteronomy, includes the Song of Moses, and are basically the last words of Moses.
Into the Night wrote:

[quote]GreenMan wrote:
You and all yours, will vacate the West Coast, and most other parts of this continent. Go ahead and laugh. I am.


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

Which is it, dude? You have still not cleared this paradox either.


That's not a paradox, if you would stop taking what I say out of context. There is an "if" included in number 2. The planet will become uninhabitable if nothing changes the course we are on.

You must like that word a lot, don't you? Is that your favorite method of confusion? Do you think that if you can confuse yourself enough about what is being said, and then blab it back differently that it confuses those who are listening/reading?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-09-2017 05:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1046)
Greenprophet wrote:
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science. I don't consider prophecy as religion. It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Wow. It's Litbeer's brain on cocaine, steroids, and a brain teaser exercise regiment wrapped in one thick skull!
I now understand how far apart our thinking is and I will change your mind of nothing...so just some questions I'm curious about.

No, I keep religion and science separate.

Then why did you say this?...."Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change".
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science.

How can you say this when you're arguing science and backing it with prophecy from God?
I don't consider prophecy as religion.

How is it not a religion? These prophecies have not been proven, yet you believe them. It is faith. I have no problem with faith. It isn't science. ITN is quite right on this one too...all religions are faith based. Even Christianity comes right out and claims it in Ephesians 2:8....for by grace are you saved through faith...
It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion,

No, it is faith in that prophecy
but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions

So you do believe in God, yet you reject Him? How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe and what to discard? You have obviously read Revelation. Isn't there a lot more scary things in there than a road of coals cutting feet? "whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". Now there's you're global warming verse!!! SEEEEEEE? I am trying to help you out!
29-09-2017 08:45
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenprophet wrote:
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science. I don't consider prophecy as religion. It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Wow. It's Litbeer's brain on cocaine, steroids, and a brain teaser exercise regiment wrapped in one thick skull!
I now understand how far apart our thinking is and I will change your mind of nothing...so just some questions I'm curious about.

Show me something I don't know, or explain something that you think I misunderstand, if you want to change my mind about something. Just don't expect to change my mind bull shit you find on Denier web sites.

GasGuzzler wrote:

No, I keep religion and science separate.

Then why did you say this?...."Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change".
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science.

How can you say this when you're arguing science and backing it with prophecy from God?

Why did you bother to ask that question, when the answer to it was given in the next sentence I typed?

GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't consider prophecy as religion.

How is it not a religion? These prophecies have not been proven, yet you believe them. It is faith. I have no problem with faith. It isn't science. ITN is quite right on this one too...all religions are faith based. Even Christianity comes right out and claims it in Ephesians 2:8....for by grace are you saved through faith...
It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion,

No, it is faith in that prophecy

Nope. It is the interpretation of prophecy that that creates religion. For example, early Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah, based on their interpretations of prophecy regarding the Messiah. Of course, they had to take a few liberties to make their argument though. One of which is all the horrible things that would happen when the Messiah comes. None of those things happened, but that didn't stop Christianity from taking over the world. Modern Judaism, began with the supposed return of Moses' Hebrew followers to the Holy Land after they somehow got enslaved by Babylonians after Moses went to all that trouble of leading them out of Egypt. They thought that Cyrus of Isaiah 44 and 45 and come, and that the rest of the prophecies would be fulfilled. Like the Christians, they didn't let the fact that nothing else happened bother them. They got it in their heads that they were the "Chose Ones of God," just like Christians do. Neither of them will consider thinking anything else, either. Because they think that as long as they have "faith" that they are the "Chosen Ones of God."

Solly, doesn't work that way. That's because what they have faith in is not what God said through the prophets. No, no. They have faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them God said through the prophets. Big difference. For example. When was the last time you sat down and tried to figure out what the Bible really says? Did you think, "never," because you take your preacher's word for it? What you really have faith in is in what someone else is telling you it says, because you have never taken the time to sit down and analyze it for yourself.

GasGuzzler wrote:
but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions

So you do believe in God, yet you reject Him? How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe and what to discard? You have obviously read Revelation. Isn't there a lot more scary things in there than a road of coals cutting feet? "whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". Now there's you're global warming verse!!! SEEEEEEE? I am trying to help you out!


Thank you so kindly for trying to help you out. No, I do not reject God at all. I do reject reject religions and also their beliefs in what God is. I have my own. My faith allows me to see things from different perspective, because because my beliefs are not exclusionary of some sources, while including others. I include all relevant information I can about whatever it is that I am trying to think through. In the case of God, I look to life itself as being from God, and within God. So life itself is therefore sacred, whether that is my life, or someone else's, regardless of what that person believes. In other words, I don't think you are going to hell, just because you are stupid and follow the religion created by Lucifer.

Oh, that's right. They left that part out at Sunday School, didn't they? So you don't have a clue about Jesus telling everyone that he was good old Lucifer himself, so you? It's in Revelation, which you know nothing about, even though you just tried to use a prophecy from it. Was that supposed to concern me, plow boy?

Do you understand what the "Lake of Fire" is?

Do you understand what happens if the earth keeps getting hotter?

Funny how you would drag that verse out of your ass, to use as a threat against someone who is trying like hell to keep you out of the "Lake of Fire." But feel free, take a plunge if that makes you feel better about your miserable life.

It, by the way, is what destroys the spirits of those who do not cherish life, and will not allow others to do the same and live in harmony with the rest of life on the planet. They don't get to come back no more, no more no more. Of course, that doesn't concern you, because you think you got Jesus in your pocket, and he is going to have your back, because you don't believe what I just said, especially the part about Jesus being Lucifer. Go ahead, Google it.

You will find that Isaiah Chapter 14 tells us what happens to the followers of Jesus. And guess what else that chapter is about. If you guessed Global Warming, then you guessed real good. But I doubt you guessed that, because you have never bothered to read the Bible, except when the Sunday School teacher made you follow along.

Tell your hottie wife I said hi. And I still want to see a picture of her, before I come over for burgers and beer.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-09-2017 19:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GreenMan wrote:
The only one I have been on is the Hopi Nation near Four Corners.

In interesting tribe. In many ways they are exceptional.
GreenMan wrote:
It was clean.

It generally is. The Hope are an exceptional nation.
GreenMan wrote:
But that isn't the one you are talking about, is it?

No.
GreenMan wrote:
They have had their problems there, too, but not like the ones elsewhere, where their reservations have been rendered ghettos.

They are not ghettos. The cities have ghettos, not the tribes.
GreenMan wrote:
They were doing fine before our ancestors put theirs on reservations, and forced them to adopt white men ways.

Trying to change history again, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about how they lived before being forced onto reservations.They weren't greedy, because they didn't own anything. They got up in the morning and went hunting, or to their garden, so they could eat. There was no industry to create pollution.

There certainly was. It may not have been industry in the way you envision it, but industry was still there.So was over hunting and over fishing. So were poor farming practices in many cases.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Our rivers and streams are fine. Pollution in them is really pretty localized.

Thanks to the laws that protect the environment from greedy capitalists like you.

No, thanks to people like me that produce technology that allows industry to run cleaner than before. The EPA has done NOTHING since they were created.
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You and all yours, will vacate the West Coast, and most other parts of this continent. Go ahead and laugh. I am.


1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

Which is it, dude? You have still not cleared this paradox either.


That's not a paradox, if you would stop taking what I say out of context. There is an "if" included in number 2. The planet will become uninhabitable if nothing changes the course we are on.[/quote]
Liar. You said the planet will become uninhabitable anyway. Do you want to back off now and put in the 'if'? It will resolve this particular paradox if you do, essentially choosing 1) and rejecting 2) by replacing it with a compatible statement.

If you want to go this route, then it will convert the paradox to a Pascal's Wager fallacy.

GreenMan wrote:
You must like that word a lot, don't you?

'Paradox'? No. It is because you make so many of them. Since you want to convert 2) of this paradox to an 'or else' condition, I will consider this resolved in favor of the Pascal's Wager fallacy.

An irrational person trying to say noting a paradox is a way to confuse people is simply making an inversion fallacy. YOU put yourself in paradox. Only YOU can clear it.

One down, only 15 more to go...assuming you don't add anymore before then.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2017 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenprophet wrote:
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science. I don't consider prophecy as religion. It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Wow. It's Litbeer's brain on cocaine, steroids, and a brain teaser exercise regiment wrapped in one thick skull!
I now understand how far apart our thinking is and I will change your mind of nothing...so just some questions I'm curious about.

Show me something I don't know, or explain something that you think I misunderstand, if you want to change my mind about something. Just don't expect to change my mind bull shit you find on Denier web sites.

GasGuzzler wrote:

No, I keep religion and science separate.

Then why did you say this?...."Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change".
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science.

How can you say this when you're arguing science and backing it with prophecy from God?

Why did you bother to ask that question, when the answer to it was given in the next sentence I typed?

GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't consider prophecy as religion.

How is it not a religion? These prophecies have not been proven, yet you believe them. It is faith. I have no problem with faith. It isn't science. ITN is quite right on this one too...all religions are faith based. Even Christianity comes right out and claims it in Ephesians 2:8....for by grace are you saved through faith...
It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion,

No, it is faith in that prophecy

Nope. It is the interpretation of prophecy that that creates religion. For example, early Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah, based on their interpretations of prophecy regarding the Messiah. Of course, they had to take a few liberties to make their argument though. One of which is all the horrible things that would happen when the Messiah comes. None of those things happened, but that didn't stop Christianity from taking over the world. Modern Judaism, began with the supposed return of Moses' Hebrew followers to the Holy Land after they somehow got enslaved by Babylonians after Moses went to all that trouble of leading them out of Egypt. They thought that Cyrus of Isaiah 44 and 45 and come, and that the rest of the prophecies would be fulfilled. Like the Christians, they didn't let the fact that nothing else happened bother them. They got it in their heads that they were the "Chose Ones of God," just like Christians do. Neither of them will consider thinking anything else, either. Because they think that as long as they have "faith" that they are the "Chosen Ones of God."

Solly, doesn't work that way. That's because what they have faith in is not what God said through the prophets. No, no. They have faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them God said through the prophets. Big difference. For example. When was the last time you sat down and tried to figure out what the Bible really says? Did you think, "never," because you take your preacher's word for it? What you really have faith in is in what someone else is telling you it says, because you have never taken the time to sit down and analyze it for yourself.

GasGuzzler wrote:
but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions

So you do believe in God, yet you reject Him? How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe and what to discard? You have obviously read Revelation. Isn't there a lot more scary things in there than a road of coals cutting feet? "whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". Now there's you're global warming verse!!! SEEEEEEE? I am trying to help you out!


Thank you so kindly for trying to help you out. No, I do not reject God at all. I do reject reject religions and also their beliefs in what God is. I have my own. My faith allows me to see things from different perspective, because because my beliefs are not exclusionary of some sources, while including others. I include all relevant information I can about whatever it is that I am trying to think through. In the case of God, I look to life itself as being from God, and within God. So life itself is therefore sacred, whether that is my life, or someone else's, regardless of what that person believes. In other words, I don't think you are going to hell, just because you are stupid and follow the religion created by Lucifer.

Oh, that's right. They left that part out at Sunday School, didn't they? So you don't have a clue about Jesus telling everyone that he was good old Lucifer himself, so you? It's in Revelation, which you know nothing about, even though you just tried to use a prophecy from it. Was that supposed to concern me, plow boy?

Do you understand what the "Lake of Fire" is?

Do you understand what happens if the earth keeps getting hotter?

Funny how you would drag that verse out of your ass, to use as a threat against someone who is trying like hell to keep you out of the "Lake of Fire." But feel free, take a plunge if that makes you feel better about your miserable life.

It, by the way, is what destroys the spirits of those who do not cherish life, and will not allow others to do the same and live in harmony with the rest of life on the planet. They don't get to come back no more, no more no more. Of course, that doesn't concern you, because you think you got Jesus in your pocket, and he is going to have your back, because you don't believe what I just said, especially the part about Jesus being Lucifer. Go ahead, Google it.

You will find that Isaiah Chapter 14 tells us what happens to the followers of Jesus. And guess what else that chapter is about. If you guessed Global Warming, then you guessed real good. But I doubt you guessed that, because you have never bothered to read the Bible, except when the Sunday School teacher made you follow along.

Tell your hottie wife I said hi. And I still want to see a picture of her, before I come over for burgers and beer.


It's your paradox again...it's baaack!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2017 05:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenprophet wrote:
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science. I don't consider prophecy as religion. It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Wow. It's Litbeer's brain on cocaine, steroids, and a brain teaser exercise regiment wrapped in one thick skull!
I now understand how far apart our thinking is and I will change your mind of nothing...so just some questions I'm curious about.

Show me something I don't know, or explain something that you think I misunderstand, if you want to change my mind about something. Just don't expect to change my mind bull shit you find on Denier web sites.

GasGuzzler wrote:

No, I keep religion and science separate.

Then why did you say this?...."Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change".
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science.

How can you say this when you're arguing science and backing it with prophecy from God?

Why did you bother to ask that question, when the answer to it was given in the next sentence I typed?

GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't consider prophecy as religion.

How is it not a religion? These prophecies have not been proven, yet you believe them. It is faith. I have no problem with faith. It isn't science. ITN is quite right on this one too...all religions are faith based. Even Christianity comes right out and claims it in Ephesians 2:8....for by grace are you saved through faith...
It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion,

No, it is faith in that prophecy

Nope. It is the interpretation of prophecy that that creates religion. For example, early Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah, based on their interpretations of prophecy regarding the Messiah. Of course, they had to take a few liberties to make their argument though. One of which is all the horrible things that would happen when the Messiah comes. None of those things happened, but that didn't stop Christianity from taking over the world. Modern Judaism, began with the supposed return of Moses' Hebrew followers to the Holy Land after they somehow got enslaved by Babylonians after Moses went to all that trouble of leading them out of Egypt. They thought that Cyrus of Isaiah 44 and 45 and come, and that the rest of the prophecies would be fulfilled. Like the Christians, they didn't let the fact that nothing else happened bother them. They got it in their heads that they were the "Chose Ones of God," just like Christians do. Neither of them will consider thinking anything else, either. Because they think that as long as they have "faith" that they are the "Chosen Ones of God."

Solly, doesn't work that way. That's because what they have faith in is not what God said through the prophets. No, no. They have faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them God said through the prophets. Big difference. For example. When was the last time you sat down and tried to figure out what the Bible really says? Did you think, "never," because you take your preacher's word for it? What you really have faith in is in what someone else is telling you it says, because you have never taken the time to sit down and analyze it for yourself.

GasGuzzler wrote:
but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions

So you do believe in God, yet you reject Him? How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe and what to discard? You have obviously read Revelation. Isn't there a lot more scary things in there than a road of coals cutting feet? "whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". Now there's you're global warming verse!!! SEEEEEEE? I am trying to help you out!


Thank you so kindly for trying to help you out. No, I do not reject God at all. I do reject reject religions and also their beliefs in what God is. I have my own. My faith allows me to see things from different perspective, because because my beliefs are not exclusionary of some sources, while including others. I include all relevant information I can about whatever it is that I am trying to think through. In the case of God, I look to life itself as being from God, and within God. So life itself is therefore sacred, whether that is my life, or someone else's, regardless of what that person believes. In other words, I don't think you are going to hell, just because you are stupid and follow the religion created by Lucifer.

Oh, that's right. They left that part out at Sunday School, didn't they? So you don't have a clue about Jesus telling everyone that he was good old Lucifer himself, so you? It's in Revelation, which you know nothing about, even though you just tried to use a prophecy from it. Was that supposed to concern me, plow boy?

Do you understand what the "Lake of Fire" is?

Do you understand what happens if the earth keeps getting hotter?

Funny how you would drag that verse out of your ass, to use as a threat against someone who is trying like hell to keep you out of the "Lake of Fire." But feel free, take a plunge if that makes you feel better about your miserable life.

It, by the way, is what destroys the spirits of those who do not cherish life, and will not allow others to do the same and live in harmony with the rest of life on the planet. They don't get to come back no more, no more no more. Of course, that doesn't concern you, because you think you got Jesus in your pocket, and he is going to have your back, because you don't believe what I just said, especially the part about Jesus being Lucifer. Go ahead, Google it.

You will find that Isaiah Chapter 14 tells us what happens to the followers of Jesus. And guess what else that chapter is about. If you guessed Global Warming, then you guessed real good. But I doubt you guessed that, because you have never bothered to read the Bible, except when the Sunday School teacher made you follow along.

Tell your hottie wife I said hi. And I still want to see a picture of her, before I come over for burgers and beer.


It's your paradox again...it's baaack!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


Have already answered that a few times. Prophecy says that some people make it through. So the world obviously doesn't become totally uninhabitable, as science indicates. The prophecy includes some kind of cataclysmic event, such as a Caldera eruption, that covers the earth in dust. That would cool the planet, and plunge humanity back into the dark ages, literally and figuratively. Science has no way of predicting an event like that, but we can tell for sure that it has happened in the past. So we know it will happen again in the future. Then won't be a good time to start thinking about how to survive.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
01-10-2017 09:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenprophet wrote:
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science. I don't consider prophecy as religion. It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion, but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions [unless it has to be translated to another language, then religious beliefs do influence translations].

Wow. It's Litbeer's brain on cocaine, steroids, and a brain teaser exercise regiment wrapped in one thick skull!
I now understand how far apart our thinking is and I will change your mind of nothing...so just some questions I'm curious about.

Show me something I don't know, or explain something that you think I misunderstand, if you want to change my mind about something. Just don't expect to change my mind bull shit you find on Denier web sites.

GasGuzzler wrote:

No, I keep religion and science separate.

Then why did you say this?...."Prophecy about Climate Change is just as relevant as Science about Climate Change".
In fact, I deny religion. I accept science.

How can you say this when you're arguing science and backing it with prophecy from God?

Why did you bother to ask that question, when the answer to it was given in the next sentence I typed?

GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't consider prophecy as religion.

How is it not a religion? These prophecies have not been proven, yet you believe them. It is faith. I have no problem with faith. It isn't science. ITN is quite right on this one too...all religions are faith based. Even Christianity comes right out and claims it in Ephesians 2:8....for by grace are you saved through faith...
It is the interpretation of prophecy that creates religion,

No, it is faith in that prophecy

Nope. It is the interpretation of prophecy that that creates religion. For example, early Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah, based on their interpretations of prophecy regarding the Messiah. Of course, they had to take a few liberties to make their argument though. One of which is all the horrible things that would happen when the Messiah comes. None of those things happened, but that didn't stop Christianity from taking over the world. Modern Judaism, began with the supposed return of Moses' Hebrew followers to the Holy Land after they somehow got enslaved by Babylonians after Moses went to all that trouble of leading them out of Egypt. They thought that Cyrus of Isaiah 44 and 45 and come, and that the rest of the prophecies would be fulfilled. Like the Christians, they didn't let the fact that nothing else happened bother them. They got it in their heads that they were the "Chose Ones of God," just like Christians do. Neither of them will consider thinking anything else, either. Because they think that as long as they have "faith" that they are the "Chosen Ones of God."

Solly, doesn't work that way. That's because what they have faith in is not what God said through the prophets. No, no. They have faith in what their spiritual leaders tell them God said through the prophets. Big difference. For example. When was the last time you sat down and tried to figure out what the Bible really says? Did you think, "never," because you take your preacher's word for it? What you really have faith in is in what someone else is telling you it says, because you have never taken the time to sit down and analyze it for yourself.

GasGuzzler wrote:
but the prophecies themselves are from God, so they are not influenced by men's opinions

So you do believe in God, yet you reject Him? How do you decide which parts of the Bible to believe and what to discard? You have obviously read Revelation. Isn't there a lot more scary things in there than a road of coals cutting feet? "whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". Now there's you're global warming verse!!! SEEEEEEE? I am trying to help you out!


Thank you so kindly for trying to help you out. No, I do not reject God at all. I do reject reject religions and also their beliefs in what God is. I have my own. My faith allows me to see things from different perspective, because because my beliefs are not exclusionary of some sources, while including others. I include all relevant information I can about whatever it is that I am trying to think through. In the case of God, I look to life itself as being from God, and within God. So life itself is therefore sacred, whether that is my life, or someone else's, regardless of what that person believes. In other words, I don't think you are going to hell, just because you are stupid and follow the religion created by Lucifer.

Oh, that's right. They left that part out at Sunday School, didn't they? So you don't have a clue about Jesus telling everyone that he was good old Lucifer himself, so you? It's in Revelation, which you know nothing about, even though you just tried to use a prophecy from it. Was that supposed to concern me, plow boy?

Do you understand what the "Lake of Fire" is?

Do you understand what happens if the earth keeps getting hotter?

Funny how you would drag that verse out of your ass, to use as a threat against someone who is trying like hell to keep you out of the "Lake of Fire." But feel free, take a plunge if that makes you feel better about your miserable life.

It, by the way, is what destroys the spirits of those who do not cherish life, and will not allow others to do the same and live in harmony with the rest of life on the planet. They don't get to come back no more, no more no more. Of course, that doesn't concern you, because you think you got Jesus in your pocket, and he is going to have your back, because you don't believe what I just said, especially the part about Jesus being Lucifer. Go ahead, Google it.

You will find that Isaiah Chapter 14 tells us what happens to the followers of Jesus. And guess what else that chapter is about. If you guessed Global Warming, then you guessed real good. But I doubt you guessed that, because you have never bothered to read the Bible, except when the Sunday School teacher made you follow along.

Tell your hottie wife I said hi. And I still want to see a picture of her, before I come over for burgers and beer.


It's your paradox again...it's baaack!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


Have already answered that a few times.

No. You actually haven't. You are still in paradox. You almost answered it by imposing an 'if' clause on 2), but you revoked it later just now.
GreenMan wrote:
Prophecy says that some people make it through. So the world obviously doesn't become totally uninhabitable, as science indicates.

Science doesn't indicate. Remember, science does not have the power of prediction without turning to a closed system like mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophecy includes some kind of cataclysmic event, such as a Caldera eruption, that covers the earth in dust. That would cool the planet, and plunge humanity back into the dark ages, literally and figuratively.

You forget. I lived through volcaniic eruptions. I lived in Hawaii for two years, where eruptions are almost continuous. Mt St. Helens covered everything in my area in darkness equivalent to nighttime at noon.

I'm still here. Indeed, I used the fallen ash as part of my solution to cleaning up Puget Sound later. Turned out to be GREAT for that!

We have had whole mountains disappear in catastrophic eruptions, even on the Pacific Rim.

Were still here.

GreenMan wrote:
Science has no way of predicting an event like that, but we can tell for sure that it has happened in the past. So we know it will happen again in the future. Then won't be a good time to start thinking about how to survive.

Calderas are just volcanic activity without the mountain.

Science DOES have a way to predict eminent eruptions, certainly with enough time for the smart folks to get out of there. The instrumentation used is quite simple and easily placed on any suspect area.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2017 08:10
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:

It's your paradox again...it's baaack!

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable, according to scripture.

Which is it, dude?


Greenman wrote:
Have already answered that a few times.


Into the Night wrote:
No. You actually haven't. You are still in paradox. You almost answered it by imposing an 'if' clause on 2), but you revoked it later just now.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
Prophecy says that some people make it through. So the world obviously doesn't become totally uninhabitable, as science indicates.

Into the Night wrote:
Science doesn't indicate. Remember, science does not have the power of prediction without turning to a closed system like mathematics.

Science surely does indicate. And guess what else. Science uses closed systems like mathematics for predictions. Just like the one I was able to make, using math and scientifically gathered climate data.

GreenMan wrote:
The prophecy includes some kind of cataclysmic event, such as a Caldera eruption, that covers the earth in dust. That would cool the planet, and plunge humanity back into the dark ages, literally and figuratively.


Into the Night wrote:
You forget. I lived through volcaniic eruptions. I lived in Hawaii for two years, where eruptions are almost continuous. Mt St. Helens covered everything in my area in darkness equivalent to nighttime at noon.

I'm still here. Indeed, I used the fallen ash as part of my solution to cleaning up Puget Sound later. Turned out to be GREAT for that!

We have had whole mountains disappear in catastrophic eruptions, even on the Pacific Rim.

Were still here.


Unfortunately, you are. Funny how you try to twist a Caldera eruption into something equivalent to Mt. St. Helens' eruption. There is no comparison, brainiac.

GreenMan wrote:
Science has no way of predicting an event like that, but we can tell for sure that it has happened in the past. So we know it will happen again in the future. Then won't be a good time to start thinking about how to survive.

Into the Night wrote:
Calderas are just volcanic activity without the mountain.

Science DOES have a way to predict eminent eruptions, certainly with enough time for the smart folks to get out of there. The instrumentation used is quite simple and easily placed on any suspect area.


You obviously haven't spent much time learning about volcanism, I see. No, Parrot, Calderas aren't "just volcanic activity without the mountain." They push a mountain up, just like every other volcano on the planet. The difference between them and every other volcano on the planet is how powerful their blast is. Calderas are so powerful that they literally blow the mountain away, and leave a huge hole, which usually fills up with water and forms beautiful lakes. There is one not far from you, if you want to go there and learn a little about them. It's called Crater Lake, or Mount Mazama [depending on if you are talking about the volcano or the lake it formed]. If that thing goes off again, you won't be able to brag about still being alive, based on your proximity. And you won't fair too well if Yellowstone goes off either. In fact, either of them would turn the west coast into an ash heap.

Toba is another one that is worth learning about. It went off about 74,000 years ago, followed by a die-off that left just a few hundred breeding couples on earth. Those were battle hardened cave men people, and most of them died as a result of that one explosion. It did make matters worse that most people lived in that general vicinity, at the time.

That one in Italy is the one that is currently acting like it is ready to wake up. And no, Parrot, there is not a way to predict volcanic eruptions that would allow even the smartest of people to get out of the way. That's why there are still people living in Italy, with Campi Flegrei bubbling and boiling away. Here's a news article that you probably aren't interested about, which talks a little about the same things we are talking about here.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/08/campi-flegrei-the-massive-italian-volcano-that-will-kill-us-all-or-not/

And here's a pretty picture, so you can see the enormity of you error, in comparing a Caldera to just any old volcano, just doesn't have the mountain.


See that thing that looks like a volcano? Well, that is a volcano. It is actually inside the Aniakchak Caldera in Alaska. When that caldera erupts again, that volcano and all of its surroundings gets blasted into orbit.

Do you still think that Calderas are comparable to the little zits that exploded around you?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 09:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
GreenMan wrote:
Science surely does indicate.

Science does not indicate the destruction of the planet. Science does not indicate anything. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
GreenMan wrote:
And guess what else. Science uses closed systems like mathematics for predictions.

True. That is called the formalization of a theory.
GreenMan wrote:
Just like the one I was able to make,

Your theory is not falsifiable.
GreenMan wrote:
using math

You didn't use any.
GreenMan wrote:
and scientifically gathered climate data.

There is no such thing. There is data, or there is not. There is no such thing as 'scientific' data.
You gathered no data. You are using random numbers. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth, the CO2 content of the Earth, or the emissivity of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You forget. I lived through volcaniic eruptions. I lived in Hawaii for two years, where eruptions are almost continuous. Mt St. Helens covered everything in my area in darkness equivalent to nighttime at noon.

I'm still here. Indeed, I used the fallen ash as part of my solution to cleaning up Puget Sound later. Turned out to be GREAT for that!

We have had whole mountains disappear in catastrophic eruptions, even on the Pacific Rim.

Were still here.


Unfortunately, you are. Funny how you try to twist a Caldera eruption into something equivalent to Mt. St. Helens' eruption. There is no comparison, brainiac.

There certainly is.
GreenMan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Calderas are just volcanic activity without the mountain.

Science DOES have a way to predict eminent eruptions, certainly with enough time for the smart folks to get out of there. The instrumentation used is quite simple and easily placed on any suspect area.

GreenMan wrote:
You obviously haven't spent much time learning about volcanism, I see.

Just lived with them most of my life. I know a hell of a lot more about them then YOU do.
I know what kinds there are and how each kind tends to erupt.
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, Calderas aren't "just volcanic activity without the mountain." They push a mountain up, just like every other volcano on the planet.

They can. They usually don't put up much more than some cones.
GreenMan wrote:
The difference between them and every other volcano on the planet is how powerful their blast is.

Nope. Not that much more powerful. Just larger in area.
GreenMan wrote:
Calderas are so powerful that they literally blow the mountain away, and leave a huge hole, which usually fills up with water and forms beautiful lakes.

Calderas are not mountains. They are just craters.
GreenMan wrote:
There is one not far from you, if you want to go there and learn a little about them. It's called Crater Lake, or Mount Mazama [depending on if you are talking about the volcano or the lake it formed].

Crater Lake (which is quite beautiful) is not a caldera. It is a volcano.that collapsed in on itself (there was nothing holding it up after the last eruption). That kind of collapse is sometimes called a caldera because of it's size.
GreenMan wrote:
If that thing goes off again, you won't be able to brag about still being alive, based on your proximity.

No worries. The thing has no magma in it. That's why it collapsed. It could at some point rebuild its magma chamber in the future, but there is no indication of it doing so. If it erupts, it will be much like what St Helens did (hopefully will go UP and not out sideways, like St Helens).
GreenMan wrote:
And you won't fair too well if Yellowstone goes off either.

Yellowstone is east of us by over 700 miles. We won't be affected. This area is active (the reason for all the hot springs and geysers) and venting (releasing pressure). An eruption here will result not in a massive explosion, but in a lake of lava. A rather unique area. As the hot spot feeding the energy to this area moves further southeast (as a result of the North American Plate moving northwest), the geysers and such move with it. The steam explosion preceding the eruption could send material across the eastern half of the United States.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, either of them would turn the west coast into an ash heap.
...deleted remaining examples of doom and gloom...

Neither Mt Mazama nor Yellowstone are going to turn the west coast into an ash heap. Besides, volcanic ash is actually very fertile. The plants love it.
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, there is not a way to predict volcanic eruptions that would allow even the smartest of people to get out of the way.

There certainly is. There are seismic instruments that are cheap to produce and place. They are basically glorified microphones. There are piezoelectric instruments that can measure the strain in the rock as the magma chamber fills.
GreenMan wrote:
And here's a pretty picture, so you can see the enormity of you error, in comparing a Caldera to just any old volcano, just doesn't have the mountain.
...deleted image of caldera...
See that thing that looks like a volcano? Well, that is a volcano. It is actually inside the Aniakchak Caldera in Alaska. When that caldera erupts again, that volcano and all of its surroundings gets blasted into orbit.

No volcano blasts anything into orbit on Earth. The tropopause stops the upward movement of material and it spreads out from there, much like an anvil of a thunderstorm.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you still think that Calderas are comparable to the little zits that exploded around you?

They are larger, but not nearly as destructive as you seem to think they are.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2017 05:26
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Science surely does indicate.

Science does not indicate the destruction of the planet. Science does not indicate anything. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Funny how you argue like you do, about things. You apparently don't know as much as you think you do, like the meaning of the word, "indicate," and how it and the word "describe" mean about the same thing. In fact, you could replace the word "describe" with the word "indicate" in your last sentence, and not change the meaning of the sentence. You are the poster child for educated idiots.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And guess what else. Science uses closed systems like mathematics for predictions.

True. That is called the formalization of a theory.
GreenMan wrote:
Just like the one I was able to make,

Your theory is not falsifiable.

It most certainly is falsifiable. All you have to do is monitor the average global temperature [which you aren't smart enough to do] over the course of 100 years, and see if the trend is increasing as expected. If the trend decreases, or even stays the same, then my theory is false.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
using math

You didn't use any.

You wouldn't know, would you. Even though I posted the algorithm here, you think you can say I didn't use math? You are quite the clown.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
and scientifically gathered climate data.

There is no such thing. There is data, or there is not. There is no such thing as 'scientific' data.
You gathered no data. You are using random numbers. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth, the CO2 content of the Earth, or the emissivity of the Earth.

If you keep repeating those lies, then maybe they will become real. And there is such a thing as scientifically gathered data. For example, it was a bunch of scientists who went down to Antarctica and drilled a big long hole, up through the bottom of the ice [in Greenland, they drill down through the top] and got this stuff they call data. I didn't go there myself to collect their data. We now have this wonderful thing called the Internet, and they posted their data there. That's where I found it, or gathered it. Oh yeah, those aren't random numbers, either. You're just jealous because you didn't think of it.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You forget. I lived through volcaniic eruptions. I lived in Hawaii for two years, where eruptions are almost continuous. Mt St. Helens covered everything in my area in darkness equivalent to nighttime at noon.

I'm still here. Indeed, I used the fallen ash as part of my solution to cleaning up Puget Sound later. Turned out to be GREAT for that!

We have had whole mountains disappear in catastrophic eruptions, even on the Pacific Rim.

Were still here.


Unfortunately, you are. Funny how you try to twist a Caldera eruption into something equivalent to Mt. St. Helens' eruption. There is no comparison, brainiac.

There certainly is.

Well, you can compare them, like Tulane University did here:
Tulane University wrote:
The eruption [of Yellowstone] 600,000 years ago produced about 1000 km3 of rhyolite (in comparison, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in May of 1980 produced only 0.75 km3.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/volcanoes.htm


Most people would call something that is 1,300 times less than another, "no comparison." That's like trying to compare a fire cracker to a hydrogen bomb, lol.


Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Calderas are just volcanic activity without the mountain.

Science DOES have a way to predict eminent eruptions, certainly with enough time for the smart folks to get out of there. The instrumentation used is quite simple and easily placed on any suspect area.

GreenMan wrote:
You obviously haven't spent much time learning about volcanism, I see.

Just lived with them most of my life. I know a hell of a lot more about them then YOU do.
I know what kinds there are and how each kind tends to erupt.

Oh, and somebody came along talking about volcanoes! How dare anyone mention them in your presence, since you know all about them! Well maybe you could explain how it would be possible to evacuate the entire middle section of this continent ahead of an imminent eruption of Yellowstone? Or do you think it wouldn't be that bad? Do you have any idea what the ash fall looked like when Yellowstone went off 640,000 years ago?

Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, Calderas aren't "just volcanic activity without the mountain." They push a mountain up, just like every other volcano on the planet.

They can. They usually don't put up much more than some cones.
GreenMan wrote:
The difference between them and every other volcano on the planet is how powerful their blast is.

Nope. Not that much more powerful. Just larger in area.

Larger and more powerful, brainiac. Over 1,000 times more powerful than what you are familiar with.

Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Calderas are so powerful that they literally blow the mountain away, and leave a huge hole, which usually fills up with water and forms beautiful lakes.

Calderas are not mountains. They are just craters.

They are craters because they blew the dirt above them all over the planet. Though some stratovolcanoes do fall in on themselves after an eruption, and become calderas, like Crater Lake.

Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
There is one not far from you, if you want to go there and learn a little about them. It's called Crater Lake, or Mount Mazama [depending on if you are talking about the volcano or the lake it formed].

Crater Lake (which is quite beautiful) is not a caldera. It is a volcano.that collapsed in on itself (there was nothing holding it up after the last eruption). That kind of collapse is sometimes called a caldera because of it's size.

Everybody calls it a caldera but you.

Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
If that thing goes off again, you won't be able to brag about still being alive, based on your proximity.

No worries. The thing has no magma in it. That's why it collapsed. It could at some point rebuild its magma chamber in the future, but there is no indication of it doing so. If it erupts, it will be much like what St Helens did (hopefully will go UP and not out sideways, like St Helens).
GreenMan wrote:
And you won't fair too well if Yellowstone goes off either.

Yellowstone is east of us by over 700 miles. We won't be affected.

You will be affected if Yellowstone erupts, regardless of whether or not the wind helps you out. It probably will, because it did the previous times it erupted, sending ash all the way to the east coast. There were several feet of ash covering the land for hundreds of miles in either direction then. And even if you do get through that unscathed, you will be affected, because life as you know it just stopped. You city slickers will find out that groceries don't come from the back of the store. And all them plow boys are gonna be buried under several feet of ash, so they ain't gonna be plowing much. The world will change forever that day, so let's hope it doesn't happen.

Into The Night wrote:
This area is active (the reason for all the hot springs and geysers) and venting (releasing pressure). An eruption here will result not in a massive explosion, but in a lake of lava. A rather unique area. As the hot spot feeding the energy to this area moves further southeast (as a result of the North American Plate moving northwest), the geysers and such move with it. The steam explosion preceding the eruption could send material across the eastern half of the United States.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, either of them would turn the west coast into an ash heap.
...deleted remaining examples of doom and gloom...

Neither Mt Mazama nor Yellowstone are going to turn the west coast into an ash heap. Besides, volcanic ash is actually very fertile. The plants love it.

Plants don't love it so much when it is six feet deep, and covering them up. You won't like it much then either.

Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
No, Parrot, there is not a way to predict volcanic eruptions that would allow even the smartest of people to get out of the way.

There certainly is. There are seismic instruments that are cheap to produce and place. They are basically glorified microphones. There are piezoelectric instruments that can measure the strain in the rock as the magma chamber fills.

The problem is actually evacuating that many people, and for how long. They aren't going to stay at HoJos forever, even if they all can get a room. It might go off this week, or next week, or next month.

Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And here's a pretty picture, so you can see the enormity of you error, in comparing a Caldera to just any old volcano, just doesn't have the mountain.
...deleted image of caldera...<put it right back
>

See that thing that looks like a volcano? Well, that is a volcano. It is actually inside the Aniakchak Caldera in Alaska. When that caldera erupts again, that volcano and all of its surroundings gets blasted into orbit.

No volcano blasts anything into orbit on Earth. The tropopause stops the upward movement of material and it spreads out from there, much like an anvil of a thunderstorm.

Not according to Tulane University [but what do they know?] who says volcanoes eject material up to 45km. The tropopause ends at around 11km [at the equator].

Tulane University wrote:
Clouds of gas and tephra that rise above a volcano produce an eruption column that can rise up to 45 km into the atmosphere. Eventually the tephra in the eruption column will be picked up by the wind, carried for some distance, and then fall back to the surface as a tephra fall or ash fall. This type of eruption is called a Plinian eruption.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/volcanoes.htm


Into The Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Do you still think that Calderas are comparable to the little zits that exploded around you?

They are larger, but not nearly as destructive as you seem to think they are.


I'm gonna conclude that they are more destructive than you think they are. I know for sure that they are the most destructive force on the planet. You apparently don't know that. Something else that you don't know is how long their debris can orbit the planet, before finally settling down. Did you know that it can take 15~20 thousand years? And it can plunge the planet into a Glacial Period, almost overnight.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
05-05-2018 19:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:

Heh. The LAST thing most Native Americans were were environmentalists.


James_ wrote:
And at the same time since I think you are Native American


Into the Night wrote:
Well...Native American in the sense that was born in the United States, yes.
[/b]


...Nothing but a mind game.
05-05-2018 19:03
James___
★★★☆☆
(666)
This is what his quotes were taken from. just a mind fu ck is all he is. What's funny is that people in all parts of society uses drugs, legal or not. What he is describing can be accounted for by being a drug dealer so what he says doesn't really mean anything.


Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Heh. The LAST thing most Native Americans were were environmentalists.


Many in Washington St. just like breathing spray paint sprayed onto a rag. Good way to fry someone's brain. Read about it all the time in area papers. Maybe you've been sniffing paint as well ? You seem to be nothing but a jerk.


Now your insult streams are just becoming bigotry. Both are fallacies.


I've seen it first hand.

You have NOT talked to everyone in Washington State.
James_ wrote:
And I think when it's in the newspaper its not fallacy but is a fact.

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. 'Fact' is not a newspaper.
James_ wrote:
Besides, I could've graduated high school in the Seattle area at a school for Native Americans but said no. You're making that seem like I made the right decision. After all in my opinion you're just a hater.

Heh. I'm actually very liked on my street and at my business. Doesn't seem to fit your your accusation of being a 'hater', does it?

Do I hate certain things? Of course I do. I detest dictators. I detest Marxism and anything that it inspired. I detest thieves. I detest murderers. I detest the useful idiots trying to bring this about.

If you want to call me a 'hater' for that, go right ahead. It only shows that you feel threatened by me. In other words, it only shows you are part or all of these things.

I support a republican form of government. I support the federated part of our government, as long as it remains a republican form of government.

I support communities, farms, and those willing to produce for a living. I detest the lazy that are able bodied but refuse to work. I support capitalism. I know the power of the free market and what it can do. I know why it is immortal and can't be killed. I agree with the Austrian Economic model and do not agree with the Keynesian Economic model.

I have built my business up myself. I used no government aid. My products are sold all over the world. They appear in industrial plants of almost every kind. I have personally done a large part of cleaning up Puget Sound through my instruments. They appear in many aircraft, including many Boeing jets. They appear in medical installations such as hospitals all over the world. My instruments are popular because they work and are reliable. People are willing to pay the price for them. That's the free market at work.

I employ people. I pay them for their services according to the price I have negotiated with each and every one of them, just as I must negotiate my price for my instruments with my customers. Again, the free market in action. My employees like each other and they like me. They like working here. If they didn't, they would leave.

So call me a hater if you wish. It's just more insult noise.

James_ wrote:
Thing is you don't know me

I know enough about you to know your politics, even though you deny it. You've certainly made it plain enough.
James_ wrote:
but you will play your mind games with me.

No one is playing mind games with you except yourself.
James_ wrote:
For some reason you think I'm ignorant

Illiterate, actually. Illiterate in certain areas of math, in science, in logic, in philosophy.
James_ wrote:
because I lived in the Seattle area.

Not because you lived here (even if you did). It is because you are illiterate. You never learned this stuff.
James_ wrote:
And at the same time since I think you are Native American

Well...Native American in the sense that was born in the United States, yes.
James_ wrote:
I think you're making them look bad.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Litebeer does THAT quite well! You're worried about ME making them look bad?!?
James_ wrote:
All it seems your heritage is about is causing other people problems.

Ah. Hate speech...with bigotry no less.
James_ wrote:
The world was and is changing.

So? Everyone has changed with it. My business is to BRING ABOUT change!
James_ wrote:
From what I've seen from you it doesn't speak well for you.

You really have a cartoon view of the indian, don't you?
James_ wrote:
p.s., anyone can do a search to find out what kinds of problems Native Americans have.

You might ask the local tribal councils. that's their concern after all.
James_ wrote:
But ITN if people don't want to change when the times have changed that is on them.

Back to the cartoon view.
James_ wrote:
Maybe you should learn something about climate change

Now we return to the original baseball stadium.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

James_ wrote:
and the environment ?

Define 'the environment'. Are you referring to the Church of Ecological Radicals?
James_ wrote:
The only thing you're doing now is wasting other peoples time.

You keep saying this...you keep responding.

You're a liar, even to yourself.

Edited on 05-05-2018 19:13
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate This is funny:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Funny Numbers2716-02-2017 03:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact