Thoughts and ideas about existence.

[Mateo_1387]

Ruff, Eydawyn, thanks for joining in on the conversation.

I would like all kinds of responses. There have been some interesting ones thus far.

I will quote myself. Just to restate that I want those of the religious flavor to participate and I will not ignore the thought. Just as a disclaimer, I wanted it to be known that I was mostly looking for a non-religious answer, but*, I am willing to read the religious answers, I just ask for a some sustenance to back it up.

To start off with, I want to say this without stepping on everyones toes. One answer I do not accept personally for this question is the religious view. This is not to stop those who are religious from joining in on the conversation, but, I ask that we do not simply say in so many words 'we exist for God'. Follow the religious answers up with something of great sustenance. I am willing to explore the area of religion as it applies to this discussion, but, I hope too many do not get pissed off with where it may go. See what I am saying?

Again, thanks for the replies Ruff, Eydawn.

Please keep them coming folks. I like what I am reading so far. I will give some replies soon.

[funkytomtom]

I disagree with this... I do not think we are destroying the planet to the extent that people like to blame humankind for. I do not believe in global warming. I believe that there is a God-planned circle of life. I have watched pine beetles destroy trees as far as the eye can see. I have seen cattle trample the ground so that nothing grows. I have seen grasshoppers destroy miles of crops. They destroy, and make no attempt to change or fix, unlike humans.

Now, back to the original question. I am seconding Ruff's answer. I am here to do the best I can, to make the lives of people that I come into contact with better than they were before they met or came into contact with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/gulf-oil-spill-photos-ani_n_560813.html

And, you know what? I am sick of people who work in science completely rejecting science!!! How can you even justify interfering in this "God-planned circle" as an EMT? Obviously God planned for that person to die, how can you possibly interfere with his will?!?!? Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

[DwayneEMTP]

I'm a Christian and for you to discount that answer and say that I can't say I was put here to Glorify MY God then this discussion is moot.

I fail to see where he disallowed dieties in the discussion, he simply asked that you back it up with a rational argument that didn't include 'because it just is.' Which you've failed to do.

But hey, it's your discussion

Then you should have shown him the respect to have played by his rules, right?

I do believe that I was put here to Glorify God...

And you rarely pass up an opportunity to make that point. I don't follow your beliefs brother, but I have respect for them. Unfortunately those that follow your beliefs, as here, often fail to show respect to those of other opinions. He didn't disallow your point of view, simply asked that you back it with logical, intelligent discussion as well. I for one would love to see you attempt to do so.

Interesting discussion so far, by a bunch of interesting people. Thanks for the idea Matty! I'm still trying to find a point of view to argue... :-)

Dwayne

[emtannie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/gulf-oil-spill-photos-ani_n_560813.html

And, you know what? I am sick of people who work in science completely rejecting science!!! How can you even justify interfering in this "God-planned circle" as an EMT? Obviously God planned for that person to die, how can you possibly interfere with his will?!?!? Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

You completely missed my point. Without getting into pages of detail, I stated that I believe a higher being controls more than we humans do, and we are pretty arrogant to think that we have so much impact and control. Yeah, you can post lots on the latest oil spill and how we are all going to fry for that. (remember the Exxon Valdez? That sure doesn't make the news much anymore. What about the ice age? Man didn't cause that. Species have been going extinct and new ones evolving long before man arrived on the scene, so to think that man is interfering and is completely responsible for destroying biodiversity is truly arrogant.

As for "completely rejecting science," I prefer to think that I am open to suggestions that there are sometimes things that science cannot explain. I am sure you have seen things in your medical career that did not fit the scientific mold - patients who, according to science, should not have lived, but did; patients who should have lived, but did not. Maybe in 5 or 10 or 50 years we will be better able to explain some of those things.... oh wait - that would be interfering....

Working in the medical industry, I do not believe I am "interfering." We were given brains for a reason - to choose to use it to learn, to try to help others, is not a bad thing, but you prefer to twist that into "interfering." I suspect you are looking for an argument here, and feel free to try to beat your opinions into me - I do not have to agree with you, nor do you have to agree with me.

I did not disagree with your entire first post - I chose to disagree with a portion of it, and gave my reasons. That is one of the great things about this site - we get to see the varied ideas and opinions. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

Matt - good thread -

[DwayneEMTP]

<br>I think our job is to exist, evolve, and most importantly, obey the laws of nature.

I find your thoughts interesting, but also contradictory. If we're to follow the 'laws of nature' which I read to mean our biological programming, then certainly we've failed when men stopped humping every female in his general vicinity and we devalued anarchy, right? Our biological programming says that we should spread our seed, and physicall/mentally dominate every individual we encounter, yet as a civilization we've chosen to believe that those things are not in our best interest. (Though I'm a little disappointed in the humping the females part. They're WAY harder to get naked if they don't feel biologically obligated to do so. Just sayin')

... Every other species does, but somehow we think we are special and can reproduce indefinitely and manipulate our environment to an infinite extent.

Perhaps I'm missing your point. Are you saying that because we believe that we can reproduce without repercussions that we're different than other animals? Are you aware of a Lions and Tigers and Bears family planning clinic somewhere that I've not heard of? Population control for hamsters or some such things?

Is there some type of Urban Planning Commission for the foxes and eagles that hasn't made itself known in Colorado yet? Those species are following the laws of survival of the fittest, simple as that.

All creatures affect their environment, but not like we do.&nbsp;&nbsp;We are destroying the biodiversity of this planet while we continue to devolve.

Yeah, as with others here, I disagree. Is our management intelligent? Nah. But are we destroying the planet? No man, it doesn't even know we're here. And if it does begin to get cranky, it'll just smite us like so many pesky mosquitos.

One of the most important things I think we can all do is stop defining good and bad.&nbsp;&nbsp;We are so preoccupied with this inane activity,...

If you were here I'd kiss you right on the mouth. This is one of my favorite lines of thought. When we define good or bad, we don't only define thoughts and behaviors, but people. We begin to define people by these terms. And that is pathologic.

Maybe we could replace these things with desirable or undesirable?

Dwayne

Edited X number of times to correct formatting only.

Edited May 25, 2010 by DwayneEMTP

[DwayneEMTP]

<br>Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

<div><br></div><div>Hell...you've just proved that you don't know the difference between popular hysteria and proof. I'm taking away your science card brother.</div><div><br></div><div>Global worming is without question the most highly publicized, least support theory in human history. Just because you see a bunch of shows on tv about it doesn't make it scientifically sound.</div><div><br></div><div>Step away from your tv, and your liberal arts teacher, and look at the science, and then you can come back and say, 'ooops!</div><div><br></div><div>Start here:&nbsp;<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma; white-space: pre; ">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html</span></div><div><font'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;">Then try here: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma; ">http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html</span></span></font></div><div><font'>http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html</span></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma; "></span>And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Tahoma, arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: pre;">Dwayne<br></span></font><br><br>

</div>

Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

Hell...you've just proved that you don't know the difference between popular hysteria and proof. I'm taking away your science card brother.

Global worming is without question the most highly publicized, least support theory in human history. Just because you see a bunch of shows on tv about it doesn't make it scientifically sound.

Step away from your tv, and your liberal arts teacher, and look at the science, and then you can come back and say, 'ooops!

Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Then try here: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.

Dwayne

Edited, once again, to re-fucking-format. Not sure how many tries it will take, but no contextual changes made. Admin, are you hearing us about the formatting issues? I've talked to many that say using multi-quotes in a monster, so I know it's not just me.

Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

Hell...you've just proved that you don't know the difference between popular hysteria and proof. I'm taking away your science card brother.

Global worming is without question the most highly publicized, least support theory in human history. Just because you see a bunch of shows on tv about it doesn't make it scientifically sound.

Step away from your tv, and your liberal arts teacher, and look at the science, and then you can come back and say, 'ooops!

Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Then try here: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.

Dwayne

Edited, once again, to re-fucking-format. Not sure how many tries it will take, but no contextual changes made. Admin, are you hearing us about the formatting issues? I've talked to many that say using multi-quotes in a monster, so I know it's not just me.

Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

Hell...you've just proved that you don't know the difference between popular hysteria and proof. I'm taking away your science card brother.

Global worming is without question the most highly publicized, least support theory in human history. Just because you see a bunch of shows on tv about it doesn't make it scientifically sound.

Step away from your tv, and your liberal arts teacher, and look at the science, and then you can come back and say, 'ooops!

Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Then try here: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.

Dwayne

Edited, once again, to re-fucking-format. Not sure how many tries it will take, but no contextual changes made. Admin, are you hearing us about the formatting issues? I've talked to many that say using multi-quotes in a monster, so I know it's not just me.

Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

Hell...you've just proved that you don't know the difference between popular hysteria and proof. I'm taking away your science card brother.

Global worming is without question the most highly publicized, least support theory in human history. Just because you see a bunch of shows on tv about it doesn't make it scientifically sound.

Step away from your tv, and your liberal arts teacher, and look at the science, and then you can come back and say, 'ooops!

Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Then try here: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22866/New_York_Global_Warming_Conference_Considers_Manhattan_Declaration.html

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.

Dwayne

Edited, once again, to re-fucking-format. Not sure how many tries it will take, but no contextual changes made. Admin, are you hearing us about the formatting issues? I've talked to many that say using multi-quotes in a monster, so I know it's not just me.

Global warming is a theory in the same respect that gravity is "just a theory."

Hell...you've just proved that you don't know the difference between popular hysteria and proof. I'm taking away your science card brother.

Global worming is without question the most highly publicized, least support theory in human history. Just because you see a bunch of shows on tv about it doesn't make it scientifically sound.

Step away from your tv, and your liberal arts teacher, and look at the science, and then you can come back and say, 'ooops!

Start here: http://www.telegraph...-disproved.html

Then try here: http://www.heartland...eclaration.html

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.

Dwayne

Edited, once again, to re-fucking-format. Not sure how many tries it will take, but no contextual changes made. Admin, are you hearing us about the formatting issues? I've talked to many that say using multi-quotes in a monster, so I know it's not just me.

[funkytomtom]

You completely missed my point. Without getting into pages of detail, I stated that I believe a higher being controls more than we humans do, and we are pretty arrogant to think that we have so much impact and control. Yeah, you can post lots on the latest oil spill and how we are all going to fry for that. (remember the Exxon Valdez? That sure doesn't make the news much anymore. What about the ice age? Man didn't cause that. Species have been going extinct and new ones evolving long before man arrived on the scene, so to think that man is interfering and is completely responsible for destroying biodiversity is truly arrogant.

As for "completely rejecting science," I prefer to think that I am open to suggestions that there are sometimes things that science cannot explain. I am sure you have seen things in your medical career that did not fit the scientific mold - patients who, according to science, should not have lived, but did; patients who should have lived, but did not. Maybe in 5 or 10 or 50 years we will be better able to explain some of those things.... oh wait - that would be interfering....

Working in the medical industry, I do not believe I am "interfering." We were given brains for a reason - to choose to use it to learn, to try to help others, is not a bad thing, but you prefer to twist that into "interfering." I suspect you are looking for an argument here, and feel free to try to beat your opinions into me - I do not have to agree with you, nor do you have to agree with me.

I did not disagree with your entire first post - I chose to disagree with a portion of it, and gave my reasons. That is one of the great things about this site - we get to see the varied ideas and opinions. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

Matt - good thread -

Perhaps I was a bit vitriolic, and for that, I apologize.

I can see where you would think it arrogant to assume we have such control over the biosphere, but, in reality, we do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Oldgrowth3.jpg

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/05/15/2003472977

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34779&Cr=Biodiversity&Cr1=

I'm sure the link from the UN will be popular.

http://www.planbureauvoordeleefomgeving.nl/images/development%20of%20world%20biodiversity_tcm61-38885.jpg

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_med/terrestrial_habitat.jpg

and to sort of sum it up: http://www.biodiv.be/GraphicsArchive/Figure4.2.jpg/view

Anyways, this is just what I was motivated enough to find at 0130 hours. One thing that hits home with me is energy flow. Yes it sounds awful and cheeeeezzzzy, but it's true. The autotrophs which form the basis of all food chains take energy from the sun (less than ten percent of the available energy in sunlight). Each further level only has ten percent of the energy at the previous level to work with (due to loss of energy as heat). What this means is that in a healthy ecosystem, the creatures at the top will be sparse, while there will be exponentially more as you travel lower on the food chain. So...I find it rather unhealthy that we are approaching 9 billion people (!) while doing our best to hack away the occupants of the lower levels of our biosphere.

Yes species go extinct, but the rate at which we are seeing today is phenomenally rapid. Combine this with irrefutable loss of habit for many animals caused by us, and the link is clear.

[funkytomtom]

And then, if you really wish to stop looking silly, take a look at some of the actual 'science' supporting your dearly held ideal...I'd love to talk to you about it after.

I read the links you posted. The link from the Heartland Institute is little more than a statement of a viewpoint. It contains no more evidence than my initial post on this matter. The link from the telegraph was slightly more scientific, but was still an opinion piece. Some of the points are valid and worth discussing nonetheless.

I like how you took away my science card as if I'm a complete idiot. I'm not one to latch onto the issue of the minute and never saw "an inconvenient truth." What I have seen has been presented to me in college science classes by well respected professors and phd's, read in various scientific journals, and in the newspaper as well. Is there a discussion to be had? Yes, but am I a doe eyed follower on mythical journey to candy mountain? I sure hope not...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html#table-9-4

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The first link contains some areas where Christopher Booker would certainly have some criticism. At the same time, I'm not going to immediately reject an international panel of scientists for the words of one skeptical journalist. Again...discussion? yes. refuted? far from it.

The second link spells out my view on the matter. Science, being generally quite cautious and slow to make sweeping statements, has gotten about as close to a consensus as it gets. And I'm sorry Dwayne, but I'm again having trouble rejecting these huge organizations of professional scientists because of your post. I would truly love to see a peer reviewed paper that confirms what you're talking about.

One last point. Evidence of slight cooling trends can be a red herring due to terminology. Global warming, while the most common term, should be more accurately described as climate change (guilty as charged). Just like the body, the earth has complicated cause and effect relationships, and while the general trend IS warming, you are going to see variations in both directions. Just like we trend vital signs.

I find your thoughts interesting, but also contradictory. If we're to follow the 'laws of nature' which I read to mean our biological programming, then certainly we've failed when men stopped humping every female in his general vicinity and we devalued anarchy, right? Our biological programming says that we should spread our seed, and physicall/mentally dominate every individual we encounter, yet as a civilization we've chosen to believe that those things are not in our best interest. (Though I'm a little disappointed in the humping the females part. They're WAY harder to get naked if they don't feel biologically obligated to do so. Just sayin')

Perhaps I'm missing your point. Are you saying that because we believe that we can reproduce without repercussions that we're different than other animals? Are you aware of a Lions and Tigers and Bears family planning clinic somewhere that I've not heard of? Population control for hamsters or some such things?

Is there some type of Urban Planning Commission for the foxes and eagles that hasn't made itself known in Colorado yet? Those species are following the laws of survival of the fittest, simple as that.

Yeah, as with others here, I disagree. Is our management intelligent? Nah. But are we destroying the planet? No man, it doesn't even know we're here. And if it does begin to get cranky, it'll just smite us like so many pesky mosquitos.

If you were here I'd kiss you right on the mouth. This is one of my favorite lines of thought. When we define good or bad, we don't only define thoughts and behaviors, but people. We begin to define people by these terms. And that is pathologic.

Maybe we could replace these things with desirable or undesirable?

Dwayne

Edited X number of times to correct formatting only.

Sorry for all these posts in a row, but there's a lot to address.

As for following our biological instincts and controlling population, I would say we stepped away from what is biologically sound when we started mass agriculture. At this point, we also made the step to decide bigger is better and that further increases in population were always desirable. We COULD hump everything before because it didn't matter, we couldn't feed what we humped into existence.

The difference with lions and hamsters isn't that they have family planning clinics (hahaha), but that they haven't been able to isolate themselves from their ecosystems by stockpiling food and practicing agriculture. And in that way, we've taken a step away from the mechanisms that regulate all other populations.

And finally, something we agree on. Saying whether something is desirable or undesirable, good or bad, never did anyone any favors.

Edited to add in a plug for a book which really changed my outlook that you might enjoy (or hate)...it's called Ishmael and it's by Daniel Quinn. It's kind of about a talking ape, but not really.

Edited May 25, 2010 by funkytomtom

[DwayneEMTP]

I read the links you posted. The link from the Heartland Institute is little more than a statement of a viewpoint. It contains no more evidence than my initial post on this matter. The link from the telegraph was slightly more scientific, but was still an opinion piece. Some of the points are valid and worth discussing nonetheless.

Let me start with a half apology. The first have being that you implied that global warming was as much a scientifically established fact as gravity. I believe that most would agree that this statement is so patently incorrect that I allowed it to shadow the rest of my statements on your opinions. The half that I'm not apologizing for is that you chose that statement, and I'm allowing you to be responsible for it.

And I'm glad you found items in the links I posted worth discussing. That was my intention, and why I stated "start here" as opposed to "Ka Pow! Take that!" :-) I found them to be elegant counter points to what you have claimed to be a foregone conclusion. I in no way intended them as scientific evidence to support my point. I'm confident you get this, as, though I absolutely see where I'd implied you are an idiot, I certainly don't believe this to be so.

I like how you took away my science card as if I'm a complete idiot. I'm not one to latch onto the issue of the minute and never saw "an inconvenient truth." What I have seen has been presented to me in college science classes by well respected professors and phd's, read in various scientific journals, and in the newspaper as well.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in hoping that you understand that there is more bullshit in scientific journals than you can shake a stick at. And I'm disappointed that you believed that being published in a newspaper gives their opinions any validity at all. Which journals specifically have their peer reviewed opinions, specifically, been published in? That makes a difference, and I believe that you're smart enough to know that. You're too smart to try and shore up your perfectly good ideas with a bunch of grandiose sounding nonsense.

Is there a discussion to be had? Yes, but am I a doe eyed follower on mythical journey to candy mountain? I sure hope not...

I am sure not, and I'm sorry that I made implications to the contrary. That was a lazy, petty thing for me to do.

The first link contains some areas where Christopher Booker would certainly have some criticism. At the same time, I'm not going to immediately reject an international panel of scientists for the words of one skeptical journalist. Again...discussion? yes. refuted? far from it.

Agreed. As above.

And I'm sorry Dwayne, but I'm again having trouble rejecting these huge organizations of professional scientists because of your post. I would truly love to see a peer reviewed paper that confirms what you're talking about.

Fair request of course. Again, the links I posted I felt were fairly elegant presentations of my point of view. I took this subject on as a hobby about 5 years ago but was not so passionate that I retained the information I'd gathered. As time permits I'll see if I can't present a more scientifically sound/intelligent debate from my end.

One last point. Evidence of slight cooling trends can be a red herring due to terminology. Global warming, while the most common term, should be more accurately described as climate change (guilty as charged). Just like the body, the earth has complicated cause and effect relationships, and while the general trend IS warming, you are going to see variations in both directions. Just like we trend vital signs.

Fair enough. But should those trends be occurring, and again I've not seen convincing evidence that it is, though I have made no attempt on my own to find it, the ability to link that effect to a human cause has got to be staggering.

1+1+1+1= doesn't always equal 4. And in science, perhaps it most often doesn't. I love the discussion, but it seems that it's becoming almost impossible to detach the data from the media machine.

Thanks for you reply and for not following my poor example in doing so.

I look forward to your thought, though perhaps we should begin another thread as we've derailed Matty's, and I think is idea was awesome!

Dwayne

[chbare]

Global warming as a theory is ~ to gravity?

Take care,

chbare.