Beyond Belief 2006

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You are a little bit on the literal side, aren't you? "Sphere" does have different definitions as well.

I just think it's overused and abused.

I am typing a sphere of text in a sphere of discussion with a sphere of people existing within the sphere of reality within the biosphere and the sphere of mind. I am also a sphere.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

So you think that art, science, emotion, physical reality, the habitat of the mind, and the habitat of spirits are all spherical in shape?

now that you mention it. yeah, i do. for the most part anyway.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I just think it's overused and abused.

I am typing a sphere of text in a sphere of discussion with a sphere of people existing within the sphere of reality within the biosphere and the sphere of mind. I am also a sphere.

Whatever gets you through, dude.

ThumbingMyWay32

Ahnimus wrote:

How are they the same? I just stated how they are absolutely different.

Are you seriously or are you just trying to antagonize me? I'd really like to know your intentions.

Well, for staters, they're both non-scientist. I'm so serial.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

now that you mention it. yeah, i do. for the most part anyway.

So, the universe is a sphere, not a fractal or a holograph?

I actually see the mind as sort of semi-spherical, it's not a complete sphere.

Science doesn't have a shape.

Ahnimus

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Well, for staters, they're both non-scientist. I'm so serial.

Ok, but their intentions and methods are completely different.

Al Gore is not pretending to be a scientist, nor is he performing any work that would be considered the work of a scientist.

On the other hand Dr. Emoto is pretending to do all of that.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

So, the universe is a sphere, not a fractal or a holograph?

I actually see the mind as sort of semi-spherical, it's not a complete sphere.

Science doesn't have a shape.

Can you comprehend spheres of thought?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Can you comprehend spheres of thought?

I can comprehend mind and brain. I don't need to think about it terms of shape or domain.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I can comprehend mind and brain. I don't need to think about it terms of shape or domain.

So what's the problem when other people see things differently?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

So what's the problem when other people see things differently?

Well, just adding words to try to give more substance to something than actually exists.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

So, the universe is a sphere, not a fractal or a holograph?

yes.

Ahnimus wrote:

I actually see the mind as sort of semi-spherical, it's not a complete sphere.

Science doesn't have a shape.

well, nature certainly has a shape. it's built upon them.
and science is a human construct devised to make sense of the incomprehensible. it has a shape. one determined by Man. whether it is a sphere or not is open to conjecture.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, just adding words to try to give more substance to something than actually exists.

Using words appropriately as per the dictionary is allowed.

ThumbingMyWay32

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, but their intentions and methods are completely different.

Al Gore is not pretending to be a scientist, nor is he performing any work that would be considered the work of a scientist.

On the other hand Dr. Emoto is pretending to do all of that.

I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.

So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.

So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.

Good word: agenda.

Ahnimus

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I consider An Inconvenient Truth to be a compilation of mostly scientific theory (Yes, the Earth is a degree warmer since 1980. We get it.), presented as fact, to be interpreted in a manner as to push the agenda that he presented on January 27th, 2006. That agenda including the world ending in approximately 10 years. Of course, this isn't the first time he's set a timetable for this. We all know how problematic timetables can be anyway.

So yes, both are actually using the same methods with the same type of intentions. And for the record (I'm almost certain of this) somewhere inside Al Gore's rather intelligent mind he believes he's a scientist. He may even think he's the first scientist. He has shown signs of this before.

Except that, the earth is warming due to human activity. So he's not lying about anything and I've seen An Inconenient Truth, I don't remember him presenting himself as a scientist. If you had said a prophet, well that may be more accurate, but certainly not a scientist.

ThumbingMyWay32

Ahnimus wrote:

Except that, the earth is warming due to human activity. So he's not lying about anything and I've seen An Inconenient Truth, I don't remember him presenting himself as a scientist. If you had said a prophet, well that may be more accurate, but certainly not a scientist.

lol Prophet. You've got jokes...

The ice caps on Mars have been reducing at the same rate that those here on Earth have been over the same period of time. This may come as a shock to you and many others, but I'm almost certain the Mars Rover had nothing to do with this. It's time to look a little further for information on global warming isn't it? You haven't read the article I posted have you? Actually, not according to the media, there are plenty of scientist, even the all important climatologist, that disagree with Al Gore.

You see, it's not global warming that most people disagree with. Sure, the Earth is a degree hotter than it was 30 years ago. Yes, greenhouse gases do act as a sort of trapping utility for heat. But carbon dioxide only consist of roughly 2% of greenhouse gases. A large majority of which are water vapors. And Al Gore is trying to tell me that human actions (CO2 emissions) are going to cause the Earth to end rather abruptly? Please. It's the agenda that I disassociate myself with. Not the theory. This also does not mean that I walk around in my spare time pouring out bottles of motor oil into my local streams. This discussion relates to your thoughts about those of the conservative persuasion as a matter of fact. Besides, just search me out about global warming. I'm not writing that book again.

Ahnimus

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

lol Prophet. You've got jokes...

The ice caps on Mars have been reducing at the same rate that those here on Earth have been over the same period of time. This may come as a shock to you and many others, but I'm almost certain the Mars Rover had nothing to do with this. It's time to look a little further for information on global warming isn't it? You haven't read the article I posted have you? Actually, not according to the media, there are plenty of scientist, even the all important climatologist, that disagree with Al Gore.

You see, it's not global warming that most people disagree with. Sure, the Earth is a degree hotter than it was 30 years ago. Yes, greenhouse gases do act as a sort of trapping utility for heat. But carbon dioxide only consist of roughly 2% of greenhouse gases. A large majority of which are water vapors. And Al Gore is trying to tell me that human actions (CO2 emissions) are going to cause the Earth to end rather abruptly? Please. It's the agenda that I disassociate myself with. Not the theory. This also does not mean that I walk around in my spare time pouring out bottles of motor oil into my local streams. This discussion relates to your thoughts about those of the conservative persuasion as a matter of fact. Besides, just search me out about global warming. I'm not writing that book again.

The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.

ThumbingMyWay32

Ahnimus wrote:

The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.

Yes, humans produce CO2. Just ask all plant life on Earth. They love it.

The warming isn't explained by anyone, in any way, other than that it is generally accepted as a natural process that has been happening for the last 6 billion years. From 1940 until the late 70's the Earth was cooling. The prevelant theory then was global cooling. It was even discussed on the floors of congress. The Industrial Revolution did not begin with the Reagan Administration, though some liberal pundits may believe that to be the case. It's the simple fact of the matter that you refuse to acknowledge what anyone else says on the topic unless it comes from the lips of Al Gore; a non-scientist. You just implied that you accept that the very same thing is happening on Mars, "but what's that matter?" Actually, I'm hardly ignoring anything here. I'm pushing the argument, again. Not very troll-like. Again, this isn't a dispute of wether the Earth is warming or not. It's a dispute of agendas. And sadly, most who buy into the global warming argument, buy into it using the agenda driven methods of Al Gore.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

The scientists in that article you posted states that humans contribute to CO2. The concordance between mars and earth does not explain all of the warming on earth and that scientists acknowledged it in the article. You seem to have ignored it.

I'll back that up...I posted that National Geographic article..

ThumbingMyWay32

huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ex=1331438400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss