Thread: middle east again...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stevey
anyway i'm off to covert my neighbours oxen, its a real beauty i'll tell ya........ [QUOTE]
Do you covertly covet the oxen for your coven converts in the convent?...

no absolutes was a bit extreme...there are very few absolutes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so somebody kills my mate Kenny, i think "you bastards!!!", and i find them and kill them.....

did i have a right to do that ???

yes according to the Law, no according to "thou shalt not kill"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, so by this logic, the death penalty is illegal because it's murder.
>>>>>> ??? ehh....i was refering to the biblical Law as described by a contributor...not my logic. bible says an eye for an eye, then also says thou shall not kill....totally contadictory

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the bibles a contradictory mess.....obviously the old and new testaments are not one work, they totally contradict each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, really? Give some examples, please.

>>>see above....also vengeful spiteful god in OT, benevolent god in NT etc etc etc

whether his family was killed or not, as i remember it Job certyainly had a miserable time, just for god to prove a point with his old buddy old nick.....well what a swell guy...

anyway, its 20 years since i read the bible, and it was a complete waste of time 20 years ago too. its a load of contradictory rubbish, and i aint gonna read such cobblers again just to argue (pointlessly ) with you bible bashers...thats Clydes job, he knows much more...

i look at history, i look around the world, i come to the conclusion if there is a god then he's a sadist.....

you know what i think is freaky? this clairvoyant thing i have going on...what's up with the ice caps? do we have city sized chunks of ice breaking away from them? will that cause rain and flooding? i just feel this weird connection between the two...& how often does this break away thing go on? is it more so now than in previous centuries? if so, then it is definately a sign the end is near for all of us...when the caps start falling apart that's it baby. we're toast. all washed up. stop the in-fighting!

"you know what i think is freaky? this clairvoyant thing i have going on...what's up with the ice caps? do we have city sized chunks of ice breaking away from them? will that cause rain and flooding? i just feel this weird connection between the two...& how often does this break away thing go on? is it more so now than in previous centuries? if so, then it is definately a sign the end is near for all of us...when the caps start falling apart that's it baby. we're toast. all washed up. stop the in-fighting!"

...... the melting ice caps, will raise the sea level, whether or not it causes more rain, I have no idea, what I do know is that if the sea level gets raised enough then global warming will reverse, and we will be worrying about the posibility of an ice age.

The polar ice is a very effeicient reflective surface for heat and light, especially compared to water. If the temperature rises and the polar ice receeds the Earth becomes a better absorber of heat so will get warmer, causing the polar ice sheets to receed ad infinitum

"If the temperature rises and the polar ice receeds the Earth becomes a better absorber of heat so will get warmer, causing the polar ice sheets to receed ad infinitum"

Incorrect.

Heat reflected by the polar ice caps is negligible, the deciding factor is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The more CO2 the more heat is trapped.

There is a reason that ice ages cycle on a very regular basis, its very well understood:

The cycle would have been started by a large increase in CO2 levels, no doubt a few billion years ago when volcanos were errupting every 10 seconds.

So what happens is CO2 levels rise, causing the Earths temperature to rise, causing the polar ice to melt, causing the volume of the ocean to increase.

CO2 dissolves in sea water, there is an equilibrium between gasious and dissolved CO2, now as a result of equilibrium chemistry there is a process known as Le Chateliers principle, it governs how equilibria react to external changes. What you need to know is that due to Le Chateliers principle, if you increase the volume of water more CO2 will be absorbed, and if you decrease the volume of water, CO2 will be expelled.

So the increase in sea volume means atmospheric CO2 is absorbed, causing CO2 (atmospheric) levels to fall, causing the the Earth's temperature to fall (ice age occurs here), causing the the formation of more polar ice, causing the volume of the ocean to decrease, causing the CO2 levels to rise, ........ and repeat.

Humanity has interupted the cycle, by producing excess carbon dioxide, if humanity were suddenly wiped out we would get an ice age. But the amount of CO2 that the ice caps are capable of absorbing if they melt completely is much much greater than the amount of CO2 we can reasonably expect in the future.

Hence if the trend continues, and we keep increasing global CO2 levels and hence the temperature, we will be heading into an ice age.

Good points arguement conceded.

If I recall my A-level chemistry, the solubility of CO2 will also increase as the water temperature changes aswell (is this just a macroscopic effect of the volume changing)

The phenomena shouldn be renamed from the greenhouse effect though, since the biggest effect in a greenhouse is usually the limited air flow.

This whole feedback system however is a damped harmonic model which was presumably settling to a more stable equilibrium, and we've just given it a push. Given we know the approximate cycle, how in phase is our push??

As for rain and flooding am I right to think increased temperatre allows more H20 to be dissolved in air, which leads to more cloud more rain. I think the temperature also effects the predominant air currents which will move the weather in slightly different ways causing the rain to fall in other places.

And since this also seems to be an area of you expertise, how much bigger facter is CO2 than other contributors i.e water vapour and cloud cover and other such effects?

"If I recall my A-level chemistry, the solubility of CO2 will also increase as the water temperature changes aswell (is this just a macroscopic effect of the volume changing) "

Solubility will be affected by alterations in temperature, (not just due to the volume change associated with it) I'm not sure how significant the effect would be though.

"This whole feedback system however is a damped harmonic model which was presumably settling to a more stable equilibrium, and we've just given it a push. Given we know the approximate cycle, how in phase is our push?? "

An interesting way of looking at it, *goes to dig up his lecture notes* blast, can't find the graph. I can see why you would expect it to be damped, but as I recall the graph looked fairly regular, hmm... of course either way it's quite a bit more compelx than a simple harmoic oscillator, because there are additional factors affecting CO2 concentration.

"As for rain and flooding am I right to think increased temperatre allows more H20 to be dissolved in air, which leads to more cloud more rain. I think the temperature also effects the predominant air currents which will move the weather in slightly different ways causing the rain to fall in other places"

That seems reasonable, i'd buy that.

"And since this also seems to be an area of you expertise, how much bigger facter is CO2 than other contributors i.e water vapour and cloud cover and other such effects?"

Heh, this is most certainly NOT my area of expertise, I freaking hate Environmental chemistry (I swear, if i have to do another damn titration i'm going to kill something), i think the only lecture I went to was the one where they covered the CO2 cycle, and I slept through most of it anyway.

I'm not sure how much bigger a factor CO2 is, but in the lecture we were told in no uncertain terms that the fluctuation of global temperature was primarily due to CO2 levels.

Okay, you say you've given lots of examples. All I remember is evolution etc, which by definition, even if it was wrong would be an EXTERNAL contradiction, not INTERNAL, and secondly, God is (supposedly) mean and spitefull in the old testament and nice and loving in the new. Am I missing anything, or was that it?

On a completely different topic, if we keep arguing like this, i think we have a good chance of having the longest thread ever!

"Okay, you say you've given lots of examples. All I remember is evolution etc, which by definition, even if it was wrong would be an EXTERNAL contradiction, not INTERNAL, and secondly, God is (supposedly) mean and spitefull in the old testament and nice and loving in the new. Am I missing anything, or was that it?"

..... if you read the thread you will find plenty of contradictions both "external" and "internal".

Heres a couple that have already been mentioned:

"God states unequivocally that the rainbow is to remind Him of the no-Flood clause. If God has such a faulty memory that He needs such cosmic Post-it Notes, we're in BIG trouble"

and the huge contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Then of course there is the mountain of other points that really do prove beyond any doubt that the bible can in no way be the literal word of an omnipotent omniscient God: The problem with the ark that i have pointed out atleast 3 times that you have failed to address, here it is AGAIN:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html

And of course you still have no provided a satisfactory answer to the problem of Noah picking up all those animals, or do you still think they were errm.. huddled together waiting to be picked up? Oh and of course the inherant problems with starting a population from 2 animals.... never gonna happen.

oh oh and:

"And yet more rainbow nonsense: God states multiple times that it will be in a cloud, He will "set [His] bow in the cloud". Rainbows aren't formed or seen "in clouds." "

still has not been answered, neither have a myriad of other points.

The idea of taking the bible literally is so farcial it just blows my mind that anyone who has had any kind of education can honestly fall for it. Has your mind been so shut off from reason that you cannot see the numerous problems with it?

i bet even the guys who wrote it never meant it to be taken so literally!!
or if they did, then we can't mock them since they had so little scientific explanation to go on, they were struggling to understand the world etc. must have been baffling...
u can't mock the Romans, Vikings, Ancient Greeks etc....
i mean to them it was plausible to believe the sun was a god etc, the poor guys didn't know any better.

or even Christians of a few hundred years ago...

but people of TODAY who literally believe the bible , the whole thing, garden of eden, noah etc etc??? i can hardly get my breath......

Here, less than 50 years ago, people (well at the time the Christians delcared they were fauna) who believed that the sun was created in an argument between an Emu and a Kangaroo, (the Kangaroo throwing one of the Emu's eggs into the sky to form the sun) where removed from their culture/families and made into good christians. Being fauna they had no choice. The Christians thought it was the right thing to convert the godless heathans and wipe out their heritige.

No more fanciful than a world created in seven days or all the animals two/two in an ark.


We are still trying to say sorry.
(but our gov will not in case it becomes liable for compensation).