"But what of the space around the tiny dense ball?"
The universe is space and time. All that is the universe was contained within the singularity (according to the theory). So there was no space surrounding the ball, because the ball WAS space. And remember that the big bang theory was postulated according to the evidence observed, thus all it explains is that the universe was at one time compressed in this manner - it does not explain directly what was "outside" the singularity.
Here's a short video detailing the rudiments of the big bang theory for quick reference: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/07/
"How can you have time and space surrounding the tiny dense ball if the origin for time and space is within the tiny dense ball?"
No one ever claimed you could.
"Where can you find any room to explode?"
Contrary to its name, the big bang theory does not assume there was an explosion, merely an expansion of the universe. We don't know what is beyond the universe, but the universe is finite, therefore whatever void surrounded the universe was the "room" for it to expand in.
"Something has to pre-exist time and space to create it."
Not necessarily; this is a commonly-held assumption that is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. The greatest mind-twister of this is that singularities defy conventional physics (remember there are singularities today, existing at the center of black holes), therefore any number of possibilities exist as to what caused the singularity to appear (or if it has always existed) and what caused it to expand. So whatever force caused it to expand is beyond our current comprehension - but science is ever evolving. And even if we do discover evidence of an unknown force propelling the expansion, or even the creation, calling it God and ceasing all attempts to discover the natural cause is illogical, because then we'd just be filling in the blanks with an equally unexplainable phenomenon, rather than working to find the true, natural solution. We may never find the answer, but we can at least be intellectually honest with ourselves in saying, "I don't know, let's find out."
Also, the big bang theory and god are not mutually exclusive; you can believe the big bang theory and also believe that a god created the singularity - deism is a logical enough stance to have. However, you would have to concede that you do not know the mechanism this "god" used to create the singularity, putting yourself in the same position as those who believe the big bang theory but don't know what made the singularity. It just seems more concise to not bring metaphysics into the equation.
"I simply ask you to think about time and space creation without getting caught in an infinite logical loop."
It's impossible to avoid the infinite when speaking about the origins of existence. Even with the idea of god creating the universe, you can't avoid implying eternity in some aspect or another.
Further reading on the subject:
If you're talking about the earth, then neither. The big bang theory deals with the beginning of the universe, not specifically the formation of planets. The earth was formed by gravitational forces in a nebulous cloud of dust and gas that formed a star then coalesced into a number of planets around the sun. We can deduce the formation of the earth to the mechanics of natural forces, therefore god doesn't enter into the equation (if you keep to Occam's razor.)
Now, the question of the universe's beginning is a much more interesting one for this topic. The big bang theory is gaining more and more evidence to support it, but even it does not explain where the singularity originated from, only that the universe began as the singularity, and it expanded. Science is ever evolving, and we are gaining more knowledge about the workings of the universe every day. We may yet one day discover the origins of the singularity, or we may become extinct before we find out the truth. Either way, I don't see much of a reason to assume a "god" was involved, because that assumption is made to fill in a gap of knowledge, rather than finding hard evidence and then deducing the explanation from that (like science does).
The problem with the god explanation is that, in most contexts, god is something beyond physical existence, beyond comprehension, and beyond explanation. It cannot be comprehended where it exists, how it exists, what form it takes, etc. Therefore it's assumed that this being that was pulled from someone's nether regions created the universe because, well, I said so. That's not a very plausible explanation. We've witnessed the "god done did it" assumption be rendered moot time and time again when science discovers the way something works that was previously thought to be the work of a god. Do I know that there was not a god involved? Of course not; but saying "I don't know; let's find out" is a much more logical step than saying "I assume it's god, so let's move on."
Only problem with that argument is that 4.4 billion barrels are proved reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, the rest are in U.S. bedrock. And you know what's funny? We're already drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, so bringing up federal restrictions as holding back our use of the 21.4 billion barrels of proved oil reserves is a whopping non-sequiter. So far I haven't seen any articles on geological surveys of possible offshore oil deposits, and since McCain doesn't state any specifics, we have no reason to believe there are oil fields under lock and key by federal bans. At least, none that are included in the 21.4 billion barrel count. If someone can give some articles or surveys that detail what off-limits fields they're looking to drill, that would be much appreciated.
I recall that the Alaskan drilling project was supposed to take at least a decade to get the facilities producing at top efficiency, probably longer. But that was to develop the entire ANWR preserve, which would require immense infrastructure since the oil deposits are spread out so much. I found a website for Offshore Magazine, and it stated one semi-submersible rig that is to be built, the Seillean II, has an estimated construction time of 18 to 24 months. Apparently, there's a variety of different drilling rigs (fixed platforms, compliant towers, semi-submersible platforms, jack-up platforms, drillships, and tension-leg platforms, to name a few), so it all depends on which type companies are willing to build and how they are going to use them.
What's hilarious about this whole situation is that people in support of offshore drilling, such as analyst Collin Gerry, state something to the effect of, "High oil prices are enough to justify costly exploration projects in deep waters" (http://www.investors.com/editorial/
Wouldn't finding substitutes make more sense? Personally I think a better alternative would be building offshore wind farms. True, this would be a much more effective strategy for the UK, since we have little coastline relative to the size of the country, but while we're talking offshore energy sources, why not? Out at sea, the wind blows much harder than on land, due to the lack of terrain extremities that create drag, thus they can generate more electricity than those onshore (and the further out to sea you go, the higher wind speed there is) - they also have the added bonus of producing energy at a relatively consistent rate. They require a small batch of seabed to be built on, thus having a negligible effect on nearby aquatic wildlife (in fact, as proposed by the American Wind Energy Association, they could create safe havens for fish spawning grounds and sanctuary from intensive fishing activity, which has decreased the population of fish over the years).
The only real drawback is, at this time, that the cost of building wind turbines increases drastically the further out to sea they are built, both from water depth and the length of cable needed to transmit electricity from the turbines to utility power lines. Then again, this is still a relatively new concept that's being worked out. Some even speculate that future wind turbines could be built on floating platforms, allowing them to be much further out at sea than is currently financially feasible. But time will tell. For more information on offshore wind farms, see here: http://www.awea.org/faq/
Of course, wind farms aren't the sole solution to our energy problem, but it seems more rational to be investing in alternative forms of energy rather than putting time and money into a temporary fix. If we combine enough alternative methods together to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for energy, we can use the oil we import to make plastics and the myriad of other products and foods that require it until we find a suitable alternative.
I was speaking about spiritual prayer specifically, so your comment is a non-sequiter in this instance. Even more so because you posted it as a reply to my comment about Madeline Neumann. If you pray without trying to communicate with a mystical being, good for you; I'm not interested in contesting that.
"No brain, no sound, simple as that."
http://stason.org/TULARC/physics/
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/
Scientifically, sound is an instantaneous and periodic change in air pressure caused by vibrating particles in a medium. Sound exists whether or not a brain and sensory organs are there to detect and register it. Going back to the light example: since our brains cannot register infrared or ultraviolet light waves, does that mean those waves don't exist? Absolutely not; in fact that's an absurd position to take. So how is saying sound doesn't exist because there's nothing to detect it and store it as sensory information, any more sensible?
"Sound is a function of the ears though"
Wrong. Sound is a wave that is caused by the back and forth movements of the medium it is traveling in. The waves of sound signify changes in air pressure; the presence of sensory organs has NOTHING to do with the existence of sound. The human ear just responds to a spectrum of frequencies it can detect, much like our eyes are tuned to register a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Do you content that infrared waves don't exist because they can't be detected by our eyes? No, unless you modify the definition of "light" to "radiation that is only perceptible to human eyes". Same deal with sound. And even if you were to make a modification to the question and have it say, "does it make an AUDIBLE sound," you still wouldn't have a case because the frequency range would still be within that 20Hz - 20kHz range detectable by the human ear. Subjective perception or the lack thereof does not affect the answer one way or another. It's almost as absurd as saying if a nuclear bomb were to be detonated on Venus and we didn't see it, it technically (by your logic) would not have emitted any light.
"to the human, without hearing the tree fall, it does not make a sound, even though it does push energy out in the form of vibrations and pressure changes."
You're assuming ears or sensory equipment are necessary for sound to technically exist, which is wholly inaccurate. Scientifically, sound is an instantaneous change in air pressure caused by vibrating particles, whether or not something is present to sense it or not. If you want to argue philosophy, this is not a discussion to argue it in, because science refutes your argument from the get go.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/
We may need to draw a distinction between abuse and discipline for this issue: abusive use of physical force is unwarranted and/or excessive, and not constructive in any capacity. Disciplinary use of force is using only so much as to show the child the consequence of its actions, not to necessarily "punish" them. I think spanking should be left as a last resort for disciplinary action, but I am by no means opposed to its use when necessary. Screaming, cursing, and threatening a child is more traumatizing than spanking it without exhibiting anger (if only my father did that instead of throwing me up against a wall and screaming in my face).
Not all of them will, however a decent sized portion will support McCain. According to a recent Gallup poll, 28% of Hillary supporters would vote Republican if it came down to McCain vs. Obama. Not surprising since Hillary is attacking Obama with everything she can possibly pull out of her rectum while her campaign spirals down into oblivion - it makes sense that some of the less free-thinking supporters would hang on to every word of hers and will convince themselves that John McCain is somehow a better choice than Obama. And a couple of political blogs are speculating that McCain will make a move to woo Clinton's female supporters over to his side (http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/26/does-obama-need-hillarys-supporters/).
What's completely ludicrous about this, is that McCain wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade (as proudly stated on his very own campaign website), and recently opposed a Senate bill seeking equal wages for women, stating that they don't need equality in the workplace, just "education and training" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/
"and chose to discard it in favor of personal attacks and snobbery"
No, I requested Cienna to make an argument rather than name off a few things without elaborating as to their significance. If you read her response to me, she was the one who introduced snobbery to the discussion, via her sardonic use of "erm" and "er". I'm not denying she was right, because you have demonstrated she was, but she did not make any real arguments against me. She accused me of being a hypocrite and closed-minded to other perspectives when she didn't give enough specific information to demonstrate the validity of those perspectives in the first place, nor did she explain how the information I posted was completely irrelevant to the issue (as she claimed, but you showed). I didn't bring any "personal factors", either; her second response had several personal attacks against me. The closest thing I did to a personal attack prior to that was call her response piss-poor, since it lacked valid argumentation while conveying a supercilious tone.
"you still owe her an apology"
I don't see why. She was right, but she wasn't the one who made a case for her being right; all she did was claim I was wrong and ignorant (not denying either of those, mind you, since you have demonstrated that) without any explanation as to why. What did you want me to do? Just say "Well, my position must be completely unfounded just because she says so"? I have no problem with being wrong, I'd just like to know how and why I am wrong - I'm not looking to win anything, I'm looking to learn. If Cienna made actual arguments in response to my post, I would have acted in an entirely different fashion (notice how I was respectful towards you when you made competent counter-arguments? Or when Mumin finally provided evidence to validate his claims of being right on the Muhammad issue? I give respect where it is due). It's one thing to refuse to engage; it's another to assert a number of claims and ultimatums and refuse to provide justification for them (you know, proving their worth?).
"were you as concerned with quality of debate as you claim, I wouldn't have to remind you of it."
On the contrary, my concern for quality debate ceases motivation to apologize to someone who refused to debate the issue with me yet insisted on claiming I was misinformed and ignorant. I am of the opinion that one should put one's money where one's mouth is, and if one claims one is right and another person is wrong, one should at least try to make a decent case for that allegation.
If someone from Saudi Arabia comes to the U.S. and stones a woman to death for being raped, would we give him a free pass, since he is complying with Sharia law, the religious law of his home country? No. The same should apply to the U.S. soldier; he was in another country, he is bound by their laws, customs and traditions, not ours. It was culturally insensitive for him to make such a daring gesture, even if it was for good intentions. That kind of ignorance can lead to people getting killed, especially in very sensitive religious locales. At the least, our presence in Iraq will become even more resented, slapping our Sunni allies (who were key in reducing violence in the region) right in the face. Worst case scenario, the Shiites and Sunnis set aside their hatred for one another, unify as Muslims and start a religious conflict in the area with Christians - like we don't have enough hostility to deal with.
I think soldiers should undergo some rudimentary cultural anthropology instruction to make them aware of just how serious cultures can be in regards to their age-old customs and traditions, to learn the taboos of the areas they are stationed in so they don't [mess] everything up. They need to understand that some places do not allow the freedom of expression or beliefs that the U.S. does, and one wrong move, especially regarding religion, can cause immense problems for our continued presence there.
"That he was a Marine at the time does not enter into the equation, unless he was on duty at the time."
The article stated he distributed the coins while manning a checkpoint controlling access to the city - I doubt he was waiting there on his off time.
Not only did he disobey orders to not proselytize religion while on duty, but he added fuel to the growing fire of resentment Muslims in Iraq feel for our presence. Political motivations for fighting against us are enough; we don't need to bring religion in to make things worse.
While McClellan is indeed a backstabber, the repercussions of his actions will probably be for the better. Maybe with a man who worked alongside Bush pointing out the faults and disasters this administration brought, the 20% or so of the American public that still has faith in the incompetent president will finally realize the damage that has been done.
My main beef with this guy is that he continued to work with Bush for years, even commenting that the president's actions regarding Katrina would set the stage for his second term in office, and he didn't speak up until now? We needed this sort of criticism four years ago, not now when Bush is at the end of his second term. There have been plenty of whistle blowers, ones that spoke up in a timely manner. People whose words may not carry the same weight as McClellan's, but were on the scene when it really did matter.
This issue isn't as cut-and-dry as it may seem, but due to the circumstances regarding his criticism (primarily the timeliness of it) he's more of a sellout than a patriot. Though it's relieving that at least one neo-con is speaking out against Bush for once (even if he is doing it for the money).
Fenix, thank you for setting me straight; I concede the point. I never claimed I had insight, never claimed I had above-average intelligence or all the answers. All I wanted was for Cienna to refute my position. That's all; I had no illusions that it was perfect, I had no illusions that I was the most informed individual on this forum. I was putting forth my ideas for criticism like everyone else, and you have demolished them, just as it should be done.
"It is people like you, sir, who should be taken out back and whipped into bloody unconsciousness for contributing to hysteria and misinformation"
Interesting hostility on your part. Education furthers intellectual understanding more than torture, and you have educated me on this subject. If you really think I should be "whipped into bloody unconsciousness" for good measure, you might have some issues to be worked out.
Personal attacks aside, thank you again for correcting me on the subject, fenix.
I've taken a look at your link, a plug for a book by Graham Hancock. The first thing I saw set the tone for how legitimate this whole thing is: "According to their calendar, the Maya believed that their world would end on Dec 21, 2012." No, they did not.
What will happen on December 21, 2012 is a spectacular and rare event; the winter solstice where our sun will cross the point of the Galactic Equator - something that hasn't happened in 25,800 years. The Mayans were mathematically and cosmologically brilliant people. They did not believe 2012 was the end of all time, or the end of the world, merely the end of the Great Cycle (which, as all cycles do, start over once they end).
The Mayans calculated this conjunction, noticing the changes the earth's wobble created in the position of the stars. Using what is called the Long Count, they decided December 21, 2012 as the end of their Great Cycle and worked backward to see when the calendar would begin: August 11, 3114 BCE. The brilliance of this, however, was that the 5,125.36-day Great Cycle is actually one fifth of the Great Great Cycle, known scientifically as the Platonic Year; the length of the procession of equinoxes. The Mayans measured time in circles within circles within circles - there is no end, merely a new beginning. So strike one for that site.
Strike two: Hancock is a journalist. Now, I'm not saying journalists can't make a good argument (as David Strahan did in The Last Oil Shock), however this individual claims the "serious academics, who went through university adhering to strict scientific principals" are mistaken when they say there's not enough evidence to support the claims being made. If this man thinks he is more knowledgeable than university professors with years of experience in these fields, enough so to claim that "sane, regular people" should listen to him and not the professors, then his "theory" should be put under all the more scrutiny.
Strike three: No evidence is provided for the assumptions that he mentions; unfortunate, because we can't do a lot of arguing on those, which dictate the validity of his entire theory. However, there were a few that I'd like to address. The allegation that ancient cultures communicated with one another is completely unfounded; only circumstantial evidence such as pyramid building (which differ in appearance from culture to culture) or flood myths (which is almost as absurd as the argument that reptilian gods in multiple cultures support the Nibiru reptilian theory). Evolution does occur in small stages; it is a very slow, gradual process. There are times when the number of mutations is much higher than normally, such as with the cambrian explosion, however it works slowly for the most part. And I think we're all well aware of how dangerous our galactic neighborhood is - gamma ray bursts, asteroids, solar flares... we're well aware of the danger.
And about the dragons and unicorns... I would just LOVE to see evidence of that. I saw a picture of a one-horned goat once, but that's about it.
Now to the cataclysmic events he speaks of: Evidence has been provided for a solar polar shift to occur in 2012, not an earth pole shift. The sun's magnetic poles shifted in February of 2001, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum, and a second one is due in 2012. Pole shifts have occurred on earth, of course; they are a natural process of the planet. The intervals between shifts are varied, from tens of thousands of years to millions. The last polar shift occurred 780,000 years ago, and the reversal took place over thousands of years. So no cataclysmic shifting going on here; just a gradual process of the earth.
Hancock claims that mass extinctions and rapid evolution occur at the same time as cataclysms. Yes... at the same time as events such as a huge freakin' asteroid slamming into the earth, radical temperature changes, massive volcanic activity, or a sudden change in weather and climate. They do not, as far as we know, occur during equinoxes or solar magnetic reversals.
Cosmic rays cause mutation, says Hancock. Indeed; good thing that we have that thing called an atmosphere and magnetic field to shield us from the sun's more potent radiation and solar wind. If he's talking about gamma ray bursts, then that wouldn't cause mutations, it would just kill us all. This is a great quote, though: "Although scientists are unsure about where all the cosmic rays come from, the source might be the same as what powers the pole shifts." It's really unfortunate he doesn't cite some specific examples, because right now all I can do is laugh. The pole shifts on earth are caused by (get ready for it)... the earth! At least, that's the consensus so far. It's been found that external causes of magnetic field reversals are not likely, due to a lack of correlation between massive impacts and pole reversals, and so far we have not spotted any massive planet with an elliptical orbit swooping into the inner solar system out of nowhere to mess with the earth.
"The ancients were aware of the dangers of cosmic rays and cataclysms..."
They knew about cosmic rays? Really? Every culture has their doomsday stories, but I wasn't aware ancient cultures knew about radiation and "cosmic rays".
"I also believe that pyramids may have been designed as cosmic ray shelters."
I think we've all seen a cutaway diagram of a pyramid where the burial chamber and passageways are shown. I doubt 200 people (I'm being real generous here) could possibly fit into one of those to escape a "cosmic ray" blast. Speaking of which, who uses the term "cosmic ray" anyway? Someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? Perhaps.
I think it's safe to assume this individual's book will be a dud, if anything. It's hard for me to argue against it because there's no evidence or examples put forth, but this is just my initial impression of the material. I don't think the Bast theory is of any concern. I'm not assuming you believe it, Loudacris, I'm just giving an argument for the sake of the debate.
Honestly I don't think anything will happen in 2012. The whole fuss about the Mayan calendar ending is irrelevant; it's a circle. It doesn't end. When it reaches the end of one cycle it starts a new one. No doomsday or "age of enlightenment" or anything. In fact, the only reason December 21, 2012 is given any reverence by the Mayans is because it will be the the end of the first cycle on their calendar, which would be a noteworthy date. Though I do wonder if the Romans celebrated the completion of the first cycle of the Julian calendar when it was implemented.
As far as the whole Anunnaki, Nibiru, reptilian man-devouring alien stuff goes... I'd love to hear someone make a case for that theory. I tried debating with some people on Youtube about the subject, though most of them accused me of being a reptilian agent, trying to get humanity's guard down so the aliens could invade or whatever. Here's just a quick argument to get started, though:
The only possible candidate for a "planet X", otherwise known as Nibiru, would be a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs are failed stars, gas giants like Jupiter that have much more mass and have much greater surface temperature. There's no way life can develop there, and if planetoids do orbit the brown dwarf, it is highly doubtful any one of those would possess the same atmosphere, temperature range, and gravity as earth (not to mention the same solar radiation exposure). Any one of those factors, if radically different would keep the reptilians from being able to survive on earth.
Also, Zecharia Stichen said the Sumerians recorded the earth "standing still" when Nibiru came about. This would obliterate all life on the planet, since we are currently moving about 1000 miles per hour. Suddenly stopping the rotation would not halt the atmosphere's movement, causing wind speeds so fast they would sweep everything not anchored to bedrock - trees, topsoil, buildings, animals - into the atmosphere. The accounts of the Sumerians are woefully inaccurate, because if such a planet did pass by close enough to gravitationally affect the earth, all terrestrial life would be wiped out. Switching the magnetic poles, as also proposed by the reptilian theorists, would cause massive earthquakes and volcano eruptions worldwide due to the movement of the core (this includes the 7 supervolanoes, guaranteeing total annihilation for surface organisms).
And if Nibiru has an orbit of 3600 years, no life would be possible beyond bacteria and perhaps some very simple oceanic life, because mass extinctions of that caliber at such short regular intervals would make it impossible for life to evolve on land as much as it has.
But, anyway, what does everyone else think about 2012? Doomsday, a time of enlightenment, nothing special?
I hate to be a nay-sayer, but it is highly doubtful that we will ever "colonize" mars. Setting up scientific research stations is a possibility, however resources are the biggest setback we face insofar as setting up a whole colony on another planet. Oil is, of course, declining worldwide, and we'll be hard pressed to find another kind of fuel that can generate as much energy and as cheaply as rocket fuel to propel shuttles past escape velocity.
With the monumental amount of money needed to transport a sufficient number of personnel and machines to Mars to even begin construction (even with the gradual habitat structure drops proposed, it would still take decades to build up a real colony), I doubt any one nation will be able to bear the full cost; designing, building and launching satellites cost enough money as it is. Perhaps the EU will be able to fund such a project, but the US? Doubtful, especially with the budget crisis we face today.
Let's put this in perspective: The cost of building the launchers and the Apollo spacecraft alone came to a total of roughly 67.5 billion dollars. Granted, this was in a timespan between about 1959 to the mid 70's, so if we were to be generous and use 1968 as a point of reference for inflation change, this cost would come out to be $419,070,607,461.38 today. And the missions themselves cost billions of dollars more - see the attached link for more expenditure figures.
Now, that cost is nothing compared to what we've spent in Iraq, however this was a figure for the journey to the moon. Mars is 35 million miles from earth - at its closest point, no less. It would take 6 months to arrive there with our current technology, as opposed to the four days it took for the Apollo shuttle to reach the moon. Obviously this brings in the issue of muscle and bone atrophy; even if humans find some way to enter a "stasis" like the Sci-Fi flicks, their muscles would still break down while suspended in zero gravity. Thus, the astronauts would need to stay awake and exercise to prevent muscle atrophy, as well as a number of other health issues that accompany extended exposure to zero gravity. This means they would need food and water (since they recycle their urine for oxygen, rather than for drinking water) for the whole 6 month journey, as well as supplies for when they arrive on the planet. This mandates a larger shuttle for storage space, which necessitates larger, more powerful rockets to carry them out of earth's gravitational pull.
Bone atrophy is even worse than muscle atrophy, because exercise does not reverse the calcium and bone cell loss caused by zero gravity. Some may propose that a rotating space craft may induce artificial gravity to prevent this, however such technology is highly controversial and there isn't much consensus on how the hell that would work in the first place. And, of course, this will require even more costly R&D;.
An interesting video on Youtube is a History Channel documentary called The Universe on colonizing space, and it outlines a number of valid complications in the plan to colonize Mars (Search "The Universe: Colonizing Space" - it's a 5 part video series. Very fascinating).
Solar winds also pose a problem that will require specialized equipment to survive; intense waves of radiation can wipe out a crew if they're not prepared; satellites that detect a solar wind would have to be posted in space to relay the information to the crew, and a special bunker would have to be built within the shuttle so they could escape the deadly radiation. This would also be an issue on Mars, since it has a very, very weak magnetic field to stop the solar wind. A bunker would have to be constructed there as well. In fact, the colonies might have to be built underground to shield the people from cosmic rays and violent sandstorms; living on the surface with prolonged exposure to radiation could render the inhabitants infertile - not a good way to run a colony.
Colonies built on Mars would have to have supplies flown in to keep the inhabitants alive while they figure out some way to obtain food from the planet. In fact, the first "colony" to be built on Mars would probably be no more than a single structure where a crew of 4 people live. There are a number of psychological problems that come with this, however on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic they've already built a simulation ground that will be similar to this scenario: one small structure, a small crew to live there for months simulating scientific research. This might be a good training ground to prepare for that.
Also, going back to the gravity issue, Mars' gravity is 1/3 that of earth's; this could cause complications for the humans living on the planet. Their bone cell count would decrease, they would lose calcium, and if they live there for long enough, their bodies would have acclimated too much to the lower gravity to return to earth and function normally.
Once more, I'm not saying missions to Mars are impossible. But colonizing Mars is a whole other story, and we really should be focusing on the missions themselves rather than get ahead of ourselves and assume that we'll even get that far. Anything is possible, however at this moment the future for such elaborate scientific expeditions looks rather bleak, simply because of our economic situation. We really need to get things together here on earth before we spend a huge amount of money on colonizing another planet. The only feasible way we could fund such a project would be if the nations of the world joined in larger unions similar to the EU, to pool economies and funds. That is, unless the US recovers from its current rut enough to delve into these experimental and very costly expeditions.
Once more, what gaps? So far you've mentioned the 2006 oversupply, the OPEC tape, and the testimony of the sacred "various talking heads", yet you haven't elaborated how any of those invalidates my previous arguments or the information correlating to decreased oil production, or the fact that decreased production affects prices. Nope, no elaboration at all. How exactly are you supposed to "rub my nose" into these "gaps" if you don't even make an argument out of them?
Let me ask one last time: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A DEBATE BEFORE? Because you sure as hell don't act like it.
"you keep creating straw men arguments."
Look up the definition of a "straw man" argument, please. Thank you.
"I'm not claiming anything about a God being complex or no"
I never said you did; you, however, are pulling a tactic I've seen again and again: asking where the "complex" laws of the universe came from to give the answer that "God done did it". I'm merely anticipating your coming argument and getting it out of the way so we won't have to waste any further time on that.
"If you're up to date on the latest evolution thinking"
Wow, that one came out from left field. Since when are we talking about evolution?
"I'm trying to follow such thinking"
No, you were talking about the cosmological constant, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the other laws of the universe. Biological evolution had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
"I'm asking questions about evolution"
There's a pretty HUGE dichotomy between the theory of evolution and the physical laws of the universe - I really hope you realize that. No, you were not talking about evolution.
"you answer by attacking a God you don't believe exists"
Please explain how I can "attack" something I don't believe exists in the first place. No, seriously, explain it to me, it sounds fascinating.
"Hmm, sounds like, a fanatic."
Not really; I consider myself a moderate if anything. I'm not persecuting you, I'm not insulting you because of your faith, I'm not discriminating or hiring ninja assassins to murder you in your sleep. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, and if you think that's fanatical behavior, you've obviously never been to the DEBATE FAITH room on Stickam.
If god exists, then god is even more complex then the laws. Thus, the questions you have just asked would have to be applied to god as well, making god existing no more likely than the laws existing, by your logic.
Humans created the concept of complex. If conscious minds were not capable of fathoming complexity, then it would be a non-issue. The laws of the universe are not complex, nor are they simple. They are only either based on how we choose to describe them, how they appear to us. It is a subjective opinion we form, therefore it cannot be used as proof of god's existence.
"Every one of your debates fall back on this method of ad honimem [sic] and derogatory treatment of those who either disagree with you or refuse to engage with you."
Actually, no they did not. There were no ad hominem attacks, and I normally don't use sardonicism while debating. However, you started to bring sarcasm into the equation, therefore I matched. Look up "ad hominem", read your initial comment, and come back with an intelligible debate, please. If you won't prove that you're right and I'm wrong (which I'm perfectly fine with, if you make a good enough argument), there's no use in claiming such. If you can debate like a mature adult, then I will treat you with the respect you deserve. Currently I don't see any reason to respect you, with your method of arguing.
Also, here are some more figures: Ten minutes after I posted my comment, you had responed. In those ten minutes, I received a down vote. Each time you responded to my comments, a down vote occurred. This correlation indicates you're a liar, in addition to not being able to argue your way out of a paper bag.
I honestly don't care if you vote my comments down - I just expect you make a decent argument against what I am saying, because a down vote means I must be incorrect. So far you've only voted my comments down because you don't agree with them; that's a rather petty action, don't you think? If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. It's that simple.
As much as I'm sure you'd love to continue this pointless banter, I'm not on this website to waste my time and the time of the forum host to bicker with a person who can't make an intelligible argument, let alone stay on topic. Until you're interested in actually debating the issue at hand like an intelligent adult, don't bother me, and don't disrespect the forum's host by sidestepping the issue and posting inane comments.
Depends on what your standards of "complex" are, and if they are, then god would be even more complex, thus requiring a creator, itself. If your argument is complexity cannot come about without consciousness, then what about your precious "god"? Where did it come from?
"All you have proven here is that you don't like to be wrong and you are far too married to a single view to ever really or effectively debate."
I'm the only one making actual arguments, genius; you're just saying "read this article and you'll see I'm right". Haven't made one valid argument so far. I'm perfectly okay with being wrong, but you have to make a good case first. Can't just expect me to say, "Well, she says I'm wrong, so I guess I am." Doesn't work like that in a debate.
"Long-winded statistic gamers are not the same as effective debaters"
The only reason I was sarcastic was because you were so initially - if you want to forgo intellectual, respectful debate, fine. And you think you're an effective debater? PROVE IT.
"It is pure preference, without any address of differing perspectives or even rebuttal in relation to them."
How about you make an argument so I can make a rebuttal in the first place, genius? I already addressed your article and as many implied points as I could discern from your ambiguous writing. You're the one showing pure preference, since you can't address my perspective whatsoever.
"You make the same mistake in your original post as you complain about my making here."
No, I actually make arguments based on facts, while you don't make ANY arguments at all. Big difference.
"you'll get to a point where you can realize that the very last thing contributing to the rising oil prices in America is "geo-political factors"."
This is a debate; you have to PROVE your allegation. Have you ever been in a debate before? Ever?
"I do realize that it is hard to admit you've been gulled by yet another savvy bit of propaganda"
I could say the same for you; you haven't addressed any one of my counter arguments. Obviously it's you who have been gulled, since you are incapable of refuting anything I've said.
"You see, it would be worth the time to create rebuttal were the target someone who had demonstrated the ability to actually consider opinions other than their own"
DID YOU NOT READ MY COMMENT? I specifically said I don't DENY speculation's involvement with oil price increase! And you think you're an effective debater?! Come on! Twice now you've demonstrated you don't even read my comments fully before vomiting a useless and utterly substance-less response. If this is your idea of effective debate I'd hate to see you slacking off.
"but it's more a sign of your own arrogance than any reality."
Once more, this is a debate. It's your job to prove your allegations, not to just throw one out there and say, "You're wrong, I'm right. But I'm not going to say how you're wrong, I'm just going to make that clear and have you find out why." That's not how a debate works.
Make some counter-arguments or don't respond. You can't expect me to suddenly abandon my position just because you say so without any backing information or argumentation to convince me to. Also, I find it funny how you keep voting down my comments yet can't make a single rebuttal against my arguments; you just resort to personal attacks. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.
"the Beatles were the first to popularize having the band themselves write the songs"
No they weren't.
"the first to do a theme album"
You mean a concept album? No they weren't.
"the first to wear long hair"
No they weren't... wait, what long hair? Even though the Androgynous image most of us associate with being "long hair" became popular with the heavy metal movement, there were still rock groups before the Beatles' popularity that had long hair, and many at the same time of the Beatles that had longer hair.
"the first to take rock outside of the tight restraints of the blues progression"
No they weren't.
"the first to do backmasking"
Backmasking was in use LONG before the Beatles; they just popularized it.
"the first to do a psychodelic [sic] album"
Actually, they received a lot of heat for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band because there already was a psychedelic musical movement in the U.S., and some die-hard fans saw them doing a psychedelic album as kind of selling out. Though it was nonetheless an extremely influential album.
"What has Tool done that can compete with those credentials?"
How can you expect a progressive rock group to gain as much popularity with general audiences as a pop rock group? Also, Tool wasn't around at the time of the Beatles, so there's no reason to say, "Well, they weren't the first ones to do this!" if one came decades before the other. I personally agree that there can't be one band that's considered the "greatest", since music is an art, but I just wanted to correct a few things.
Oh no! Not a sarcastic rebuttal lacking any solid argumentation and doesn't even address the facts in my post that I base my contention on! Alas the day, what ever am I to do?!
(Note: I'm going to have fun with this one; you want to forgo intellectual discourse and make it a pissing contest in sardonicism, I'm game.)
"Er, you kind of forgot about that oversupply from 2006."
Er, that has no relevance to the data I posted, nor does it, er, have any effect on what, er, I was, er, saying. Er.
You know, it would help if you made an argument and explained the relevance of the aforementioned "oversupply" so I can make a proper rebuttal, because as it stands it doesn't further any point. Er.
"And the video of the OPEC meeting that leaked."
Very ambiguous; how about you actually extrapolate information from your source and form an argument for a change, rather than referencing something and assuming I can read your mind to understand whatever point you're trying to make? I know, what mind-blowing concept.
"And the statements by the various talking heads (with backing) who make it clear the speculator market is responsible for these spikes."
Oh, the esteemed and highly credible "various talking heads" said so, huh? Well, can't argue with those guys; I mean, I don't even know who they are... how can I argue against their wise "statements" that you fail to post or link to your argument if they're so secretive? I guess I'll have to take your word for it at face value then. Not.
"And the weakness of the dollar."
Already mentioned that; kudos for not reading my comments before voting them down and belting out a poorly stated reply.
"Not to mention the herring of China and India will want more oil, oh my!"
I assumed it's common sense that China and India will want more oil. I mean, they're both increasing in oil consumption each year, at a rate much faster than most Western countries. If you have some kind of argument that they DON'T want oil, I'd love to hear it.
"Erm, maybe you missed it, but China is already active in the market as is India... and neither are going to suddenly or exponentially unbalance things."
Erm, have you even done research on this subject before blowing your load on this piss-poor response? No? Didn't think so; how about I enlighten you with some figures, eh? As of 2007, China's oil consumption was 6.93 million barrels per day. Their oil production was 3.73 million barrels a day. Therefore it was importing roughly 3.2 million barrels of oil a day. In the next two decades its consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year (compared to 1% growth for industrialized countries). In the January to April period of this year, imports for China rose 10% from last year. While China's oil production is on a steady rise, it's demand has already far surpassed it, therefore warranting more oil imports.
And as far as India is concerned, it produces 834,600 barrels per day, and consumes 2.4 million barrels per day; it consumes two thirds more oil than it produces. "But", you might say, "India is 'active in the market'! That must mean it doesn't need to import oil!" ERM, no - the numbers are right there, you do the math. Here's another figure: From 2001 to 2006, India's oil consumption increased by 11.9 percent. It's the ninth-largest importer of oil, and by 2030 (if oil is still around by then; this is a mathematical estimate not taking into account oil depletion) it is predicted oil demand would reach 5.6 million barrels per day. Erm, make sense?
For more reading on this subject (notice how I made my argument first, then posted links?), read these articles:
Now to put the final nail in this issue's coffin: Erm, maybe you missed it, but the fact that China and India are in the market doesn't mean they don't import oil. So, ERM, at their current growth rate, they WILL "suddenly or exponentially unbalance things", as you say. Both nations already import a great deal of oil, and their oil consumption is growing faster than any Western country. It stands to reason that they will import oil to satisfy their needs, and they will demand more and more oil as development continues. Remember: We consume a massive amount of oil, more than 25% of the world's total consumption (this a figure from 2000, so obviously it's much higher now). When India and China become developed, there will doubtlessly be some competition for oil to meet domestic demands. If you think you can contest this, I'd love to hear your logic.
"Maybe you should read the link I gave in my previous post."
Maybe you should actually make an argument rather than dropping ultimatums and parroting slogans, ignoring all the facts and points I make, and essentially say, "I'm right, you're wrong. Haw haw." Are you familiar with "debating" at all?
I read the article. It goes under the assumption that peak oil is non-existent, which is a completely ignorant position to take. You haven't even debunked all the information I posted relating to falling oil production, and you're assuming off the bat it's all bunk and your proposition is correct? Your article doesn't even go into detail how oil depletion is not an issue; it primarily focuses on proving speculation increases prices, nothing further - so how the hell can you just say, "read dat article, yo" and expect me to be blown away and admit defeat? I actually agree that speculation influences prices - that's why I didn't post a rebuttal to your previous post - but to assume declining oil production has nothing to do with this increase is basically arguing with your head up your ass.
One line in your article caught my eye: ". . .given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months. . ." Doesn't explain what this equilibrium is or what this assumption is based on. And it ignores the chaos among the largest oil producing nations in their production levels - this whole article goes under the assumption that peak oil is non-existent, when the data clearly show otherwise. Marion King Hubbert's theory on Peak Oil reflects the reality of oil field production - as production increases, it hits a peak where the most it will ever produce is extracted, and subsequently production falls into terminal decline. His three methods of predicting peak for certain oil fields accurately prophesied the US's oil peak in the 1970s, and oil peaks have been observed in fields around the world, such as the Cantarell supergiant field and the North Sea field, as well as total oil production in countries such as Venezuela, Germany, Tobago, France, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and Canada (not including bitumen).
Here's another line from your article: "Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand." Doesn't cite the "compelling evidence", doesn't say what the hell it is, and doesn't give one statistic from the "actual data" that is so decisive... how convenient. "Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies." A nice helping of bullshit; "supplies" have not increased whatsoever; oil PRODUCTION increases with increased development of fields that have not hit peak yet (as well as pumping sea water into oil wells to increase pressure and obtaining oil from "heavy" sources like bitumen, which is more costly than light oil), however the amount of oil in the ground is not increasing, but decreasing. Obviously they know jack shit about retrieving oil, hence their denial of the trends in oil fields and countries to peak then slide in a recession. Even the discovery of oil peaked in 1965; since then we've never discovered a field as massive as Guhwar. On average, the fields we discover are smaller and smaller.
"The conclusion that it's scarcity and demand (aside from inflation) is over-simplified and mis-informed."
You're the one who hasn't made a single damn argument against all the facts I've given. You voted both my comments down, so obviously what I said was wrong, but you don't even try to prove me wrong. I never said I rejected speculation's involvement with rising oil prices, however you have dismissed all other probabilities and embraced that alone, as can be seen by you claiming all other standpoints are too simplistic or misinformed. You make the assumption it's all the speculative market that's behind the price increase, and that's it (apart from inflation, which is the only other possibility you embrace)? You're the one over-simplifying things, not I.
Also, just saying "you're misinformed" doesn't make it the case. You actually have to... I don't know... offer an ARGUMENT or two to prove that allegation, maybe? Is it so hard to request that you actually debate my points rather than dismissing them and making ultimatums? It is? Well, get the hell off this debate site then.
Now that was fun (despite the fact I wasted 2 hours worth of research on a response to a person who can't formulate an argument). Oh, and one more thing: ERM!!!!!
"I would rather risk the extinction of a few animal species than continue to enrich and rely upon middle east oil."
ANWAR drilling won't do anything to solve that problem, sorry. You'd just be making a few species extinct while not even lightening our dependence on foreign oil.
"All that would do is bring our enemies closer to nuclear capabilities"
Which "enemies" are you talking about? None of the countries in the Middle East that have showed hostility to us, such as Libya, aren't even among the top 10 or even top 20 oil exporters to the U.S. And Iran, the big, bad country everyone fears will get nukes yet doesn't even have the infrastructure to delve into weapons research, doesn't sell oil to us in the first place, so a dependence on "Middle Eastern oil" has nothing to do with it. WHAT enemies are getting close to nuclear capabilities, and of these, which ones do we import substantial quantities of oil from?
While I do agree we should stop relying on Saudi oil, the whole thing about nuclear capabilities is a load of BS.
We've been drilling in Alaska for decades. Hell, Prudhoe Bay already passed peak in 1987.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
If you're talking about ANWAR, that's a different story. Drilling will be allowed if oil reaches $125 a barrel, according to the US Senate. We still have a few months until we get there. Now, if we were to reach that point, it would take at least a decade to get even a drop of oil out of that reserve. Why? Because it's spread out over 1.5 million acres of land (just 10.5 billion barrels, mind you), not in one field but scattered about. A large quantity of pipelines and facilities would need to be constructed all over this area to get the oil flowing, and that would take years to build and operate. And by the time we do get it operational, the rewards won't be all that spectacular.
Here are the facts: Currently we are importing around 12,604,000 barrels a day of foreign oil. ANWAR, at peak production (when it produces the largest quantity before it falls into terminal decline) will give us 870,000 barrels a day. You do the math.
"yeah, we need to stop buying foreign oil."
I have an idea - tell me if this is crazy or not - but how about we... I don't know... invest in alternative sources of energy so we don't NEED oil in the first place? Wouldn't that get us to stop buying foreign oil a lot faster than drilling in Alaska (which wouldn't do anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil)? Trying to suck every last drop of oil out of the crust is just delaying the inevitable: oil will run out. It's a finite resource, and once the peak of a certain field is reached (when half the oil is depleted), production fails, so we don't even get all 10 billion barrels of oil because it'll reach a point where it's not cost-effective to continue to pump the oil if production is too low.
Should we drill for oil in Alaska? No, how about we invest in alternative sources of energy and eliminate our dependence on oil altogether? Because if our reliance on foreign oil is what you're worried about, then you'll be sad to hear that drilling in ANWAR won't help that at all.
"The Neumann's were silly to depend solely on prayers to restore their daughter's health."
Why not? You KNOW for a fact that god "helps" you, yes? Why wouldn't he "help" the Neumann's? If god is so all loving and wonderful as you claim, why take away that which the parents love so dear, when they were so loyal and respectful to him?
"trust his decision to take their daughter from them, in his infinite wisdom."
You have no reason to assume a god has infinite wisdom (you are assuming this, just like his very existence), and you certainly have no reason to respect the will of something that wants to kill your own child when you beg and plead for it not to, and it doesn't even tell you why the death is necessary. Instead of learning from the horror of the loss and donating to organizations helping other kids with diabetes, you'd rather just say, "well, god must have intended this to happen, so I guess all kids with diabetes deserve to die." I really hope you're not a parent, if you think children are so expendable.
"‘Prayers work’"
Still waiting for you to prove it. Come on, I don't have all eternity, now.
"you can’t always understand how so with your limited understanding of the universe"
You have just as limited an understanding of the universe as I. You're in no better position. Thus I play it safe and don't make assumptions about what might exist beyond our perception because I'll never be able to prove its existence. You, on the other hand, gleefully assume away and presume plenty of details outside our "limited understanding of the universe", even though you have no reason to whatsoever. Your whole belief is based on nothing but assumptions. They are erroneous, they are unwarranted, they are unfounded. And you even admit it.
"It would be unrealistic to try and prove it"
If you can't prove it, then WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT? Are you familiar with the term, "intellectual dishonesty", by any chance?
"the same way as you can’t make a blind man see"
Not at all. A person with functional vision cannot make a blind man see the world, however that person HAS seen the world clearly, he knows for a fact it exists with his functional sensory organs. You even admit that your contention is based on faith alone, so you don't know any more than I do (yet you're the one making presuppositions of existence). So, no, I'm not blind, and you're no better sighted than I in this universe.
Also, I'd like to point out that it's not "in America" that prices of oil are increasing. Global prices for oil are rising, and while it's true that the inflation of the US dollar affects this, certain OPEC countries are now beginning to sell oil in Euros instead of the once-standard USD. Simply because the Euro is more stable in value than the US dollar - yet oil prices are still increasing, no matter what exchange standard is being used.
In fact, there is wide speculation that the Euro will replace the dollar as a global currency (such as Vladimir Putin suggesting Russia trade in Euros and not dollars). Losing out to the Euro as the global standard currency will cost us greatly in the long run - when our currency was the global standard, we were able to control commodities and resources much easier because it was our banks that had the power. Prices will inevitably go up, since we will no longer have that buying power.
So really it's a total [maelstrom of crappy circumstances] that causes oil prices to go up: The soon-to-be loss of global economic presence to the Euro, inflation of our dollar, peak oil, a growing demand for oil with a shrinking supply, and instability in the oil industries around the world.
Apart from an absurd level of inflation that has been occurring, the terminal decline in oil production in many countries can also be linked to rising oil prices. Geopolitics also play a hefty role, of course. Let's take a look at the data.
Top 10 US oil imports (as of Feb 08), in thousands of barrels per month:
1. Canada: 71,446
2. Saudi Arabia: 47,186
3. Mexico: 38,484
4. Venezuela: 32,810
5. Nigeria: 29,711
6. Iraq: 22,634
7. Russia: 13,083
8. Algeria: 11,135
9. Virgin Islands: 10,170
10. Angola: 10,148
(Taken from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/
5 of the top 10 importers are OPEC nations; the 12 OPEC nations account for over 46% of US oil imports (compared to the 105 non-OPEC nations importing oil into the US). The Persian Gulf alone contributes 21% of imports.
Let's take a look our oil import buddies and see if we can find any cause, geopolitical or otherwise, that would affect gasoline prices:
Canada: Conventional oil production peaked in 1973, causing a gradual drop in conventional oil production - however, this was not noticed much because processing bitumen from oil sands has been making up for the loss. Today production of nonconventional oil from bitumen make up 20% of total oil production in Canada. In fact, 95 percent of Canada's proven oil reserves (which is second only to Saudi Arabia's) are made from oil sand deposits. Processing bitumen is a very costly process, requiring far more refinery work than conventional oil. For example, it takes $25 dollars per barrel to produce crude oil from oil sands - this compared to $5 for producing crude in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia: Home of the largest oilfield in the world, Ghawar, producing 4.5 million barrels per day (the bulk of Saudi Arabia's oil supply comes from 8 massive fields - out of 80 total fields, and no more giant fields have been discovered since the 1970's). However, Ghawar's production has been declining as well - from 5.7 million barrels per day in 1981 to 4.5 million in 2001. Engineers who have worked on Ghawar have stated this decade will see Ghawar's peak (reports indicate 30-55% water cut, meaning that percentage of what comes from the well is water). The decline rate as of July 29, 2004, was 8%.
Mexico: On march 18, 2006, it was made public that the number two oilfield in the world (second to Ghawar), Mexico's mammoth Cantarell, had peaked. In 2004 it reached its highest output, 2.13 millions of barrels per day, and by 2006 it was at 1.9 mb/d, and in 2007 it was down to 1.5 mb/d.
Venezuela: Peaked in production in 1970, but increasing output by processing large oil sands reserves. In 2005, Hugo Chavez announced a plan to reduce his country's dependence on the U.S. oil market, after the Bush administration supported a failed coup against Chavez. Economic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have suffered as a result. The recent dispute between Chavez and Exxon Mobil have prompted Chavez to cut off oil exports to the U.S. altogether (although he has not followed through with this threat as of yet).
Nigeria: A militant insurgency has lately lashed out in an attempt to cripple Nigeria's oil industry, in a war on foreign oil companies, reducing oil exports (such as when Chevron, Texaco, and Shell suspended production in 2006 following the murders and kidnappings of industry personnel). Nigeria's Delta province is estimated to hold vast reserves, however due to political instability, projects to capitalize on them remain under-developed.
Iraq: The economy remains unstable due to the ongoing conflict, and oil production is hindered as a result. Oil facilities have been targeted by insurgents throughout the operation (282 attacks total between April 2003 and October 2005). Production has declined to around 1.9 mb/d, and refineries are operating at half capacity, necessitating large refined oil imports of 200,000 barrels per day.
Russia: Production peaked in 1987, sharply dropped after the Soviet Union collapsed, but rose as investment increased in the industry. A second production peak has been predicted to hit in 2010. A lack of modern technology and many aging oil fields is hindering Russia's ability to maintain and expand production levels.
Algeria: A tax on oil was passed by Algeria's Parliament. This "excess" profits tax could vary from 5% to 50% on Algerian profits of foreign companies, thus increases the pice of oil to its buyers. They also passed a provision that Sonatratch, the country's oil monopoly, take a 51% controlling interest in all future production and refining contracts.
Virgin Islands: Couldn't find a lot of crises facing them, geopolitical or otherwise. Cool.
Angola: Once the civil war ended in 2002, Angola has stabilized and is steadily increasing its oil output. In the next 10 years, production will increase by 2 mp/d to 3.4 mp/d. However, there are signs it could turn into the next Algeria. Angola's most productive and future oil fields are within the exclave province of Cabinda. The huge royalties derived from Cabinda's oil production goes directly to Angola's capital, Luanda, with little returning in development funds for the province. The people of Cabinda recognize they should be some of the wealthiest people in Africa (with only 300,000 people in the province), and there is a long history of armed struggle for independence in that province (such as the Cabinda Liberation Front and Armed Forces of Cabinda). Angola might not be in a crisis at the moment, however there is a strong possibility of a Nigeria redux with insurgents striking against the country's oil industry.
So, I guess my answer to why oil prices are increasing are that, aside from inflation, the oil production of 8 of our top 10 oil imports is being hampered or even crippled in one fashion or another, affecting prices worldwide. Also remember that oil consumption is increasing globally as well. China and India are also developing at an accelerated rate, and their enormous populations will require an equally enormous amount of oil if development continues.
Increased demand + Decreased production = Increased prices.
"Told you it would get you squawking mad!"
You obviously haven't seen me on Stickam.
"'YOU WIN'"
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
"Told you it would get you squawking mad!"
You obviously haven't seen me on Stickam.
"'YOU WIN'"
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
"The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate [sic] from yer [sic] brain, which is what I'm sayin [sic]."
The "instance" was perceived by our brain, the memory originates from our brain because it is there where it was created. If you have proof that memory is somehow created outside our brain then implanted in, I'd love to hear it. It'd be nice to have some actual FACTS to argue instead of your baseless conjecture.
"I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive [sic] lines and the links you send."
So you are aware that memories are CREATED IN THE BRAIN, thus your previous point that memories somehow exist separately from the brain is moot, thus your claim that the self exists beyond the physical body just became all the weaker. Thanks for making my job a lot easier.
"I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories."
Before you can even discuss that you have to establish what a "state of being" is. That implies that "we" are separate from our physical bodies, thus can exist elsewhere. However, we have seen that a sense of self is produced by the functions of the brain as a culmination of sensory input. Without a brain, there is nothing to gain sensory input from the environment to experience the physical world, thus have awareness, let alone self-awareness. And if you contend that awareness can be possible, you'd have to provide a lot of argumentation as to how awareness is even possible without the organic functions of a brain. So why don't you explain, in detail, how an entity can exist without a physical body. While you're at it, explain how it can maintain any kind of identity since the brain's chemical processes generate one's unique personality.
"I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove [sic] my personal research"
Don't worry; based on your track record I wasn't expecting otherwise.
"May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut."
I don't know if you've been reading your own comments with a critical eye, but if we were to look at one of our exchanges, what do we see? I attempt to press points, give counter-arguments, be as thorough as possible with stating the logic behind my arguments, and post links to reference material to back up my allegations. You often take one or two quotes that aren't even dealing with the real meat of a comment and offer weak arguments against it, make claims and allegations with nothing more than pure conjecture to back it up, refuse to address points brought up by cited material, make broad assumptions, and ignore any valid points the opposition makes. This, coupled with your inability to read properly (especially reference material), shows that you might have the whole "thick as a walnut" line (which was another claim made without any stated reasons) backwards.
"I can use the same to argue that the brain is just an organ that allows you to process the memory into your physical form, not the memory itself, which exists in history regardless of whether your brain has lost its ability to recall it."
Scientists have identified how memories are recorded, registered, and stored in the brain, physically. The brain creates memory, it does not merely process it. Also, clarify on what you mean by "which exists in history". What history? And how does exist? The memory encoded within your brain exists, yes, even if certain faculties are disabled to inhibit accessing that memory. However, it still exists within the brain. If you can somehow prove it exists outside the brain (in some fashion or another), I'm sure the neurologist community would shower you with awards and praise.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/
"You're out to prove that God doesn't exist."
Read my post before responding.
"Not the same, as I argued from a psychological perspective aside from religious views."
Once more, read my post. I offered a counter-argument from the psychological perspective as well. Did you read that part at all? Obviously not.
"God helps me with that, so my prayers aren't futile in any case."
Prove god is involved with prayer in any way, shape or form, before judging whether praying is effective or not. If your contention is that your prayers are effective because god helps you, that is not a solid statement since the idea of god is conjecture, not an established fact. Therefore, you're basing your contention on a false premise.
"However, I do trust in God."
Irrelevant to the issue.
"your objectives come before your beleifs [sic], it seems (since you don't have any)."
Not speaking for myself - there are plenty of other examples of unanswered prayers, many of them from devout religious people (such as the Neumann's). Did you even read the article I posted in the other column on the effectiveness of prayer?
Also, are you implying I have no "objectives" or I have no "beleifs [sic]"? Either way, you have no idea to tell for certain; you've never met me in person, the only time we've interacted was on this website, you don't know who I am, yet you somehow are able to ascertain that I have no "beleifs [sic]" or "objectives"? How does that work?
"You can be sure you'll get exactly what you deserve."
So you're saying Madeline Neumann's parents were not good, obedient followers of god, even though they were evangelicals and let religion practically run their life? Somehow they were not worthy enough to have their daughter saved? Read my post in the other column for a more detailed argument. If you believe you can refute my position by debunking the research and argumentation presented there, please do so.
I know you said you wouldn't continue in this forum, Mumin; however you've deleted my comments on your page asking for evidence to prove that my position is false (as you have claimed multiple times without producing documents or records refuting me), and now that you have declared me an enemy, I cannot comment on your page anymore. So hopefully this time you'll put your money where your mouth is.
I'll take the initiative in providing a source supporting my position. In Islam's very own scripture, the Sahih Bukhari Hadiths, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, it is written:
"that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years..." This is also restated in the following verse, Number 65.
Here are a few online translations of the Hadith concurring on this interpretation (also, these are not atheist, Christian, or Jewish websites, so don't try to claim they are biased):
(http://www.ikfm.se/ig/albukhari/
(http://www.luvu4luv.com/
(http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/
(http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/hadith/
Now it's your turn, Mumin. Since you're so confident that I am wrong, you must have a bounty of contrary information with reputable sources to back it all up with, correct? Let's hear it.
"God answers prayers"
Prove it.
http://www.livescience.com/health/
"the power of vocalizing your ultimate objectives that you want to see through would definitely improve your efforts"
The psychological benefits you mention are by no means exclusive to prayer itself. Seeking counsel with trusted friends or family members offers the same confidence and vocalizes your objectives. In fact, I think speaking to other humans is even more reassuring because there's no doubt that they are listening. Psychologists also can give counsel. Whereas you make a request to the idea of god and don't get any response back confirming that he heard you, other humans give affirmations. Also, there are people who do mistake prayer as being the solution to all their problems, and their faith in prayer can erode their sense of responsibility. Not saying this is always the case, but I've known a few theists who put too much faith in an unknown entity to run their life.
I'm not denying prayer has its benefits, psychologically (although these can easily be gained through other methods); I just deny that god answers prayers because it's not even known whether a god exists or not, and even if it was known, there's still no evidence indicating it answers prayers. It may be that the self-confidence some achieve through prayer is what helps them achieve their goals - not divine influence. This would explain the inconsistency in prayer answering much better than the cop-outs generally used by theists.
"he same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey"
You used the phrase "I'd say" when speaking about what the brain's function is. That's much more daring than anything I've said; I actually try to take information from external sources.
You don't seem to comprehend that consciousness and self-awareness are not independent of the brain, they are PRODUCED by the brain. Therefore your argument that they continue to exist after we die is moot.
"using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm"
You're using backwards logic; we have observed consciousness and self-awareness to be tied directly to the brain. This indicates consciousness is produced by the brain - you say that the consciousness existed before it happened to possess the body or something to that effect. You have no evidence to this claim whatsoever and therefore that argument is moot as well.
Prayers have a number of logical flaws inherent in their very design, the foremost of which is lack of evidence that they are even answered. While some people claim their prayers have been answered in the past, obviously there is a multitude of other people who have not had their requests fulfilled, often for vital issues. Here are two extreme examples:
1. President George Bush praying for the people of New Orleans right after they were hit by hurricane Katrina, displacing thousands of people. Great load of good that did.
2. Madeline Neumann, an 11-year old girl, died of diabetes. Her parents opted for prayer instead of taking her to the hospital when she showed very noticeable signs of illness and weakening. For 30 days her insulin level dropped, dying as her parents prayed (knowing that she had diabetes).
Here's an article with some research done on the effectiveness of prayer: http://www.livescience.com/health/
Naturally, religious people have rushed to generate excuses for unanswered prayers. The most common excuses are:
1) There is no unanswered prayer; God just answers them in different ways than we expect them. If that is the case, what is the point of praying in the first place, especially if fatal consequences result? And even if you believe that God had answered the prayer in such a way that it appears he didn't do anything for you, HOW is that any proof that prayer is effective, in any way?
2) God chooses not to answer them. Obviously a convenient cop-out; if your prayer is not answered, why doubt the validity or effectiveness of praying when you can just assume God simply chose not to answer it? This also produces the problem that you essentially get a 50/50 chance at your prayer being fulfilled. That's the same chance you get if you were to just hope for something to happen, or carry a lucky object with you to somehow increase the chances of something good happening to you. This in no way indicates a divine power.
3) You don't believe deeply enough/ didn't pray hard enough/ lacked faith in the baby Jeebus/ etc. So only believers are able to use prayer, and if their prayers are unanswered then they just didn't pray hard enough? You think Madeline Neuman's parents prayed hard enough, considering they did so for 30 days straight? Once more, a cop-out.
For a bit of scientific research on how effective prayer is (yes, those pesky scientists are foiling religious dogma once more), check out this article: http://www.livescience.com/health/
There is no evidence that prayer does help. It's a 50/50 chance to get what you want, which are the odds you have if you do nothing. Thus, there's no reason to believe prayer works in the first place. If prayer worked for you, bravo, now explain how my prayers were never answered (back when I was a Christian and did have faith), or why Neuman's parents didn't have their prayers answer. Hell, tell me what makes you so special that the being who CREATED THE UNIVERSE spends his time and attention catering to your need?
Prayer is good for people who have nothing else to turn to and need comfort. Hoping that this theoretical being will take care of you does provide some solace (at least, to those who don't mind the possibility of it not existing in the first place). Then again, talking with a close friend or family member does the same. And one detrimental effect of prayer is that is erode's a person's self-reliance, putting his or her life in the hands of some unknown force, rather than taking control and responsibility themselves. For more on self-reliance, here's an interesting article from a book on Theosophy:
Before prayer can be considered valid, we need some powerful evidence, such as multiple prayers being answered of things that were incredibly unlikely if not impossible to have occurred otherwise (without any human influence). As it stands, prayer is indeed nonsense.
The majority of your comment is pure conjecture, until you put forth your only concrete evidence: "official letters from Jesus' apostles of the time period". Could you perhaps post a link or two detailing the nature of these letters, when they were written, what they said, who they were addressed to, etc.?
Also, there have been plenty of people who willingly die for their beliefs - doesn't make their convictions any more tangible than anyone else's. Suicide bombers do this on a daily basis. Is that proof that their god is real? No. Same goes for Jesus' apostles.
And finally... do you think it's appropriate to explain what Jesus was to you when you haven't even proven his existence yet? You kind of have to do the argumentation first, then your opinion second.
"his argument and the one above it clearly show the authors have so self respect, or respect for others."
How the hell did you manage to deduce that? You don't think that a person who feels they have a right to control their life can possibly respect themselves, or respect other people? Please explain to me how it "shows" that I have no self respect or respect for others. I'd love to hear your logic behind that utterly inept accusation. Especially with the "respect for others" part - affirming my right to die if I'm in incredible amounts of pain is somehow not respecting other people? How so?
Personally I'm more into R&B;-based rock than I am in pop rock. They both were very influential bands in their own right, and I like the more political nature of the Beatles' later songs, however I personally like the Rolling Stones' music better. You just can't beat Paint It Black (which was one of the first well-known rock songs in a Natural Minor key, which was a huge development in having more varied rock sounds and feels).
Tests just measure your ability to memorize facts or formulas. Homework and classwork reinforce learning so students can retain the information they are exposed to. If you pass a final exam, you could either know the material very well or studied like hell for a few days for that one test while slacking off an all other classwork.
Having the final exam being the only important assignment to passing a class will undoubtedly encourage students to not even attempt homework assignments or other classwork, or study for other tests. Not a very efficient system of education (if imparting knowledge is the actual goal, rather than receiving a piece of paper to show off and get a better job, whether or not competence was required to obtain said piece of paper).
That said, I don't think students should automatically fail the class if they don't pass the final; if grades really did reflect the learning progress of a particular student, I think the overall grade should be important. Though grades don't always ensure a student getting the most out of an education. Back when I was in high school, I passed Geometry with flying colors (class rank 1), but subsequently forgot 70% of what we learned in that class over the summer. Not very good when a year and a half later I took the SAT's. That sucked.
