The coming Ice Age

Hardline Crawlers - Rock Bouncer Builds, Tech & Off-Road Trail Talk

Help Support Hardline Crawlers:

ZedMikey said:
I thought all the evidence shows the existence of Allah.

http://www.questionsonislam.com/article/evidence-proving-existence-allah

http://www.godallah.com/evidence.php
Click to expand...


Allah is real, I have to leave in a few minutes, but open up another thread and I will be more than happy to explain his existence once again, actually, if everyone understood this, then they would understand the whole deal between Islam and the rest of the world.

BTW, I won't be able to get on for a few days :awesomework:
 
For evidence of god all one has to do is look towards quantum physics and the work done by Amit Goswami. The proof is definitely there and is backed up by science. There is an excellent documentary in this subject called The Quantum Activist and you can stream it instantly on Netflix.
 
Jaydog said:
This thread has taken enough twists off topic, but if you search you can find other threads where I have listed quite a few. :awesomework:
Click to expand...
I am soooooo surprised you didn't post any evidence. Just aaaaaaaaaabsolutely stunned. :lol:
 
Jaydog said:
New poll shows that 69% believe that Global Warming Scientists lie about thier research, glad to know I'm not in the minority :D

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/04/poll-69-say-global-warming-scientists-lie-about-their-research/
Click to expand...
Good thing truth isn't a democracy. :D

Not to mention the poll asked about a belief that SOME global warming scientists have falsified data. And this isn't at all surprising given the whole "Climategate" bull****.

I have a serious question. Do you intentionally misrepresent the articles you read, or do you really not understand them?
 
billulsund said:
For evidence of god all one has to do is look towards quantum physics and the work done by Amit Goswami. The proof is definitely there and is backed up by science. There is an excellent documentary in this subject called The Quantum Activist and you can stream it instantly on Netflix.
Click to expand...
I have that movie in my queue, but haven't watched it, yet. I'll do that (maybe tonight) and post more about it. In the mean time... there is a LOT of criticism of Goswami's take on quantum mechanical effects and consciousness. And to make matters worse, I have seen no peer reviewed papers on anything remotely resembling what Goswami is talking about. Nor have I seen anything in quantum mechanics that would explain it, though, admittedly, I have only had intro quantum courses and some non-academic reading on the side.

I did read a book called The Quantum Brain that suggests the possibility that the neural networks in our brain effectively "amplify" quantum effects to the macro level, but not as Goswami suggests. It suggests that our individual consciousness is the product of quantum effects, but not that those quantum effects have any influence on anything other than our own individual brains. And, as fun a read as it is, The Quantum Brain is not peer-reviewed, and the whole "quantum consciousness" thing is certainly not a widely accepted scientific hypothesis, as far as I can tell.

I guess what I'm getting at is that Goswami and The Quantum Activist are far from being evidence that God exists... since I haven't seen any evidence to back up what he's saying! I can spout all sorts of quantum mumbo jumbo and say it is evidence for or against God, but that doesn't make it evidence. It's conjecture.

Oh, and another edit... it does sound like Goswami is saying that we are God. This "quantum consciousness" (different from the "quantum consciousness" ideas of The Quantum Brain) that we all have... is God. I'll watch the movie and come back to this.
 
Last edited:
Ok, billulsund... I cracked a bottle of Firestone Walker Parabola and watched The Quantum Activist...

Yeaaaahhh... where to begin. Let's start with what he was saying. Basically, everyone is connected via a quantum consciousness. And that quantum consciousness that we all possess is god. Basically... Buddhism. He just threw in a bunch of half-assed quantum mechanical sounding BS in the mix.

In an hour and fifteen minutes, he only mentioned two things that could even be remotely taken as evidence for anything. The first was some work by Jacobo Grinberg, a Mexican neurophysiologist, about people meditation together then sharing a link that had no signals. He claimed this link was a quantum phenomenon. Here is a link about it. http://www.start.gr/user/symposia/zylber4.htm

I've tried to find the paper that was supposedly published in the journal Physics Essays in 1994, but of course, I can find nothing aside from people saying there was an essay published in that journal. Anybody have a subscription to Physics Essays that can look into the back issues for us? Hehe... riiight...

And then there was another study done in England... I should have written down the name, and I'm too lazy to dig back through the movie to find it.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Even if these studies showed conclusive evidence for a "quantum consciousness" (which they didn't... else we'd have heard about it), that is not proof of the existence of God. His leap from the quantum connectedness of the human brain to other human brains (which he has shown no evidence for) is a far cry from proving the rest of the conjecture he spouted.

Very interesting ideas he has, and I like the underlying message he is supporting. But he has nothing to back the "quantum consciousness" or nature of God stuff.

As for the quantum mechanics behind what he's talking about. I find it hard to believe that a PhD in theoretical physics would overlook the fact that quantum mechanical effects only apply on the very smallest of scales because the effects are averaged out when more and more particles, larger and larger distances, and higher and higher masses are concerned. Statistical physics takes over on the macro level and classical equations hold true.

The classic example of statistical physics... technically, it is possible at any given time that all the molecules of air in a room with end up packed into one corner of the room. However, the likelihood of such an event is so ridiculously small, that one can, with confidence, call it impossible and not have to worry much about it. When you are dealing with a system with 10^23 particles distributed about 10^100 possible locations (and this is a far cry from the example of all the air in a room), the number of states of the system is... ummm... damn... that's a big number... (10^100)!/(10^23)!. Which, if my math isn't failing me, would be 10^(100!/23!)... which is about 10^(10^136). For those that don't have a good grasp on this notation... let me write it out. That's 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
(I'd write it out fully, but the number would span more than the width of the known universe... I'm not kidding. It's that big.)

10^36 orders of magnitude more than a googolplex possible states. And a googolplex is ridiculous enough a number... How many states have all the particles literally packed into a corner? 4. One for each corner. Yeah... not very good odds. The vast majority of those possible states have a reasonable distribution of the particles.

Whew... deep... anyway. Quantum mechanics is the same way. The quantum effects, averaged over so large a number of particles and possible states, is completely lost in the real world.
 
Last edited:
ZedMikey said:
I have a serious question. Do you intentionally misrepresent the articles you read, or do you really not understand them?
Click to expand...

I think you and Crusty would believe the moon was flat if a scientist told you it was. :haha:
 
Jaydog said:
What's this? The Artic ice might not be dissapearing after all :haha::haha::haha:



http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se...hysteria-arctic-ice-not-be-melting-after-all/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract
Click to expand...
Really, Jay? Really?

Again, are you misrepresenting this article intentionally? There is NOTHING in either of your links (or the BBC article linked by your wonderfully non-biased news source, First Things... from their website.... First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society :rolleyes:) that says the polar ice isn't disappearing. The study is about the TIPPING POINT of the disappearance of polar ice.

Basically, it has been said that there is a "point of no return" for the disappearance of polar ice. That, at some point, enough ice will be lost that there will be no way to prevent the loss of all of it.

BBC said:
Dr Funder and his team say their data shows a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007.
But the researcher says that even with a loss of this size, the sea ice will not reach a point of no return.
"I think we can say that with the loss of 50% of the current ice, the tipping point wasn't reached."
The idea of an Arctic tipping point has been highlighted by many scientists in recent years. They have argued that when enough ice is lost it could cause a runaway effect with disastrous consequences.
"I don't say that our current worries are not justified, but I think that there are factors which will work to delay the action in relation to some of the models that have been in the media.
"I think the effect of temperature and global warming may cause a change in the general wind systems which maybe will delay the effects of the rapidly rising temperatures a little bit."
Click to expand...


We are losing polar ice. What this article is saying is that the worries a "tipping point" aren't what some people were previously saying. Apparently, we can drop to 50% of our current ice coverage and still not hit a "tipping point."


That doesn't change the fact that we are losing polar ice coverage.


Again... are you attempting to be deceitful? Or you are you dense?
 
Jaydog said:
I think you and Crusty would believe the moon was flat if a scientist told you it was. :haha:
Click to expand...
And you still didn't answer the question...

I think I speak for Crusty in saying that we would not believe ANYBODY saying the moon was flat without some serious evidence to back up their statement.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I've yet to see your evidence, Jay.
 
ZedMikey said:
Really, Jay? Really?

Again, are you misrepresenting this article intentionally? There is NOTHING in either of your links (or the BBC article linked by your wonderfully non-biased news source, First Things... from their website.... First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society :rolleyes:) that says the polar ice isn't disappearing. The study is about the TIPPING POINT of the disappearance of polar ice.

Basically, it has been said that there is a "point of no return" for the disappearance of polar ice. That, at some point, enough ice will be lost that there will be no way to prevent the loss of all of it.




We are losing polar ice. What this article is saying is that the worries a "tipping point" aren't what some people were previously saying. Apparently, we can drop to 50% of our current ice coverage and still not hit a "tipping point."


That doesn't change the fact that we are losing polar ice coverage.


Again... are you attempting to be deceitful? Or you are you dense?
Click to expand...

Not sure which artice you read, but the science journal said that the polar ice was less than it is now 5000 years ago, which shows that the Earth has cycles of warmth, where the ice cap melts and then comes back, unless you have evidence of man made global warming that occurred 5,000 years ago, then you are just not being honest to yourself.

ZedMikey said:
What happened to this, anyway? I thought I was going to get a reprieve from your nonsense. :fawkdancesmiley:
Click to expand...
I was off for a few days, guess you missed it :hi:
 
Jaydog said:
Not sure which artice you read, but the science journal said that the polar ice was less than it is now 5000 years ago, which shows that the Earth has cycles of warmth, where the ice cap melts and then comes back, unless you have evidence of man made global warming that occurred 5,000 years ago, then you are just not being honest to yourself.
Click to expand...
You'll need to show us where ANYONE has EVER said that the Earth does not have natural cycles.

Jaydog said:
I was off for a few days, guess you missed it
Click to expand...
Get back to work ya slacker :flipoff:
 
Jaydog said:
Not sure which artice you read, but the science journal said that the polar ice was less than it is now 5000 years ago, which shows that the Earth has cycles of warmth, where the ice cap melts and then comes back, unless you have evidence of man made global warming that occurred 5,000 years ago, then you are just not being honest to yourself.


I was off for a few days, guess you missed it :hi:
Click to expand...
Less polar ice coverage 5000 years ago than there is now is not the same thing as "The Artic[sic] ice might not be dissapearing[sic] after all."

And to quote his pope-ness...

CrustyPope said:
You'll need to show us where ANYONE has EVER said that the Earth does not have natural cycles.
Click to expand...
 
ZedMikey said:
Less polar ice coverage 5000 years ago than there is now is not the same thing as "The Artic[sic] ice might not be dissapearing[sic] after all."

And to quote his pope-ness...
Click to expand...

:haha: The whole montra about global warming was that the ice was going to dissapear and kill all the polar bears, but I'm sure that was never said.....you guys crack me up!
 
Jaydog said:
:haha: The whole montra about global warming was that the ice was going to dissapear and kill all the polar bears, but I'm sure that was never said.....you guys crack me up!
Click to expand...
It is disappearing, Jay. http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/07/14/heading-towards-the-summer-minimum-ice-extent/#more-464

For those that like pretty pictures...

20101004_Figure3.png


Will it disappear completely? Even without a "tipping point" it is possible to lose all polar ice coverage. Warming will melt ice. If our warming trend continues, "the ice [is] going to dissapear [sic] and kill all the polar bears." Anthropogenic or not.

Also, Neither Crusty nor myself said that nobody has said the ice is going to disappear (wow... that's a convoluted sentence). Crusty pointed out that it has been well known for quite some time that the Earth has natural warming/cooling cycles. There are many of them, and they are like waves... sometimes the interference is constructive, sometimes it is destructive.
 
Last edited:
ZedMikey said:
Crusty pointed out that it has been well known for quite some time that the Earth has natural warming/cooling cycles. There are many of them, and they are like waves... sometimes the interference is constructive, sometimes it is destructive.
Click to expand...
[Jaydog]And since they are probly too complicated to ever understand completely, especially when you add in things like anthropogenic CO2 level increases and CFC's in the atmosphere, we should just give up, burn up all the dinojuice on the planet, and then wait for the Rapture.[/Jaydog]
 

Latest posts

Random media

Screenshot_2014-08-06-15-40-11.png
ruckus rock crawl labor day 2009 140.jpg
20170430_204946.jpg
tmp_32715-20161012_193900-1026675570.jpg
2013-01-28_19-21-41_665.jpg
20170507_151001.jpg
cody.PNG
IMG_20130723_201410.jpg
20140306_081726.jpg
Back
Top