Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Science, not religion, will allow our world to flourish

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:00 am

Once upon a time there were two civilizations that were exactly the same at opposite ends of the universe. They had the same exact history up until one moment.

In one, the most powerful nation was taken over by a faction that believed God would destroy the Earth because of abortion even though their religious texts said nothing about it. They also believed that the wealthy and corporations should pay little in taxes. They did not believe in science and scoffed at the scientists’ warnings of climate change and overpopulation. Governments were hamstrung by lack of funds and were unable to solve any problems. In a very short time, because of the effects of the scientists’ warnings, the world descended into chaos, and an ecological disaster coupled with wars over resources ended the earth’s ability to support human life and human life ended.

In the other, the most powerful nation was taken over by a faction that believed God had given humans brains and meant for them to use them. They believed in science. They raised taxes on the wealthy and corporations and used that money to put millions of people to work creating green energy. They used their ingenuity to figure out ways to reverse the effects of climate change. They understood that they were part of the earth, and for them to survive they had to obey the laws that the maker of the universe put there for them. These laws are the basis of an ecological system that had allowed them to flourish for millions of years. In time they got their population down to a sustainable level and found their place in the system. They will survive for millions of more years.

The men who scream about abortion and vote Republican will in the end kill generations and billions of people — their policies will not allow them to come to be. They are the real killers.

John Lucas

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

101 comments:

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:52 am on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Mr. Kinderman wrote: "Considering the alternatives set forth so far to allow “us” to do it, I’ll side with nature taking care of the “problem” on its own - any day of the week."

    This desire seems to have an extremely gruesome prospect considering the ways in which "nature" has reduced the population in centuries past and even in recent history.

    The Black Plague killed off 750 million people, most of who were dumped into mass graves or into the oceans or just left to rot in the street.

    Fast forward to 1980's - AIDS (a disease previously unknown and one for which there is NO cure) has killed 21.8 million people globally, 4.3 million dead are children under the age of 15.

    Now, for the uneducated or those with the mindset of a particular individual, AIDS (the GAY disease) is a punishment from God for the proliferation of homosexuality, so this disease just might be OK with some people.

    Then there are "natural" events such as hurricanes ("only" 1800 died in Katrina), and tornadoes ("only" 40 or so in Moore, OK). These events seem to be much more efficient at destroying property than people, so we can't really rely on them so much.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:34 pm on Thu, Jun 13, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Jerome, your policies are the "Final Solution" for human race. They insure the destruction of the earth's ability to support human life in the long run. There are many "Wannsee Conferences" held every year. They are when Conservatives meet and discuss ecological or population issues. Their ignorance on these subjects is caused by their emotional obedience to their ideology which leads to a stunning lack of rational intelligence when it comes to science.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 2:36 pm on Thu, Jun 13, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    In the face of over population of the Earth, Mr. Lucas believes something must be done to curb exponential expansion of the number of human beings. Whether or not we are the source of all the planet’s woes in my opinion is still a subject open to discussion. But he believes that it’s settled science and that either “[w]e will somehow do it or nature will.”

    Considering the alternatives set forth so far to allow “us” to do it, I’ll side with nature taking care of the “problem” on its own - any day of the week. Considering that we are well over 50 million human beings lighter in the United States alone due to the legalization of abortion fifty years ago but according to Mr. Lucas and others that number is simply not enough, I can’t imagine how they’d like to force those numbers down.

    Maybe Al Gore could proffer his solution with “human credits” or letting the government come up with a number each couple should be permitted to give birth to might assist. Well, either one (Gore and/or the government) are at the least VERY distasteful, so let’s leave it up to the scientists! The “morning after pill” might be recreated to include “three months after” that would force the expulsion of the non-living fetus from the womb of mothers exercising their choice (except maybe it won’t be by anyone’s choice?).

    It does get so very exciting isn’t it as we Save the Planet by razing the human race?!? I just can’t wait for the “Final Solution.” Our own little Wannsee Conference at Camp David?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:42 pm on Thu, Jun 13, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I like the "solution" in Dan Brown's latest book where the "villain" creates a virus that goes global and that will change humans' DNA so that 1/3 of the population will become infertile and others, while not infertile, will pass that DNA to subsequent generations.

    He thought that would be much more "humanitarian" than releasing a plague, like the Black Plague that culled 1/3 of the population during the Dark Ages.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:24 am on Wed, Jun 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Over population is the underlying problem. Erlich and Malthus were right. Their bottom line was that we cannot keep the population growing exponentially. That is clearly the truth. Advances in agriculture have put off the day but there has to come a time when we have to stabilize the size of the population. We will somehow do it or nature will. If the earths population was one billion instead of close to seven as it is today would we have the water shortages or fuel shortages we have today? Would we be pouring the amount of carbon into the atmosphere as we are today? Over population is staining the limits of the earths ecological system to the point of collapse unless we do something about it.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:58 am on Wed, Jun 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Your ideas on climate change deserve the same respect as those who say the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat. The fact that it is happening and is caused by man is settled science. Those who study this and write papers on this that are peer reviewed fully support what I am saying. The only disagreements are on whether we have already reached the tipping point.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 9:55 am on Wed, Jun 12, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 441

    Science Czar,John Holdren, who wrote a series of books in the 70s with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Erlich, in which he argued that to prevent ecological disasters, including either global warming or global cooling, government -imposed sterilizations,compulsory abortions,and laws limiting the number of children could be justified as steps to produce"sustainable well being."

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:18 am on Wed, Jun 12, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    No, Mr. Lucas - I never intimated that anyone should believe what I offer here. I would however expect at least a modicum of respect for my ideas and thoughts; after all, that’s what I offer to everyone else.

    But back to the point - I expect people to think for themselves; just because someone is a politician, actor or even a scientist doesn’t mean that they’re always right. It was insisted not too long ago that global warming is “settled” science, that there is no longer any room for discussion of opposing opinions. Naturally that’s about the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard (and I’ve said so before). There are far too many factors that can’t be considered yet because we simply don’t know what they are. Indeed, researchers and just plain “folks” are learning new things all the time.

    The fate of the planet is not in our hands, but once more with great feeling I believe that we should all be good stewards of the home we’re occupying for such a short period of time. Yet one of the things we have very little power over is what we exhale back into the atmosphere. But for as long as people have inhabited this big blue marble, nature has taken rather good care of us and the planet itself. It has this incredible way of cleansing itself no matter what we do to it and what it does to itself.

    Will the Earth and the rest of the Universe implode thereby ending time as we know it? Maybe, but as I wrote just a short while ago in the previous paragraph, we’re not in control of that. Neither Mr. Gore, Mr. Danson nor anyone else can state for an absolute certainty that we are.

    So let’s continue to enjoy our little vacation on Planet Earth, shall we? Or should we follow Chicken Little’s lead and fret over the falling sky when it appears rather safely ensconced above us? I choose the former.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:13 am on Wed, Jun 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Interesting. You are saying that heated air contracts and cold air expands?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:57 am on Wed, Jun 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I never have said that the scientific method is irrelevant. The reason I come after people like you on the subject of climate change is because the stakes are so high. We are talking about the future of the human race. Among climate scientists who use the scientific method and whose work is reviewed by those in the field there is no controversy. If you knew anything about how real science works you would know that. Climate change is happening and is real. It is only because of people who do not understand science and who are clearly out of touch with reality on the subject that there is any controversy at all. I am talking about people like you. Your BS and out and out lies have to be fought at every turn. I did not assign you as ignorant when it comes to this issue. You do a very good job of that with your own words. You are not upset about this issue. You are upset that you are being called on your nonsense.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:52 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    I'm just stating facts. You are patrolling the column assigning who is ignorant. I simply let you know that i have observed that you don't know.

    I suggested that you use scientific method to describe your science, and you said scientific method is irrelevant. You clearly don't know what is science.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:21 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Joanne, you don't know what you are talking about. See above.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:20 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Joanne, You have embarrassed me plenty, even though you don't know what you are talking about.

    It's time for you to eat crow.
    Follow the links below.

    Go to www.companieshouse.gov.uk
    click "Find Company Information"
    Enter "United States"
    You will find what you say is not there, and you can find either their corporate headquarters, or agent for service of process.
    You can purchase articles of incorporation for a cost of £ 1.00 which will convert to US Dollars through your credit card.
    The date is recent because they continuously update it.

    Now you can eat crow.

    Do the same for "The United States of America."
    Eat more crow.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:25 pm on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Personal attacks are not arguments but are evidence that one is on the losing end of an argument and has nothing left to offer.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:07 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I think Daniel has that backward. Heated air expands and rises while cold air contracts and falls.

    But what can you expert from someone who believes that the US is actually a corporation incorporated in London which essentially suspended the Constitution, but the "government pretends" that didn't happen.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:00 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    I recommend prayer, and that is on-topic.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:59 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    John,

    You don't have the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, including the author.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:15 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I would comment on where you get your facts but this is a family blog and talking about one's anatomy is frowned upon.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:17 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    What YOU are saying is 0.1-0.2 per fahrenheit per decade. That is not what is happening or what the models predict. Please try to get real.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:12 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Not true.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:11 am on Tue, Jun 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Interesting in a weird sort of way but has nothing to do with what we are taking about.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:33 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    They were saying that the polar ice caps would melt and rise the level of the sea.

    Then someone realized that the northern ice is floating, so if it completely would melt, the net change in sea level would be 0.000.
    Therefore, only the south pole and Greenland could change sea level.
    Then it is interesting to compute the amount of ice that would have to melt to change sea level just 1.0 inch. Huge mountain of ice.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:30 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Interesting story I heard today.
    (I have heard a few times that solar flare activity drives earth climate, but I haven't gotten a complete story to explain the entire mechanism. Still - interesting.)
    Solar activity. Earth's upper atmosphere expands and contracts. - correct.
    (I tried to dig out of him how the mechanism which causes the expansion and contraction, but to no avail.)

    When something expands, it cools. When it compresses, it heats.
    Like an air conditioner: Compression - heats. Dump heat out of radiator. Then expand to cool it down.

    If the atmosphere absorbs some heat, he tried to say that it would compensate by expanding, which would cause it to cool down. - Interesting, and possible.
    I couldn't get the guy to completely prove that he knew what he was talking about.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:25 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Gradual, yes.
    They were saying 0.1-0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
    The number had to be small enough so that people would believe it, yet they had to construct the story so that they could claim that a small temperature change would give rise to a significant change in climate.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:22 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Al Gore took the lead in the campaign.
    Nothing scientific about it whatsoever.
    Basically if his lips were moving, it was a lie.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:04 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Stan, calling the overwhelming majority of climate scientists kooks is not an argument. These are mainline scientists who have come to these conclusions. Your denial of the facts is the epitome of what a "kook" is.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:01 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2873

    Is Paul Watson the only Gaia worshipper who was wrong?
    [sleeping]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:58 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    What you basically saying is we should believe you and not climate scientists who have studied the problem. No thank you.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:39 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    Oh, the process is "gradual?" I see, er, uh maybe I don't see. Then what about Mr. Gore's prediction - not so valid now? I thought he was the leader and at least "political" expert on the subject of global warming or climate change or whatever it is we're supposed to be calling it these days. Or is he just like us other not-so-smart folk who must accept that there is zero doubt that the Earth's fate rests solely in the hands of the "really smart" guys and gals?

     
  • stan taves posted at 9:00 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Stan Taves Posts: 302

    What you global warming kooks are so easily disregarding is that apocalyptic predictions have been favored by the right, and the left, for a very long time. There have been self proclaimed profits of God that predicted the 2nd coming, and the end of the world as we know it, since long before any of us were even born. On the left I can remember my biology professor, back in the mid-seventies, claiming that the scientific community had proven we would destroy the environment within the next 20 yrs; that was nearly 40 yrs ago. I think it's time that you lefties gave us all an updated proof -- just hope that your end becomes lost before the 2nd coming is found.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:27 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Warm weather is what brings them out to mate.
    Otherwise, they can't do their mating calls in cool weather.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:27 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Jerome,

    If you follow the precise global warming formula, the temperature would have been 105.8 degrees instead of 106, or maybe as low as 105.6.

    They are complaining about that extra 0.4 degrees. If the temperature were this low, they would know that the extra 0.4 degrees was not added to the temperature.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:24 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Yup. Yum yum.
    They couldn't get soilent green until people would protest the lack of food. Then they called the scoopers, and after that, there was enough food to feed the people.

    Did you notice that the people already had rigor mortis, and they just threw them into the process?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:20 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    scientific method sci·en·tif·ic method (sī'ən-tĭf'ĭk)
    n.
    The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

    Judging from the conclusions you have come to on climate change it is evident that you ignored the scientific method. Perhaps you did use prayer.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 7:05 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 427

    Daniel, in the movie Soylent Green, if you recall at the end of the film, Charlton Heston declared that Soylent Green was People, in other words you might be eating your neighbor in the form of a little chip.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 6:58 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Lucas: People who use scientific method to measure the validity of something scientific are ignorant.

    This measures your reputation.

    I recommend prayer.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:44 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    You are committing the sin of anecdotal evidence. The process is gradual and the major debate taking place among those who are expert at this is whether we have reached the tipping point or not. The major scare is the unfreezing of the permafrost which will accelerate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. If we do nothing our children are in real trouble. We ignore the best scientists on earth at our own peril and that is exactly what climate change denies are doing.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 4:24 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 441

    ...and only 1000 miles from where you are, I'm freezing in fleece on a short motorcycle ride; global warming indeed... It's all about making money on the global market.Hmm. Shouldn't the USA fleece the fleecers?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:48 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I have said this about you before but it bears repeating. You are like the man who jumps off a 10 story building and halfway down boasts he is doing just fine. The evidence and the science are even more real than your denial and that is very real.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 2:40 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 441

    I hear you too Jerome. Middle of June,1976: Victor, Ca. 114 degrees in the shade on my best friends shaded deck, water wars and tongues hanging out and sweating like pigs with any bodily exertion.Science is the only way to accomplish a prospering economy.New products that ease our discomforts always sell. Why should the US sit on the back of the bus, when it was our own technology that has made and still makes other countries prosper? We the people should be the beneficiaries of we create. In the past, other countries copied us. but, that was when we truly were great.[sad]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:39 pm on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    So, according to my iPhone thermometer the temperature in Lodi yesterday reached 106 degrees. Whether or not that was the "official" high for the day, I do know it was very hot. And today at this very moment my iPhone indicates that it is 72 degrees in Lodi - and we're supposed to reach no higher than 72.

    What does this mean regarding global warming? Probably nothing at all other than according to things going on in the atmosphere, the temperature changes accordingly. I recall one very (VERY) hot day I believe it was in 1988 while I was still living in Sacramento the temperature actually reached 112. That was beyond hot - that was sweltering. I can't remember a day since then that we've had such a hot day, but perhaps I was someplace else when that occurred.

    Of course it wasn't too long after that HOT day in Sacramento that Sam Malone (Ted Danson) made his prognostication that within ten years we'd be in dire straits insofar as global warming was concerned. (Didn't happen.) And now we're awaiting for the near-end of the world according to the King of Global Warming (capitals intentional) the all-knowing Al Gore which is now two years, 230 days from today.

    What will the global warming folks think when we reach two years, 231 days and we're all still here without third degree burns all over our bodies?

    Just wondering.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:44 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    What I am going to do is continue to listen to the climate scientists who use the scientific method. What are you going to do? Watch more movies?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:36 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I say things like this because they are true and are overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community. The time for climate deniers is over. Those who cling to their denial will thought of in the same way that the people who thought the earth was flat were. That is yours and Jerome's future.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:09 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Jerome,
    Have you ever seen the movie, Soilent Green? Charleton Heston? This was a 1960's movie which depicted life in NYC in 2034, due to global warming.

    Everything was so hot due to global warming, that society broke down, including the food supply.

    Problem with this movie is that 2034 is now only 20 years in the future, and temperature is nowhere near the movie's prediction, so I don't know what Lucas is going to do about that.

    When I saw it for the 2nd time, I had to watch it a 3rd and a 4th to catch all of the details. It was a lot of fun.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:04 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Jerome, John Lucas just stated that you are "utterly into denial camp."

    John can say things like this because he knows somebody who has a Ph.D.

    I don't know what you are going to do.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 9:46 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 441

    Thank you, John. Sometimes an indepth video with intelligent interviews are more convincing than many opinions, even though the opinions may be correct. We can only read and hear opinions though,unfortunately. Too bad most of our media does not even mention what advances other countries are making at an amazing rate.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:07 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Paul Watson was wrong

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:49 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Robert you should write an letter to the editor on the subject. Very good post.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:42 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2873

    31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
    including 9,029 with PhDs.

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
    [sleeping]

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:34 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [thumbup]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 8:25 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 441

    Jerome stated that God created all things including science. It is only my opinion, but I believe that God supplies us with the scientific answers that we seek as we need them. A tv program on PBS convinced me how far behind in technology(or failure to use it) we really are. In China,for example,one of their wealthiest residents invested in the solar industry and with the manufacturing of solar panels being produced on an assembly line at a rate of about 1 per second at a specialized manufacturing plant. A solar city the size of Chicago was built and powered in about 3 months. It looked futuristic during the day and at night looks like a neon light show. Their buildings are supposedly built better than ours with longetivity in mind. China is also working on futuristic transportation projects also. Even the communist Chinese government sees the benefits of capitalism as they receive more income as well as the citizens. In Europe, there are trains that run on electromagneticity and nothing else. We need to study the advantages and disadvantages closely with this technology which has supposedly been around since the 50's or we may never catch up in a global market, and that could turn the US into a 3rd world country if we can't or won't compete. Nothing is forever except death and taxes.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:55 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Google it. It might prove useful to you. Are you saying all the climate scientists who in study after study confirm the existence of climate change and our contribution to it do not use the scientific method? Daniel, you, Jerome and others like you are the ones ignorant of the scientific method. You are the same as the Popes who excommunicated people for believing the earth revolved around the sun or the people who believed the earth was flat. All the science by scientists who use the scientific method support what I am saying. Climate change is happening now, it is real and it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. You and Jerome are right in one regard. There is a conspiracy to deny what is obviously true. Certain religious groups and the fossil fuel industry have joined together for selfish reasons to deny reality. You and Jerome are doing a good job for them.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:38 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    OK Jerome. I won't believe that you believe global warming is taking place.

    I get upset with Stephen Hawkings. In spite of his incredible theories of the nature and origin of the universe, he then uses his theory to characterize god.

    (I don't like to use capitalization to fictionalize someone, hence "god." The Hebrews were able to describe god just fine without having any capital letters in their language, so what's up with that?)

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:34 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    That's amazing.

    I have to ask you to ask your brother-in-law this question, because you are not the source. What are the elements of the scientific method?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:11 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Thanks for clarifying that. We can now put you into the complete and utterly into denial camp. That does not change the reality of what is happening but your ignorance and willingness to close your mind on the subject is revealing.

    In Christianity God has been defined as Love and Truth. Science is the tool we use to find the laws of the universe that the Creator of the universe made for us. It is a search for the Truth which is God. Your closing of your mind to what it says is an open rebellion against the Truth and God. Interesting, huh?

    PS I feel most sorry for hypocrites who claim to love God but refuse to obey or even recognize the laws of the universe he created. Jerome, if you really want to love God you are going to have to get real. Right now you are failing in that regard.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:19 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I have an associates degree in computer programing, certificates in Unix system administration and Oracle system administration which have nothing to with climate science, However I do know how to read. My brother in law has a Doctorate of Physics degree from Rice university where later he was a full professor and eventually head of the department. He taught at Harvard and Princeton and worked at Livermore Lab where though retired remains a consultant. He says that among real scientists the question is not whether it is happening but how fast it will happen if we do not change our behavior, This is the prevailing view people who are really into science and do not work for the fossil fuel industry or frequently visit conspiracy websites. It is real and it is happening as we speak. Being in denial and putting our heads in the sand will not change that.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:59 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    I feel most sorry for those who worship science as if it were God - but God created all things, including science.

    That being said, I hope to clear up one tidbit regarding what some might have gleaned from prior comments of mine. While I certainly did state that “if” global warming is taking place we as human beings are helpless to change or alter it in any way. I’ve never intentionally meant to convey that I actually believe global warming is taking place, hence the word “if” inserted to qualify my statement in this regard.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 1:05 am on Mon, Jun 10, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    John, I might have met my match.

    How many degrees in science do you hold?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:46 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Denial does not change reality. The science is conclusive. We are changing the climate by putting too much carbon in the atmosphere. Period. Without question. It is obvious that you are not aware but ,sorry, that does not make it any less true. Even Republicans who used to have your position (like Jerome) have moved to the "We cannot do anything about it" position. They do this to protect those who own the Republican party, the fossil fuel industry, from having to change. Reality is.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:43 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Joanne, below I saw your joke. Pretty funny.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:43 pm on Sun, Jun 9, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    John, You were playing with my words.
    I cannot apologize for telling you something other than your opinion.

    There is no scientific foundation for global warming politics. It exists only in politics, and there, it is a lie.

    In science, there is virtually no scientific method, except for one experiment that was conducted by NASA with TIROS-N, and in that experiment, in spite of 15-20 years of data collection, it came back with no proof whatsoever that average temperature is increasing, but a rational scientist looking at the data would conclude no change.

    Other than that, 100 years ago, Arrhenius hypothesized about global warming based upon theory, but I am not aware of any science since then to confirm such hypothesis, except the NASA experiment, and as a scientific conclusion, the experiment would conclude that temperature is NOT increasing.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:36 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Ole Stan believes in redistribution. He just believes the wealthy should get it all.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:33 pm on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [thumbup]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:45 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Mr. Taves jokingly wrote: "What you don't seem to understand, John, is that freedom, that comes from the womb of Judeo-Christian philosophy, has done more to advance human civilization than any credo ever conceived. I know that you, and your ilk, are big believers in govt, and the "redistribution" that follows, but your belief can only redistribute the kind of weakness that will ultimately destroy us all."

    That, Mr. Taves, must be why the Roman Catholic church and the Vatican are one of the richest entities in the world. No "REDISTRIBUTION" there according to YOUR philosophy.

    Which is just plain disingenuous and downright SILLY.

    And if "freedom" comes from "God," then I guess the founding fathers, who you believe to have been Christians, would never have accepted the institution of slavery when they created this nation.

    And please, DON"T THREATEN me with your standard nonsense of "you don't want to come after me." We all already know you are a bully with absolutely no credence in this forum.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:37 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Daniel - no need to worry. Your organization has been extensively investigated by the FBI and deemed innocuous. If you aren't currently a guest of the Guantanamo Bay facility, you probably never will be, nor will you be subject to a drone strike as you intimated on another thread.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:34 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Mr. Kinderman wrote: "Considering that we (human beings in general) have only been able to keep “accurate” records regarding the Earth’s temperatures and other such data for a very short time (especially when considering that the planet has been around for a rather long time), whatever data we possess regarding the changes in climate are based upon short baselines."

    I think this statement pretty well epitomizes Mr. Lucas's point. Scientists have been able to determine fairly accurate measures of weather and other recordable events from fossil evidence and simply from the layers of the Earth (think Grand Canyon, for example).

    Heck - just go out and ask your local tree (or even Bob, the palm tree) and you will find a plethora of historical climatic records.

    Those who believe science is a lot of Whoo Haa, and believe absolutely in the "historical" record and "truth" of the Bible, are the very definition of "paradox."

    Science is based on evidence. Belief in God or a god is based on faith alone, no evidence required. I'm not saying that is a bad thing since I DO believe in God, but to deny the veracity of science is simply inconceivable.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:45 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    The letter is just about a choice we have to make. That choice is whether we get real or not

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:36 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    You are wrong. God's laws are not just written in words. You can take any reasonable intelligent 8th grader and explain to him the greenhouse effect and he will get the reality of what is going on. We are effecting the climate by pouring carbon into the atmosphere. This is what the science is telling us. The planet is an ecological system that has for millions of years provided a home for humans and our ancestors. We are destroying the earths ability to support human life on this planet because we refuse to obey the ecological laws set up by the maker of the universe. You being in denial does not alter that reality. Your denial and refusal to think is disobedience to God and will result in the destruction of mankind. It may take a 100 years but your thinking will surely destroy the earths ability to support mankind.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:12 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    Considering that we (human beings in general) have only been able to keep “accurate” records regarding the Earth’s temperatures and other such data for a very short time (especially when considering that the planet has been around for a rather long time), whatever data we possess regarding the changes in climate are based upon short baselines. This global warming might appear to be a “scientific reality,” but it’s not. And even if it is, it isn’t something we can possibly change. So what it most assuredly boils down to is how well it can be used politically before the sham will finally reveal itself.

    After all, Al Gore thinks we have roughly two years, 232 days before everything falls apart. But considering that another global condition expert (the imitable Ted Danson) of the early nineties predicted a ten-year life-span of the planet way back then (and we’re still here), I wouldn’t put too much stock in Mr. Gore’s prediction either.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:32 am on Sat, Jun 8, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    You may think that Global Warming is a political falsehood but it is most assuredly a scientific reality. Your point about religion and God is valid.and makes perfect sense.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:27 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    John Lucas:

    Perhaps you are confusing religion with God. They are not the same.

    I believe in God, but I am NOT religious.

    In regards to Christianity, and the Vatican, I believe that there is no validity in their self-proclaimed authority whatsoever.

    Perhaps this is related to the topic of your letter. I hope this helps.

    Global Warming is a political falsehood.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 11:16 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    I am grateful that the Lodinews will print anything from local residents, but this letter proves that this policy has its disadvantages.

    I can't be too critical, because anything I say can be used against me as well.

    I think John Lucas is practicing how to write a novel.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:51 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Stan said:

    John, is that freedom, that comes from the womb of Judeo-Christian philosophy, has done more to advance human civilization than any credo ever conceived

    Really? I do not seem to remember the models of representative government in the Bible. However, the Greeks and Romans dabbled in it. Your use of unfounded bromides and pontificating style leaves me amused as always. Thanks
    [smile]

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 4:11 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 427

    Stan, let me bring you up to date concerning the sun and how long it will last. I will give you a modest estimate, lets say 4.5 billion years, nothing for you to worry about. When the sun decides to give it up, within a short amount of time the earth will be a like frozen block of ice, so much for that Judeo-Christian philosophy of yours, along with Al Gores internet and Global Warming, one way to rid the planet of Democrats.

     
  • stan taves posted at 2:32 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Stan Taves Posts: 302

    John, John, John, how sad it is that it has come to this. Here's a little science for you: The earth has a finite amount of time regardless of whom, or what you might be worshiping. Our sun will run out of juice one day. If we were to look to govt, any govt, as a way to transition towards another life force, beyond our sun; then we would be looking towards those who have done nothing, except to advance the bureaucratic entanglements that are crippling our chances for survival today. What you don't seem to understand, John, is that freedom, that comes from the womb of Judeo-Christian philosophy, has done more to advance human civilization than any credo ever conceived. I know that you, and your ilk, are big believers in govt, and the "redistribution" that follows, but your belief can only redistribute the kind of weakness that will ultimately destroy us all. Please, John, stop trying to give legitimacy to those who can only destroy us -- please!

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 12:20 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 427

    Mr. Dockter writes, Without Religion Nothing Flourishes. As of now the Middle East won`t if ever flourish. With so many religions believing they are correct and will fight to the death to prove their point. Perhaps the only stabilized country is Israel, they are a civilized country with a stable government, and would like nothing more than to be left alone. Ready, set, Jerome and other respond.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:32 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Jerome said:

    Oh, and the “Big Bang Theory!” Very, very funny and imaginative television show. And also a very viable explanation to the beginning of the Universe. But then again, what existed just a moment before that event took place? Scientists cannot provide an answer because they believe that it marked the beginning of time. There’s where I disagree.

    We could not witness the big bang in our present form because space and time did not exist and was created in our universe at that moment. That is not to say it did not exist elsewhere. Who knows? Without space and time the drama that is the human condition could not exist.

    Bill Hicks said it best:

    “The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question: "Is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we kill those people.”
    ― Bill Hicks

    I think Jesus was one of those people we killed

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:15 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I think it is obvious if you read my piece it was not a diatribe against religion. I am a religious person. I do not wear it on my shoulder as you and Jerome do but it is a major influence on my thinking. I think when discussing ideas with ones fellows we have to keep our Religion to ourselves though our ideas surely are influenced by our spiritual beliefs. For me our spiritual beliefs ( atheism, Islam, Christianity or what ever) cannot deny the reality of science. Together they form a worldview and we take those views and form opinions and arguments on how humanity can best go forward. Spiritual beliefs and science are at heart a search for reality and what is true. When someone cites Scripture that clearly violates science as the truth they clearly are not interested in the truth or reality and their motives are immediately suspect.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:23 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    Yeah, this “laziness” thing - sorry about that. I was taught to understand that through what I say and write, people I don’t know form an opinion of me. This opinion is also based upon how I write and speak things. And while I can understand the concept of laziness and like you fall into it quite often, I try to keep it out of the view of strangers.

    As far as faith being “unsustainable,” I get that too. It’s not easy to believe in anything that we can’t see, hear or touch. But it is what it is. Firmly ensconced in my middle age of life, I can remember well when I came to accept Christ at the tender age of 16. From that point on my faith has been challenged in so many horrible ways that I often believed that God had abandoned the entire experiment. But then He has reminded me over and over again that it has been I who has turned my back on Him - and then things are alright once more.

    Nevertheless, I too believe in science - after all I also agree that God created it along with everything else. And while we’re in an age of incredible inventions that have taken us to the Moon and given us the ability to communicate with ultra-tiny devices to anyone we please virtually around the globe, I’m still taken aback when I just stop and look at the “simple” things that we’ve come to take for granted.

    For example, just yesterday I was at a friend’s home where they have a Hummingbird feeder just outside their kitchen window. I’ll tell you, I could stand and watch those little guys with their wings flapping at unbelievable speeds for hours. How beautifully simple and amazing, no? And I’m thankful that I can run back to my computer and look up the physics of just how they work and through the research of many very smart people, there it is: the “how” of it all. But what scientists cannot explain to me is “why.” Why are we here; why are the animals and plants here; what does it all mean? There’s where they fall abysmally short.

    Oh, and the “Big Bang Theory!” Very, very funny and imaginative television show. And also a very viable explanation to the beginning of the Universe. But then again, what existed just a moment before that event took place? Scientists cannot provide an answer because they believe that it marked the beginning of time. There’s where I disagree.

    So, we’re really not that far apart, Mr. Heuer - we just react differently to those things we can’t explain. I’ve doubted God’s intentions many times especially when I’m afraid for those I love so deeply. But that’s when I find my faith becoming stronger; it’s then when I don’t try to think I can fix any of it for them - that I have to rely upon something much bigger and stronger in charge. And for me that’s God.

    So you and others like you can continue to mock and disparage us who believe in God, His Son and the wonderful gift we’ve been given through Jesus’ death. But for the life of me I can’t understand why you’re so afraid of us. After all, wasn’t this country founded upon the right of all of us to believe as we choose? And aren’t we permitted to go after our own pursuits of happiness so long as those pursuits don’t infringe upon anyone else’s pursuits (rights)? And don’t I (like you) have the absolute right to try and change things that I believe need changing? Or is my faith not permitted in the argument? You take my faith away from me, then there’s nothing. Maybe that’s what you want. Well I’m very sorry, that won’t ever happen. I will continue in whatever way I legally can to reverse Roe v. Wade. I’ve got an uphill battle, that’s for sure. But in 1973 I wasn’t old enough yet to vote or even get into the discussion. But now I am.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:55 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    I think I'll write an article entitled "Without Religion Nothing Flourishes"

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:19 am on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1266

    Jerome
    Notice I start your name with a capital J. Thats because I always begin proper names with a capital letter. If I were to say Jesus I would start with a capital J because that's his name. If I were to write Confusionism it would start with a capital C. However if the words jewish or christian or islam are used I do not see the need for capitalization. However that being said there are times that in trying to type fast I just forget or get lazy. Substance is always more important than form to me. So in those cases if you want to read into that then you stand to see more than whats meant.

    After spending more time than I wanted to answer your Thur 10:50 AM question which resulted in me trying to recount and explain my progressive evolution from a young lad attending, with his mother, a presbeterian church in Lockford, to conversion in a little church in Lodi, then rollling through the 60s with waves of new ways of looking at life, to now in old age looking around at the world and saying if there is a god why is there so much pain and suffering in the world. The detail required to answer your question has resulted in a couple of chapters of my autobiography.

    Suffice it to say there was a conversion and unlike obviously your experience I,alng with many others, did come to realize faith was unsustainable. Too many questions and too few answers. Your analogy with the marine corp is truely unique.

    I finally came to the conclusion either god created the universe and went away to work on another one, or he died or there is no god. I have concluded its more than we can know at the present time so I remain agnostic. I find it difficult to say there is no god but even harder to say there is a god since empirical evidence favors the former. So as an agnostic I do consider the possibility that there could be evidence found one day, as we may learn through science, of a higher being or conciousness or energy. Until then your god has chosen to remain aloof. There is no divine intervention nor answers to prayer. There is no way to determine what, if anything, we are supposed to be doing and what we would be doing it for? The number of christian deominations alone atest to the fact that we are all just giving our best guesses. So for more answer please give a more specific question or wait for my book.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:06 pm on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1835

    Jerome, there once was a man who went to the horse races. He bought a ticket to "win" on every horse in the race. After the winner was announced, he proudly proclaimed, " I knew I picked a winner, see how smart I am". A liberal, no doubt.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 12:07 pm on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 427

    Jerome: You along with every believer states that Christ died on a cross for our sins. Evidently he took that chore upon himself, not that it did much good. Being nailed to a cross was the way the of execution in those times. Spartacus, who was real, along with 3,000 of his most loyal followers were nailed to cross` and by orders were not allowed to be taken down and left to rot. So you see Christ was just one of many that suffered the same fate. And yes Jerome you are correct concerning Once a Marine, I was and still am a Marine and would answer the call. Have you ever considered if Roe V. Wade was reversed, since its about a 50/50 call, and you can blame the Supremes for that call, rather than bringing up the subject in a small town newspaper, send the 9 blind mice an E-mail showing your displeasure in their decision. I`m not much on religion, have I missed anything, after reading all the different posts, I don`t believe so.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:50 am on Thu, Jun 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    I find great interest in Mr. Heuer’s pronouncement here on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 where he states: “Yes I have been Buddhist (as well as christian).” First, I note the capitalization of the former, but not the latter – clearly not by accident.

    Now whether he understands it or not, one can never have just “been” a Christian; unless of course there was no conversion. I’m sure what he must have meant is that he attended a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or other such “denomination” that would fall under the term “Christian church.” But if he actually was led to Christ by someone or just by himself as he pondered the miracle of what that truly meant, then he simply can’t take it back. It’s kind of like the Marine Corps acclamation that “Once a Marine, always a Marine!” The same is true for any of us who at one blessed moment came to believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that he died for our sins on the Cross; and that three days after that he rose from the dead. In the case of Mr. Heuer, if this happened then in spite of it all and just as what it means to be a Marine, he will always and forever be a “Christian” with all of the rights and privileges that go along with the gift he received by accepting it whenever that might have been.

    On the other hand, if as I hope was not the case he simply attended one of the aforementioned churches and only considered himself to be “christian” as a result, then I sure would appreciate it if he would clear the air. It’s kind of important to those of us who are Christians.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:41 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [smile]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:38 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    "And lets (sic) remember fetus (sic) are not babies unless their (sic) wanted."

    Disjointed sentence structure aside -- Huh?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:33 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1266

    Mr Kindseth
    Your post suggests you found your place. Spelling not a problem but there is confusion.

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 9:36 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Kindseth Posts: 238

    Luckily, America has a place for disparate [or desperate?] writers...... not sure of spelling, sorry for the confusion.

    Thin skinned editorialist's seem to be de riguere these days.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:37 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Jerome, you are in the minority and it is just going to get worse for you.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 7:53 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1266

    Mr Rainwater
    Your post makes no sense.
    Accepting abortion makes you a racist hate monger?
    Using a liberal definition? Please explain.

    There are more blacks incarcerated. There are more blacks pulled over by police, There are more blacks arrested for pot smoking/possession than whites though more pot is purchased by whites. Unemployment is higher for blacks than whites. So what does this mean? I don't think Mr Lucas is the racist here.

    And lets remember fetus are not babies unless their wanted.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:30 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    Mr. Walters is "pessimistic?" I would think such a thing about someone who would suggest that, "The men who scream about abortion and vote Republican will in the end kill generations and billions of people . . ."

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 7:06 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 40

    And you and Ed should be HAPPY about global warming!!!!! Soon there will be no parasitic humans around to ruin the planet!!!

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 7:04 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1266

    You bet. [thumbup]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:00 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Ed, a little pessimistic are we? [smile] The reality is that there are heroes everywhere we look. We are programmed to look for things that can cause us harm. It causes us to take for granted the good. When one turns that way of looking at things around on cannot but be hopeful about the future. There are wonderful people everywhere.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:52 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    As does string theory.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 3:31 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 427

    Most interesting post, Some people believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Evidently they never picked up a book looking into the scientific way the earth was created. There was the skeletal remains of a creature found called Acrhicebus Achilles that was proven to be around 55 million years old, so much for 6,000 years. If people were more diligent, abortion would be a thing of the past or would never have happened to begin with. Condoms, the pill along with abstinence would put a stop to 90% of unwanted child birth. As Mr. Lucas states, God gave man a brain, quite possibly the biggest mistake of all, especially after that fable of Adam and Eve, where as one of the two sons is murdered by the other. This was a failed experiment, should have left the planet to the animals.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 2:56 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1266

    Yes I have been Buddhist (as well as christian) and have much respect for Buddhists except the parts that got carried over from hinduism like reincarnation. I truely believe the only way to discover god is through science.

    If you truely want to find god you need to follow the many directions science is taking us. Over the years science has taken us away from gods on mountains, no gods in the sky or space, earth as the center of the universe, demon possession is actually a mental and/or physical health issues, plagues or natural disasters are not devine punishments and that evolution brought us to our current state and not theistic impulse. Quantum theories dance on the edge of physics and the spiritual. So keep investing in those science classes for prosperity and enlightenment.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:28 pm on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Dalai Lama said :

    If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview

    I think this is true of all religions. Belief in science only strengthens religion. They are different ways of seeking the truth. Someone said we are spiritual beings having a human experience. Belief in science is vital for the human part.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 11:08 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1266

    Interesting letter John
    Of course the religion you talk about is christianity but it could apply to other religions if they deny reality. Its not all christians of course just those that have become radicalized and/or politically active. Those who are so out of touch with relity they belive the earth is only 6000 years or so. They believe the Genisis story of creation is the actual way it all came down. So evolution (a science) is denied. They believe the Big Bang theory (a science) never happened. There are many christians who have reconciled their religion to realities and are actually activists for the earth but they don't get the headlines nor get on Fox news. To my amazement, and I thought this would never happen, there is a tea party group in Georgia actually protesting their nuclear power company because it has not invested or allowed investment (monopoly) in more solar eergy. Imagine a tea party that actually wants to do good? Otherwise the tea parties are the root of most of our problems today just beause they espouse radical religious ideas much like their middle eastern counter parts.

    Is being gay a natural occurance as most science agreees to today? Of course but to radical fundamentalist christians that science is bogus and gay choices are self directed choices easily reversed if they choose. Many sects of religion go so far as to believe all healing is either natural or through prayer and deny themselves medical care or their children medical care (a science). Thats cruelty to live living children.

    Climate change? Even the most radical have come to realize there is climate change but they can't come round to the idea it is man made. Of course its man made (science again) but they choose to deny it at our peril.

    For most religous notions anything that is bigger than us is gods dwellng or doing. Thats why volcanos, storms, floods, earthquakes, etc got the worship gene activated toward a god or gods or other spirits. Ever get spiritual feelings in a forest or in the sierras or at the grand canyon?

    Here is the key to understanding religion of any kind I have found.

    God is nature in the image of man.

    In this you will understand much about religion. Once you realize this your ready to take control of your life and fix the planet.

    Shadow Casters unite.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:28 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I stand by what I said. Your political and Religious beliefs will in the end result in the extinction of the human race and there are many Religious folk who agree with me. I do not wear my Religious beliefs on my shoulder as you do as I keep them to myself but I am one of them

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:11 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2308

    Talk about making things up while going along -

    I’m confused. Which religion espouses that “God would destroy the Earth because of abortion?” Which religion espouses that “the wealthy and corporations should pay little in taxes?” Which religion espouses that “They [do] not believe in science and scoff at the scientists’ warnings of climate change and overpopulation?”

    Talk about fairy tales! As a Christian I certainly don’t believe that God will destroy the earth over our killing of unborn children. I do believe He’s incensed by it and that as a matter of course we will all be held to account. As for our “texts” not specifically mentioning abortion, well you got me there Mr. Lucas - but since my “religion” believes that life begins at conception, we can safely rely upon other Biblical references to bolster our claim that God is against the practice (as I’ve done so in response to previous letters, articles and comments on this very forum).

    As a Christian I believe that since God created the Universe, he also created science. I know of no reasonably thinking Christian who believes our faith is in any way diluted by the existence of scientific principles. As for global warming, I simply don’t believe we can change its course. Nevertheless, I do believe that we should be very respectful of our Earthly home and be good stewards of our resources.

    Finally, with regard to religions believing that the wealthy and corporations should be paying little in taxes I can only answer with a resounding, “huh?”

    Of course what amazes me most about those who scoff at “religious” people because of their opposition to abortion is just how blithely they speak of it - that the killing off of our unborn children is a good thing. Is the following a “good” thing, Mr. Lucas; do these images present us as good stewards of our human resources? Or are they just fabricated or pictures of baboons? (http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/archive1.htm) Frankly, they make me want to vomit.

    Now, you could be referring to other “religions” other than Christianity, Mr. Lucas. And if so, then I suppose my remarks here are moot. But I don’t think so. I’m just amazed that in a nation that once celebrated the notion of differing ideas, it seems the liberal left would rather we just go away and keep quiet. Well – not I, Mr. Lucas. As long as I have the ability and the Constitution is still the law of the land – I’m not going anywhere!

    As for you very last paragraph, Mr. Lucas – how can you possibly square your accusation that “The men who scream about abortion and vote Republican will in the end kill generations and billions of people” with the fact that as a result of liberal policies so far nearly 60 million unborn potential American citizens have been eradicated through the use of abortion? Or are you suggesting that its use is just a reasonable way to winnow out those who might otherwise stretch too far our already depleting resources? Tell that to the 6 million who were slaughtered in Europe during WWII, Mr. Lucas. Perhaps they’d be interested in knowing that while it might not have been the best solution, it probably made things better for those who actually survived that war. After all, that seems to be the premise upon which you’re building your argument. (My apologies to the survivors of those who were murdered during the Holocaust – it was not my intent to cause you any distress.)

     

Recent Comments

Posted 7 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: We need to stop meddling, spend…

Oh, Andrew, just stop it! Or, I guess I should be saying that to myself because I continue to respond. 1. I'm not going to watch a video…

More...

Posted 9 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Police: Lodi man attacked by bicycle-ri…

Evidently it takes 6-7 young cowards to make a point, hitting a 70 year old man, oh what courage. Perhaps the older man should have stayed…

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Advertisement was inappropriate

A violation of Rules #4, #5 & #6 was not the reason cited.[sleeping]

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Lisa Cross-Robinson.

article: Letter: Where are the compassionate doc…

That's a good question. My father was a doctor from the late 50's to the mid 1980's and he still made an occasional house call before his r…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Jerome Kinderman.

article: Letter: Lodi’s post office needs beauti…

Considering the consistent financial losses enjoyed by the USPS and their abysmal service (they actually look like they're working in slow …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists