wiegraf:

You sure, as only alternative I can come up with is steam. And you don't exactly expect steam powered cars to take you very far. They also still require heat, usually provided by coal.

Those fossil fuels have been fundamentally critical to our development. As an example, imagine if the Greek had that technology.

We would never have reached this scale, particularly in such a time frame, without them. And there are no readily available substitutes to a nascent civilization, but of course feel free to prove me wrong.

Have you considered that the discovery of fossil fuel may have actually hindered our development. That without this discovery, we may have been more technologically advanced today than we are?

For a civilisation surrounded by energy, we are way too backwards to be burning up our planet for energy.

oluwalfa:

Have you considered that the discovery of fossil fuel may have actually hindered our development. That without this discovery, we may have been more technologically advanced today than we are?

For a civilisation surrounded by energy, we are way too backwards to be burning up our planet for energy.

In other words you're saying we should rely more on other alternative forms of energy, Like solar and wind.

bolaino: In other words you're saying we should rely more on other alternative forms of energy, Like solar and wind.

No. I am saying that we are not as advanced as some people would like us to believe.

oluwalfa:

No. I am saying that we are not as advanced as some people would like us to believe.

so How advanced do you think we are? Stone age advanced? Or mission to Mars advanced?

oluwalfa:

Our actions are not insignificant to us. Au contraire!
Like I said before, we are harming ourselves.
The funny thing is that we are claiming to be harming earth. If earth were conscious, it would be laughing at us. If only you can imagine what this earth has gone through in billions of years, you'll realise that our actions don't bother it.
I ask you again: do you remember the ozone layer scare? Was earth affected? They told us it is irreparable and we are all going to die and earth will burn up and et cetera. Earth just laughed and covered itself. We humans are the ones burning today.
Stop saying you are harming earth when you are only harming yourself.

If your concern is people who anthropomorphize stuff, and speak like mother nature has a special plan for special us, that's another issue. I do feel your pain, though you somewhat sound like one atm, with the ozone repairing itself just for us....

I believe it's clear, and has been mentioned repeatedly, that we're discussing how the climate affects us measly humans (and other life on our rock). Now, are you saying we shouldn't care because the earth isn't conscious?

oluwalfa:

Have you considered that the discovery of fossil fuel may have actually hindered our development. That without this discovery, we may have been more technologically advanced today than we are?

For a civilisation surrounded by energy, we are way too backwards to be burning up our planet for energy.

No. That's almost as bad as assuming we'd have found something more useful than fire to burn stuff. It was readily available, easy to use, etc etc. There weren't any other options that would have achieved so much in so little time, especially with science/tech of the time. And we needed those fuels to power the civilizations that discovered these new sciences. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Where I'd agree is with the obvious; we've obviously passed the stage, technologically speaking, where we still need to rely on these fuels. We're now just being lazy (and a few greedy) and refuse to move on to alternatives due to this convenience.

wiegraf:

If your concern is people who anthropomorphize stuff, and speak like mother nature has a special plan for special us, that's another issue. I do feel your pain, though you somewhat sound like one atm, with the ozone repairing itself just for us....

I believe it's clear, and has been mentioned repeatedly, that we're discussing how the climate affects us measly humans (and other life on our rock). Now, are you saying we shouldn't care because the earth isn't conscious?

You like putting words in people's mouths.
If you think earth/nature cares for us humans, you got another think coming.
we are constantly adapting to our climate and whatever nature throws at us. Earth, like its inhabitants, is evolving. We should care about how we affect our lives. Caring about how we affect earth is just arrogant humans thinking they affect earth. They don't. If the world freezes, we die. Earth will carry on rotating.

davien: Correct me if i'm wrong but what i understand you saying from all you've said so far is....lets all relax.....drink koolade and not worry about our careless use of essential eco-system dependent resources.... it'll all balance out

No, we have to worry about our activities that are affecting life on earth. What we shouldn't worry about is the changing climate. Its a natural event that would've taken place even if man didn't exist.

davien:
Doesn't matter if we cut more trees than we grow...

Trees purify the atmosphere, they give us O2 (just as other green flora). They are aswell useful for remediation && other things.

davien: Doesn't matter that we mine the earth for coal deposited by millennia of plant fauna...

Doesn't matter that in china where coal is most often mined has high toxicity levels and is among the top polluted countries....

Doesn't matter that the polar ice caps are melting... Nature is a cycle.....it'll heal

The arctic ice cap is shrinking slowly but the Antarctic is gaining more sea ice. I think this is due to some shift in polar inclination.

What proceeds an ice age(glacial period) if not a warm period (global warming).

wiegraf:

No. That's almost as bad as assuming we'd have found something more useful than fire to burn stuff. It was readily available, easy to use, etc etc. There weren't any other options that would have achieved so much in so little time, especially with science/tech of the time. And we needed those fuels to power the civilizations that discovered these new sciences. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Where I'd agree is with the obvious; we've obviously passed the stage, technologically speaking, where we still need to rely on these fuels. We're now just being lazy (and a few greedy) and refuse to move on to alternatives due to this convenience.

Does fire have alternative?

Oh, there were always options. Better options. History is full of anecdotes of civilisations that stagnated after discovering one new thing and then depending on it. One of the most known is the chinese discovery of ceramic pottery which hindered their advance in medicine compared to the west that advanced and overtook china with the discovery of glass, thus being able to observe things via test tubes.

Even fossil fuel is not bad. We just misuse it.

oluwalfa:

Does fire have alternative?

Oh, there were always options. Better options. History is full of anecdotes of civilisations that stagnated after discovering one new thing and then depending on it. One of the most known is the chinese discovery of ceramic pottery which hindered their advance in medicine compared to the west that advanced and overtook china with the discovery of glass, thus being able to observe things via test tubes.

Even fossil fuel is not bad. We just misuse it.

^That's one of the points. Does our misuse have any effect on the source or just an insignificant effect upon only the user?

wiegraf:

You'll have to excuse for now abeg. Too much, not enough time, and I'll be repeating myself. Obviously I still find your stance untenable, but I'll just add to this

Ok sir.

wiegraf:
that you state the above while acknowledging that we can and do indeed change the climate, eg Dubai? Not just that, you also accept that the impact of their efforts will be felt elsewhere?

By climate change, we are talking of global climate. The case of dubai, is quite different, its just a portion of the global climate && any changes or alteration in it maybe be good for the ambient, but the consequence will be felt else where. Its live having 10 balls in a closed box, you can tilt the box to whichever angle you won't, that won't reduce the numbers of balls in the box. What will change is the numbers in a particular location. (substitute balls for heat)

wiegraf:
Also, NASA is not a joke. And do you really believe the moon landings were staged....

Anyhoo

TBH, I believe the moon landing was staged. Maybe am wrong.

spotit:

^That's one of the points. Does our misuse have any effect on the source or just an insignificant effect upon only the user?

Temporary negligible effect on the source.
Devastating and destructive effects on the user.

oluwalfa:

Temporary negligible effect on the source.
Devastating and destructive effects on the user.

The only things that would make or keep things Temporary and Negligible are Redress and Caution.

Doesn't matter if you knew a herd of cattle somewhere, if you settled on milking and barbecuing from the only one you have irresponsibly, i assure you, not only would you be happily fed, you'd be very ready for diabetes and other complications while your cow is gone for good.

oluwalfa:

You like putting words in people's mouths.
If you think earth/nature cares for us humans, you got another think coming.
we are constantly adapting to our climate and whatever nature throws at us. Earth, like its inhabitants, is evolving. We should care about how we affect our lives. Caring about how we affect earth is just arrogant humans thinking they affect earth. They don't. If the world freezes, we die. Earth will carry on rotating.

Err, no. You speak like the earth has a motive one minute the next you're claiming otherwise. Eg, you claim the earth here is evolving, like its inhabitants. It is evolving obviously, but not like its inhabitants. I believe I don't have to clear that up, yes?

Call it splitting hairs perhaps, but if you're not clear, that's your fault not mine.

As for the bolded, well....

I mean, for starters, we should care about how we affect our lives without caring about how we affect the earth. Exactly how does that work?

Round and round we go..

oluwalfa:

Does fire have alternative?

Oh, there were always options. Better options. History is full of anecdotes of civilisations that stagnated after discovering one new thing and then depending on it. One of the most known is the chinese discovery of ceramic pottery which hindered their advance in medicine compared to the west that advanced and overtook china with the discovery of glass, thus being able to observe things via test tubes.

Even fossil fuel is not bad. We just misuse it.

Name them. Show the test tube another civilization could have used in its infancy to industrialize the way we (or particularly the west) have.

Some discoveries have been critical, the engine and fossil fuels being one of them. The Greek, for instance, do you know what the test tube likely was in their case? Fossil fuels. They probably fell in love with carts and slaves a bit too much.

Their inablility to harness that power is up there with the likes of a printing press to disseminate info widely, guns, etc.

padeolu:

By climate change, we are talking of global climate. The case of dubai, is quite different, its just a portion of the global climate && any changes or alteration in it maybe be good for the ambient, but the consequence will be felt else where. Its live having 10 balls in a closed box, you can tilt the box to whichever angle you won't, that won't reduce the numbers of balls in the box. What will change is the numbers in a particular location. (substitute balls for heat)

So you mean to say the overall trajectory would not get impacted?

I very highly doubt that, for a variety of reasons (some already stated), but I'll just leave it at that for now.

Kudoos

I hate arguing all over the place, while ignoring the prime subject matter. The main subject here is whether human activities is responsible for the change in climate the earth is said to be going through and you are talking about human impact on the environment. All species of animals ( and in fact all living things) on earth has some impact on its immidiate environment (and sometimes distant environment),but to suggest that just one specie can have permanet impact on the whole planet is what i call far feached. And for your information, 99% of all species on earth had gone extinct, even before humans came on the scene.

wiegraf: ^^^

Don't know about global warming, or at least the details, but humans clearly can have dramatic impacts on an ecosystem. Why is climate exempt?

Of course humans have impact (sometimes dramatic)on the ecosystem( around which it operates), but to suggest that impact affect the earth's climate permantly is preposterous.

wiegraf:
Eg, wiping out large swathes of forests, other species (whilst aiding others, true, we've likely gotten rid of billions, and most of the time for no good reason other than perhaps getting a better view), burning through energy reserves that have taken billions of years to accumulate, etc etc. General wikki

I cannot make sense of your statement above, but if you are talking about humans destroying forests for human habitation, then i can tell you that nature itself often destroys large swaths of forests by itself but it always recovers. Forest fires sometimes burn very large swaths of forests, killing many species and destroying the whole ecosystem. Earthquakes, Tsunamis and volcanic eruptions have devastated whole continents in the past, but the earth recovers and moves on.

wiegraf:
You could also try visiting Chernobyl and various parts of Japan to study just how drastic our actions can be on an environment (you might even get to meet godzilla). We even 'terraform', more or else, on fairly large scales. See Dubai (or one of those emirates, I forget which). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the scientists that claim humans play no role in global warming etc are the same ones drawing up plans to terraform Mars or some of Neptune's/Jupiter's moons etc.

Are you telling me Chenobyl changed the entire earth's climate? Of course not. Chenobyl only affected that tiny part of Russia significantly and even at that, the radioactive effects would have neutralized in a few thousand years. Even Heroshima and Nagasaki is fast recovering from the effect of the atomic bombs droped in 1945.

Terraforming another planet is just science fantasy (not even science fiction), we do not have the energy or the materials to terraform another planet, we hardly have enough to sustain our planet. We should first terraform Antatica to allow human habitation or terraform the ocean depths to sustain cities before we attempt to terraform mars.

I will stop here for now. ( i am tired and need to sleep). We human think too much of ourselves and our importance, we feel and behaves as if the whole earth and the entire universe is made for us. If the conditions on earth changes so drastically that humans die out, the earth would still be trotting on without even noticing our absence.

Let me deflate some egos;
71% of the earth's surface is water while the entire land mass is only 29%. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind. So there is little we can do on the less than 1% that can have permanent damage on the remaining 99% of the earth's surface

wirinet:


Let me deflate some egos;
71% of the earth's surface is water while the entire land mass is only 29%. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind. So there is little we can do on the less than 1% that can have permanent damage on the remaining 99% of the earth's surface

Gbam..!!!

That's the main reason why this media frenzy on global warming or boiling falls by the way side...

Out of 29% humans only occupy less than 1% ...we should be worried about our immediate environment that we occupy and where we get our resources that sustains our existence.. Than worry about a whole planet that can consume itself with no questions asked.


When there is droughts people normally migrate, but in general they migrate to another place where people already call home and then put strain on their own limited resources... If push comes to shove, I will rather seek access to that 40% wilderness than adapt to chaos and hunger...

It's funny we cannot stop reoccurring natural disasters, but we're supposed to have wet dreams on global climate cooling..

Anything "global" economic or climate Africans have to be wary, we're like sitting ducks..

wirinet: I hate arguing all over the place, while ignoring the prime subject matter. The main subject here is whether human activities is responsible for the change in climate the earth is said to be going through and you are talking about human impact on the environment. All species of animals ( and in fact all living things) on earth has some impact on its immidiate environment (and sometimes distant environment),but to suggest that just one specie can have permanet impact on the whole planet is what i call far feached. And for your information, 99% of all species on earth had gone extinct, even before humans came on the scene.

And once again, no

Fossil fuels alone show one species can have a dramatic impact on the planet. Or do show another species that uses them, and how their depletion is not dramatic.

Also, do tell how impacting the environment does not impact the climate?

For instance, exactly what was responsible for transforming early earths carbon dioxide to oxygen? I seem to recall them stating in biology class it was photosynthesis or something of that nature. And what happens if we get in the way and get rid of the organisms responsible for this photosynthesis?

Or, are you now telling me that the make up of the atmosphere, the balance between the different gases involved, does not have any impact on the climate??

And btw, if you cannot see how all that I stated is relevant, then well....

wirinet:
Of course humans have impact (sometimes dramatic)on the ecosystem( around which it operates), but to suggest that impact affect the earth's climate permantly is preposterous.

See above.

And the way some of you speak with such authority against what the very vast majority of the scientific community concurs on frankly baffles me. Not to say the cannot be wrong, but 'preposterous', really?

wirinet:
I cannot make sense of your statement above, but if you are talking about humans destroying forests for human habitation, then i can tell you that nature itself often destroys large swaths of forests by itself but it always recovers. Forest fires sometimes burn very large swaths of forests, killing many species and destroying the whole ecosystem. Earthquakes, Tsunamis and volcanic eruptions have devastated whole continents in the past, but the earth recovers and moves on.

So? Because nature does it we should fold our hands or indulge in it as well? We shoudn't try to prevent it? Worse, we should actively indulge in activities that lead to catastrophe? Earthquakes and tsunamis, we really shouldn't even bother with early warning systems or try to prevent them if it is within our means. Illnesses are natural as well, I wonder why we bother looking for vaccines and all. Heck, let's go carnal and eat our young just as many other species in nature do.

This recovery you speak of should not be taken likely, at all. To return to an 'equilibrium' that sustains our lifestyle or life in general from a major disaster usually takes millenia, for instance. Expecting nature to solve our issues, when it obviously doesn't care, is, well...

wirinet:
Are you telling me Chenobyl changed the entire earth's climate? Of course not. Chenobyl only affected that tiny part of Russia significantly and even at that, the radioactive effects would have neutralized in a few thousand years. Even Heroshima and Nagasaki is fast recovering from the effect of the atomic bombs droped in 1945.

No, like I stated, it simply remains an example of how drastic humans can change their environments. Something for some reason you seem bent on denying.

Our actions are not insignificant, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

Even the actions of keystone species, as you imply above, are not insignificant, let alone that of the intelligent apex of apex super ape; homo sapiens.

wirinet:
Terraforming another planet is just science fantasy (not even science fiction), we do not have the energy or the materials to terraform another planet, we hardly have enough to sustain our planet. We should first terraform Antatica to allow human habitation or terraform the ocean depths to sustain cities before we attempt to terraform mars.

Maybe you think the moon landings were faked as well? I mean, NASA has seriously considered terraforming before, and we all know they are a bunch of clowns...

No one says it would be easy, but certainly no one says it would be impossible. And again, governments do try to change their climates, etc etc.

Most of you accept this micro changes occur, induced by human activity, then deny that macro is possible or happening (and many do have data to back up their claims that it is happening). I wonder about that math. Reminds of some certain folk and a science called evolution

wirinet:
I will stop here for now. ( i am tired and need to sleep). We human think too much of ourselves and our importance, we feel and behaves as if the whole earth and the entire universe is made for us. If the conditions on earth changes so drastically that humans die out, the earth would still be trotting on without even noticing our absence.

Thank you kindly for the bolded, captain obvious. But our actions, oh once again, matter to us, even if the earth doesn't care and will continue to revolve.

wirinet:
Let me deflate some egos;
71% of the earth's surface is water while the entire land mass is only 29%. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind. So there is little we can do on the less than 1% that can have permanent damage on the remaining 99% of the earth's surface

This logic na wa. I see. Biomass-wise we're also insignificant, but where are we on the food chain? Just how much of an influence do we have on other life?

See fossil fuels, again. And I hope to 'god' I don't have to explain why

The way you guys think this is about egos is frankly silly. I mean, the scientific society in general, do you really believe they think this universe was custom made just for us??

I would think it much more arrogant to assume we can just do as we please and the universe will work itself out in our favour. Just as if it was special custom made for special us.

This May Interest You

The Climategate scandal caused independent
scientists and laymen around the globe to take a much closer look at the information that was being presented in support of Anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) Global Warming (AGW), and the overwhelming conclusion was that the there was no credible && conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis. And it was further shown that the scenarios predicting that the planet was nearing the tipping point for a series of catastrophic climate disasters, was totally invalidated by an examination of the facts, as well as a review of the earth's climate history. What came to light during this investigation was the following:

1. Climate science research is almost exclusively funded by governments around the world. Between 1989-2009, the U.S. government alone spent $79 billion. To keep the money flowing, it was necessary to have a compelling "story" of a pending apocalypse
to justify that sort of investment. The narrative of global Armageddon became the researchers' only fixed "fact", with all scientific data being freely manipulated as necessary in order to fit that predetermined scenario.

3. Politicians with a totalitarian bent saw the regulation of carbon as a potent tool for generating massive new tax revenues and for redistributing the world's wealth, while at the same time, justifying the expansion of regulatory control over businesses && the personal activities of all citizens. Consequently, a symbiotic relationship was established between the politicians who handsomely funded the research, && the climate scientists, who fabricated a useful justification for government intervention.

3. People well connected to the government, such as Al Gore, saw an opportunity to make a financial killing by manipulating the environmental legislation in a
favorable way. Gore and others invested heavily in carbon trading schemes which would generate millions in profits once the pending cap-and-trade laws were passed. These people then engaged in their own propaganda campaigns in order to influence a favorable outcome. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth was one notable example.

[url=go-galt.org/climategate.html]Read More[/url]

[quote=wiegraf]And the way some of you speak with such authority against what the very vast majority of the scientific community concurs on frankly baffles me. Not to say the cannot be wrong, but 'preposterous', really?[/quote]

For several years the earth was believed to flat. Am aswell sure vast majority of philosophers/scientists/Astrologers would have churned out "evidences" to back this claim. It took but one man to prove it wrong. Science isn't about what the majority thinks or choose to think, rather, its about observable evidences and facts.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Fraud
Those of us keeping abreast of the climate literature have known for quite some time that the explanation for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) relating to climate change, was far from the entire story, with almost all dissenting opinion having been actively suppressed. But the full extent of the problem was not made clear until November 19, 2009, when approximately 160 megabytes of data files and email correspondence was leaked from Britain's government-funded University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
An initial review of this material revealed four
damning facts:

1. Current global temperature data was being actively manipulated in order to conceal real-world temperature declines that did not support the computerized climate models that were being used to predict runaway global warming. Additionally, historical data showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), the earth had been warmer than what was seen today, thereby shattering any causal connection between man made CO 2 and temperature rise.

2. For quite some time, as is a normal part of any scientific peer-review process, independent scientists && organizations had been requesting the release of the raw temperature data used by the CRU in determining its results. Nevertheless, the CRU had continually refused to make their data available. (&& now we understand why!) Additional requests for the data were made under the UK's Freedom of Information laws, and the scientists at the CRU are seen discussing how to circumvent these laws, including destroying correspondence and the temperature data itself, rather than allow it to be seen by others.

3. A review of the source code for the computerized models used to predict the significant global temperature gains being reported, showed that much of it was completely unintelligible to the programmers charged with maintain it, and in some cases, these programs could not be made to reproduce similar results previously obtained by others using the same code base and data sets. This code was in a constant state of manipulation in order to produce predetermined results.

4. The correspondence shows a small group of
scientists frequently discussing ways to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process. This included having climate papers only be "reviewed" by one another, or by people already fully committed to the belief in AGW, stopping publication of any papers that were skeptical of AGW, and working to remove editors from scientific journals that were willing to publish any dissenting opinions.


Facts

1. All AGW computer models predicted a steady
increase in global temperatures. However, for the past 11+ years, the global temperatures have not increased, and in fact, decreased, despite a continuing rise in CO 2, countering the theory of a causal connection between increasing carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. (10-13-09) [url=news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm]REF1[/url]

2. The IPCC governmental advisory report's claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than anywhere else in the world and would be gone by 2035. Whoops, that estimate came from a report that predicted their demise by the year 2350. Sorry, for the alarm, it was just a typo! Additionally, the Himalayan glaciers were reported to currently cover
500,000 square kilometers when, in fact, the actual glaciers span roughly 33,000 square kilometers. Missed it by just over 1,500%!
It was also revealed that Syed Hasnain, who made the original prediction, realized this and other errors in the IPCC report back in 2008, but did not inform the head of the IPCC, saying:
"My job is not to point out mistakes."
Of course, it was also later determined by Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, that:
"There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements."
[url=pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/?singlepage=true]REF2[/url]
REF3
REF4
REF5

3. Data concerning the warming of other planets in the solar system, indicating the sun as a major influence of earth's temperature rise, has been ignored by the AGW supporters.

"But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun?"

"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena."
REF6

4. Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony, from the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, write in a paper entitled, Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?, that the consensus claims made by the IPCC in support of manmade global warming are fabrications. They state (pages 10-11):

"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading
scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific
field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
[url=www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf]PDF REF 7[/url]

wiegraf accepts anything "scientists" say as the gospel truth. Refuses to use his own head. I would call it the remnants of religious submission to authority in our evolution history which he hasn't gotten rid of.

oluwalfa: wiegraf accepts anything "scientists" say as the gospel truth. Refuses to use his own head. I would call it the remnants of religious submission to authority in our evolution history which he hasn't gotten rid of.

Is that the impression you get?

Man, that big ba.ng you received seems to still cause some bu.tthurt

wiegraf:

Is that the impression you get?

Man, that big ba.ng you received seems to still cause some bu.tthurt

I remember you crying at the end when I presented you with the star older than your "scientists" age of the universe.
Chai! Scientists can lie o!

oluwalfa:
I remember you crying at the end when I presented you with the star older than your "scientists" age of the universe.
Chai! Scientists can lie o!

If that's how you like to see it, ok.

And of course I know. Scientists don't know better. From the big ba.ng to this, alfa has always been superior.

We're all wrong, atheists included, hence you the special satanist.

ok

wiegraf:

If that's how you like to see it, ok.

And of course I know. Scientists don't know better. From the big ba.ng to this, alfa has always been superior.

We're all wrong, atheists included, hence you the special satanist.

ok

Of course. I use my brain which cannot be said of most people, especially those donning the cloak of scientist. Imagine them manipulating raw data on climate change and telling us things that we can actually observe and see are wrong.

There is climate change. "Scientists" think man is causing it. Real science shows otherwise.
Come to Satan and use your brain.

oluwalfa: wiegraf accepts anything "scientists" say as the gospel truth. Refuses to use his own head. I would call it the remnants of religious submission to authority in our evolution history which he hasn't gotten rid of.

wiegraf, oluwalfa is calling you out, he is saying you are not a true atheist, lol

bolaino: wiegraf, oluwalfa is calling you out, he is saying you are not a true atheist, lol

He does have a point. I do need satan before I can attain perfect atheism

padeolu, great work.
See how truth, proof and facts shut them up.

oluwalfa:
padeolu, great work.
See how truth, proof and facts shut them up.

Thanks for the compliment.

I actually think its cool they have a different opinion about the issue. We all can't believe in an hypothesis no matter how evident it may be. Someone has to find faults in it. That's science, it leads to discovery of other stuffs.

As someone once said, you don't win a Nobel prize by following the crowd..

so because of one mistake in date, other things the reports want to be looked into should now be completely tossed away...ok.