|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link.
Page: 1 2
Sam 2 - Posted - 11/02/2009: 10:10:32
I was reading about single cell animals and how they can sustain life under almost any condition. Extreme heat, cold, etc etc. some of them having been around from the beginning of time.
The article went on to say that as they evolve into more complex animals they were no longer capable of sustaining life in the extreme conditions.
This got me to thinking about us and advancements we have made and our dependency on things like computers, satellite, rapid communications etc.
Do you think the more advance we become the more likely we are not to survive if something catastrophic happened?
I know, I know….I should probably stick with stuff like Small, Medium or Large.
_______________________________________________________
People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
10gauge - Posted - 11/02/2009: 10:37:29
Yes. I just read a book called "One Second After" (fiction) that looks at a sort of worst case scenario.
Jonathan O'bug
BConk - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:04:39
Imagine - a scientist peers at the latest scans from the Hubble telescope and finds an asteroid that she later determines is on a collision course with Earth - ETA 2015.
The world's nations pool their scientific and financial resources in an effort to find a way to move the asteroid off its path. After countless hours of work and trillions of dollars spent they launch a spacecraft (captained by Bruce Willis of course) and they actually succeed in averting a collision that would have resulted in total planetary devastation.
Since such a scenario is at least theoretically possible with our existing technology (besides the Bruce Willis bit) I'd say that no, it's not entirely true that our technology makes us more vulnerable to catastrophe. Certainly - in face of some catastrophies - we're better off having our technology than not.
If we were all Amish - we wouldn't have the wherewithal or the technology to change the orbit of the asteroid - and since we wouldn't even have the Hubble - we probably wouldn't even have known the asteroid was coming to smash us to smithereens in the first place.
OTOH - if such a catastrophe were to happen and our technology were to fall apart - we'd be better off if we were Amish.
Clearly - the higher you climb the further you can fall.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
Edited by - BConk on 11/02/2009 11:05:36
pandjlocke - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:05:56
Not to mention that in our quest for cleanliness we have rendered our immune systems incapable of fighting off infection. Used to be we simply coexisted with the bacteria. Now we "clean" everything to the point that when one of the little rascals does sneak through we are defenseless and get terribly ill. Either that, or e-coli is a brand new life form? Example: when we go to Mexico, we are warned to not drink the water lest we suffer "Montezuma's Revenge". Seems to me that Mexicans drink the same water every day with no ill effects. We have evolved ourselves right into harms way.
Beware of the urgent crowding out the important - C.E. Hummel
Paddy
wkb28791 - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:16:52
I don't think we're more vulnerable. I think you'll see life expectancies to be well into the 100's in the near future.
Regards,
wkb28791
"If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it-----Now quiet! they're about to announce the lottery numbers!"
Homer Simpson
BConk - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:19:28
quote:
Originally posted by pandjlocke
Example: when we go to Mexico, we are warned to not drink the water lest we suffer "Montezuma's Revenge". Seems to me that Mexicans drink the same water every day with no ill effects.
Paddy
I seem to recall reading that diarrhea due to water borne pathogens is a leading cause of childhood mortality in many of the countries where we Americans are advised not to drink the water. So I think it's not entirely true that they drink it with no ill effect. "Defender of the Sacred Cod" Capio pisces, ergo sum
pandjlocke - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:32:04
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
quote:
Originally posted by pandjlocke
Example: when we go to Mexico, we are warned to not drink the water lest we suffer "Montezuma's Revenge". Seems to me that Mexicans drink the same water every day with no ill effects.
Paddy
I seem to recall reading that diarrhea due to water borne pathogens is a leading cause of childhood mortality in many of the countries where we Americans are advised not to drink the water.
So I think it's not entirely true that they drink it with no ill effect.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
That is an entirely different scenario. That occurs mostly in countries where there is no form of sanitation whatever and the only water there is to drink is from contaminated wells or poisoned puddles and ponds. I was specifically speaking of Mexico, where they have running water with bacteria that we simply are not used to in the US. I am not against sanitation, mind you, simply think we have carried it too far. We may even be giving ourselves some false sense of security with all this hand sanitation stuff at the grocery cart area and all this glove wearing. If not vulnerability, it is at least an unhealthy fear. Beware of the urgent crowding out the important - C.E. Hummel Paddy
BConk - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:47:50
But diarrhea due to waterborne pathogens remains a leading cause of death in children in Mexico. The numbers are declining due in part to better access to clean water - and due to better treatment of children who didn't get the clean water to begin with.
I disagree with the notion that the water in Mexico does them no harm - it does. Maybe the adults Mexicans that have survived the childhood diarrhea caused by their water are relatively immune to it - but that doesn't mean it hasn't done them harm. It's still killing and sickening their children.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
Edited by - BConk on 11/02/2009 11:51:48
BConk - Posted - 11/02/2009: 11:56:39
Also the life expectancy in Mexico in 2001 was 68.73 male, 74.93 female Mexico
Compare that to 74.37 male, 80.05 female in the US.
Though I don't think anyone can quantify the total effect - I'd wager at least part of the difference is in the water. 
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
KE - Posted - 11/02/2009: 12:33:53
Are we talking about survival as a species, or survival as an individual within a population? Simple organisms survive as a species by sheer overwhelming numbers. Their evolutionary selection criteria are based on ability to survive as a species by reproduction in vast numbers, not by longevity of individuals. Man on the other hand has evolved with the ability to destroy his own species, while extending individual longevity.
raybob - Posted - 11/02/2009: 12:37:18
BConk writes: "I'd wager at least part of the difference is in the water.
I agree. The Artesians that make Oly have been trying to tell us this for years.
Ray
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." --G. Santayana
Sam 2 - Posted - 11/02/2009: 13:37:12
quote:
Originally posted by KE
Are we talking about survival as a species, or survival as an individual within a population? Simple organisms survive as a species by sheer overwhelming numbers. Their evolutionary selection criteria are based on ability to survive as a species by reproduction in vast numbers, not by longevity of individuals. Man on the other hand has evolved with the ability to destroy his own species, while extending individual longevity.
Wow!!!!! Wish I knew how to answer. When I posted this topic it was a toss up between this vulnerable question and “Have you ever trapped a Mole”I should have went with the mole question !!!!!! I’m guessing its too late to change it now. _______________________________________________________ People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
dawgdoc - Posted - 11/02/2009: 13:50:14
Humans have been around for such an incredibly short time in comparison, It impossible to make the prediction. Being bipedal and wasting a ton of energy on a brain doesn't bode well for survival. I don't think lots of memory makes for survival in the grand scheme of things. But what do I know...
Jaminbanjo - Posted - 11/02/2009: 15:36:00
Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.
Austin
backtothefuture - Posted - 11/02/2009: 16:01:30
quote:
Originally posted by Jaminbanjo
Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.
Austin
Enough of this million year evolution garbage? What evolution garbage are you referring to? . Dennis  
Edited by - backtothefuture on 11/02/2009 16:03:24
kyblugrass - Posted - 11/02/2009: 16:06:12
One word.... Terminator 
Scott
“You Can Hang a Sign on a Pig Saying It's a Horse...But It’s Still Just a Pig.”
Jaminbanjo - Posted - 11/02/2009: 17:47:23
quote:
Originally posted by backtothefuture
quote:
Originally posted by Jaminbanjo
Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.
Austin
Enough of this million year evolution garbage?
What evolution garbage are you referring to?
.
Dennis
I'm referring to the Theory of Evolution. There is no evidence that suggests that we came from a big bang or anything of the short. Or that we evolved from a one cell creature, I mean really?! It's just a theory....not a law. But people act like it's a law. That's the garbage of it. Austin
mogultx - Posted - 11/02/2009: 18:04:24
In theory, specialization leaves us vulnerable to changes in our environment. The countering factors that have made us so dominant in this ecosystem is adapability. We are highly adaptable. So, it is one of those "Yes and No" answers....
YMMV, but hopefully you get good mileage, and don't get caught under the evolutionary bus!!!
noli illegitimi carborundum (stolen from DAT)
MarkRough - Posted - 11/02/2009: 18:04:54
Often people toss the word "theory" around, in this context, without knowing what they're talking about. In science, theory is a bit different than what it means to most lay people. Theories in science are pretty certain barring evidence that can be backed up by a credible scientist or credible evidence. It is not a guess, it is not a wish, it is not. . . that other thing. A theory is as certain as we can be. It is backed up by hard evidence and good research. There are no credible scientists disputing evolution. Nor is there any credible evidence suggesting anything different has happened over millions of years. There is, in fact, literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. Yes, I know there are a small number of scientists suggesting other ideas. But frankly, they are not credible. What they are espousing has little or nothing to do with their choice of career and more to do with belief systems. They are not presenting at credible scientific gatherings or being published in credible scientific journals. Bare in mind, I'm talking about science here. If you want to talk about that other thing, we don't talk about that here. Let's stick to science , so. . .
Back to the original post, I think BConk has the best idea so far. Technology does not necessarily help or hinder us. It can do both. . . and neither. But if and when it fails, our survival will depend on our ability to get along without it.
-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
Edited by - MarkRough on 11/02/2009 18:06:08
MarkRough - Posted - 11/02/2009: 18:07:47
And for the record. . . medium. . . and yes, I've trapped a mole.
-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
Sam 2 - Posted - 11/02/2009: 18:25:48
quote:
Originally posted by MarkRough
And for the record. . . medium. . . and yes, I've trapped a mole.
-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
ROTFL _______________________________________________________ People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
Ottawa - Posted - 11/02/2009: 18:51:59
I think that in an information age as we live in now, we are much more reliant on seeking information and less on know-how. Basic fundemantal skills are lost to many younger people as compared to back in the day (and I will ackowledge this being one of them) they learn to rely on resources to get their knowledge- which is good as long as there is a laptop/Blackberry around. This has been my experience seeing up-and comers into graduate studies, etc. -Or else they have very specilized knowledge in one area that leaves them vulnerable to areas that once would have been common sense to the layperson. Not seeing the forest for the trees syndrome. The perfect example has been mentioned- research to develop antibacteria handwashes, which in fact hamper the bodies natural ability to ward off bacteria/viruses- too smart for our own good.
As far as scientific theories go- a theory is not proven. It is not a fact. That is why it is a theory. Science cannot prove anything- it can only disprove, and by that process of elimination comes closer to determine that a theory might be a fact, but until all the potential variables in the unviverse are put to trial on a certain subject (e.g. theory of relativity, gravity, etc.), nothing can be stated as a scientific fact- and so they remain theories. All these theories have not been tested in every potential scenario to conclude they are fact, and probably never will be.
Interesting topic.
Steven
mike gregory - Posted - 11/02/2009: 19:33:05
I have never trapped a mole.
I scratched a mole, I recall having pinched a very interesting zit, and had a toenail surgically removed.
And, in between all that activity, I managed to learn more than a dozen 3-chord songs.
Maybe we could get a Roy Clark kind of show going on TV,
but using banjo music to educate the public about health and science.
Instead of "HEE-Haw!", we could call it
"EEEE- Coli!!"
Alpha Omicron - Posted - 11/02/2009: 19:55:00
On the truth value of scientific theories:
While the scientific method isn't equipped to disprove a theory, we do tend to think that a theory which both predicts our observations correctly and explains them in a satisfying way is "true", at least in some sense. No one believes that gravitation is "just a theory". Newton's theory of gravitation (that the tendency of objects to move towards each other in a certain way is due to a force exerted on each by the other which conforms to a particular mathematical formula) both matches the data (if you watch how two large objects in space move, you see it conforms to the theory) in terms of prediction and explains it in a satisfying way (in terms of forces and some simple math), so we're inclined to say that the theory is correct, or true. Note that Newton's is not the only account of gravitation. Einstein's account of general relativity explains gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime (so one object moves toward another like a marble toward the centre of a depression in a sheet of rubber) rather than in terms of forces. We're inclined to say Einstein's whole account of general relativity is also true, in that it is fairly elegant (though the math sometimes gets difficult) and conforms to our observations of the world. But Einstein's account is incompatible with Newton's. Today we say that Einstein's account is more true, because it conforms more closely to observation (for situations involving very large masses or very high velocities, the two theories predict slightly different outcomes). And one of the biggest problems facing theoretical physicists today is reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are largely considered true or correct by our criteria of predictive power and elegance.
On biological evolution and creationism:
Note first that the theory of evolution is only one about the history of living organisms; things like the Big Bang and the age of the universe are not directly related. Now, nearly all people who are informed about the facts of our observations are inclined to say that the theory of evolution is true. It correctly predicts how organisms change in response to their environment (see the ongoing study by biologist Richard Lenski called the E. coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment for an excellent example) and the theory itself is fairly elegant and simple. Creationism, where I'll take it to mean the theory that all species were created relatively recently, simultaneously, and are more or less the same now as they were then, is similarly simple and elegant. However, it has little to no predictive power at all; indeed much of our observation of the world flies in the face of this idea. Furthermore, it leads to a lot more questions than it answers: What is the nature of the creating force? Why were things created this way rather than some other way? These questions are difficult to answer without recourse to entirely non-scientific claims, typically about an unobservable god or some group of technologically advanced aliens or some such "intellectual rubbish". I call these ideas "intellectual rubbish" because they're beyond the scope of the scientific method. I.e. they rely on unfalsifiable (untestable) claims that need to be taken on faith. Sometimes questions about things like this are interesting from a philosophical point of view, but they aren't valid foundations for scientific knowledge. Thus we see that the rational and informed are inclined to say that at least the basic claims of made by the theory of biological evolution is true and that the position of creationism is an untenable one.
Background: I'm a mathematics student also pursuing a minor in philosophy, who is interested in the philosophy of science and in epistemology in general. I play the banjo, too.
Alpha Omicron - Posted - 11/02/2009: 20:58:28
To address the original poster's question, I think that to some extent our tools become part of us. In some ways they limit us in that we eventually take their presence for granted, but on the whole they extend our power as a species rather than reduce it. It's hard to produce a definitive answer when dealing with such vague notions, though.
Jaminbanjo - Posted - 11/03/2009: 04:33:18
quote:
Originally posted by MarkRough
There is, in fact, literally tons of evidence supporting evolution.
Could you present some? Austin
Jaminbanjo - Posted - 11/03/2009: 04:44:21
quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Omicron
Creationism, where I'll take it to mean the theory that all species were created relatively recently, simultaneously, and are more or less the same now as they were then, is similarly simple and elegant. However, it has little to no predictive power at all; indeed much of our observation of the world flies in the face of this idea. Furthermore, it leads to a lot more questions than it answers: What is the nature of the creating force? Why were things created this way rather than some other way?
Why? Read the first page of the Bible. I don't think that Creationism is any less credible than Evolution. Evolution is what leaves us with unexplained questions. If we came from a big bang, which, correct me if I'm wrong, came from some type of rock in space. Now the questions, how was that rock made? If it was a chunk of rock from a bigger rock somewhere else in the universe, where did that bigger rock come from? Where did the universe itself and everything in it come from? Evolution can't answer that. It seems to me that these questions lead to why creationism is correct. Creationism answers all these. Austin
MarkRough - Posted - 11/03/2009: 05:15:04
Hi Austin,
Sorry if I came across as confrontational. I shouldn't make posts like that at the end of a long day. Alpha Omicron mentioned a couple in his post. Otherwise, pick up a relevant copy of Nature or Science. The "scientific" possibilities of creationism, as they are presented these days, are not credible because there is no real scientific evidence supporting them. There's a fossil record that, in fact, disputes them. Now, before this erupts into something we don't want it to, that will get this thread locked, I need to say, I'm a person of great faith. So, at the core, we probably aren't that much different (though I'm fairly certain we're of different faiths). My argument isn't about that though. I'm also an amateur scientist. I don't let one interfere with the other. Sometimes it's difficult. I have a real problem, for example, with sciences theory about the size of the universe. I've read and understood the science explaining why it's finite, but part of me just can't "believe" it. I can't quite grasp it, if you know what I mean.
Mark
-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
beeliner - Posted - 11/03/2009: 05:39:45
quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Omicron
On the truth value of scientific theories:
While the scientific method isn't equipped to disprove a theory, we do tend to think that a theory which both predicts our observations correctly and explains them in a satisfying way is "true", at least in some sense. No one believes that gravitation is "just a theory". Newton's theory of gravitation (that the tendency of objects to move towards each other in a certain way is due to a force exerted on each by the other which conforms to a particular mathematical formula) both matches the data (if you watch how two large objects in space move, you see it conforms to the theory) in terms of prediction and explains it in a satisfying way (in terms of forces and some simple math), so we're inclined to say that the theory is correct, or true. Note that Newton's is not the only account of gravitation. Einstein's account of general relativity explains gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime (so one object moves toward another like a marble toward the centre of a depression in a sheet of rubber) rather than in terms of forces. We're inclined to say Einstein's whole account of general relativity is also true, in that it is fairly elegant (though the math sometimes gets difficult) and conforms to our observations of the world. But Einstein's account is incompatible with Newton's. Today we say that Einstein's account is more true, because it conforms more closely to observation (for situations involving very large masses or very high velocities, the two theories predict slightly different outcomes). And one of the biggest problems facing theoretical physicists today is reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are largely considered true or correct by our criteria of predictive power and elegance.
On biological evolution and creationism:
Note first that the theory of evolution is only one about the history of living organisms; things like the Big Bang and the age of the universe are not directly related. Now, nearly all people who are informed about the facts of our observations are inclined to say that the theory of evolution is true. It correctly predicts how organisms change in response to their environment (see the ongoing study by biologist Richard Lenski called the E. coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment for an excellent example) and the theory itself is fairly elegant and simple. Creationism, where I'll take it to mean the theory that all species were created relatively recently, simultaneously, and are more or less the same now as they were then, is similarly simple and elegant. However, it has little to no predictive power at all; indeed much of our observation of the world flies in the face of this idea. Furthermore, it leads to a lot more questions than it answers: What is the nature of the creating force? Why were things created this way rather than some other way? These questions are difficult to answer without recourse to entirely non-scientific claims, typically about an unobservable god or some group of technologically advanced aliens or some such "intellectual rubbish". I call these ideas "intellectual rubbish" because they're beyond the scope of the scientific method. I.e. they rely on unfalsifiable (untestable) claims that need to be taken on faith. Sometimes questions about things like this are interesting from a philosophical point of view, but they aren't valid foundations for scientific knowledge. Thus we see that the rational and informed are inclined to say that at least the basic claims of made by the theory of biological evolution is true and that the position of creationism is an untenable one.
Background: I'm a mathematics student also pursuing a minor in philosophy, who is interested in the philosophy of science and in epistemology in general. I play the banjo, too.
Run that by me again! beeliner. Revis Martin. When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Proverbs 16:7 [KJV]
beeliner - Posted - 11/03/2009: 05:42:46
quote:
Originally posted by Jaminbanjo
quote:
Originally posted by backtothefuture
quote:
Originally posted by Jaminbanjo
Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.
Austin
Enough of this million year evolution garbage?
What evolution garbage are you referring to?
.
Dennis
I'm referring to the Theory of Evolution. There is no evidence that suggests that we came from a big bang or anything of the short. Or that we evolved from a one cell creature, I mean really?! It's just a theory....not a law. But people act like it's a law. That's the garbage of it.
Austin
I agree. beeliner. Revis Martin. When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Proverbs 16:7 [KJV]
beeliner - Posted - 11/03/2009: 05:45:33
quote:
Originally posted by Jaminbanjo
quote:
Originally posted by MarkRough
There is, in fact, literally tons of evidence supporting evolution.
Could you present some?
Austin
Yes, I would like to see some too. beeliner. Revis Martin. When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Proverbs 16:7 [KJV]
beeliner - Posted - 11/03/2009: 05:49:20
I'll betcha we'll see a lock down.
beeliner. Revis Martin. When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Proverbs 16:7 [KJV]
MarkRough - Posted - 11/03/2009: 06:09:30
Only if we continue to be confrontational about it.
-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
frailin - Posted - 11/03/2009: 06:38:19
To quote a good, well-read friend of mine...
"The earth will be just fine... after mankind is gone."
Yes, "better living through chemistry" has brought us many advances. What's frightening to me (personally) is how a backlash is now being evidenced.
Autoimmune diseases (i.e. Lupus) where the body attacks itself are up over 3x in the past 30 years. Our exquisite immune systems - honed to attack and protect us from bacteria and other invaders over eons are now being taxed by "chemicals" (are they friend or foe?). Autism, now 1:91 births (from 1:10,000 less than 15 years ago) is also now being traced as an autoimmune disease.
It's too early in the AM to start looking at cancers, Alzheimers and the others. Besides... I don't want to be that depressing.
My opinion, we need to clean up our act in the use of chemicals. More responsibility is called for. As I see it, it won't be global warming or H1N1 or nuclear war that kills us off, it will be the fact that we can't reproduce.
The "canary in the cave of mankind" is gasping.
Sorry... but I'm worried.
"Gospel. The most powerful music in this world and the next."
  
www.frailin.com
www.myspace.com/frailin
www.myspace.com/singletonstreet
www.myspace.com/eelpouts
&
www.autismhangout.com
Edited by - frailin on 11/03/2009 06:41:20
CurtissWhite - Posted - 11/03/2009: 06:38:24
To put it simply, the more money (cells) ya have the more times people are gonna hit ya up for money (different cells that will invade). Oh how I wish I were an ameba, but then ameba cells can't enjoy a banjo, or can they? hmmm ....now I'll waste a whole day in contempalrion.. Somebody, please hide my car keys.
Earl's the man!
Frailin's 999th friend!
Sam 2 - Posted - 11/03/2009: 06:43:56
 Hum hum mmmmm…hum de dum dum dum…la te dee dee….. Pardon me, excuse me…just passing through. Pay no attention to the goat in disguise.
That was supposed to be goat humor!!!!
_______________________________________________________
People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
dingo - Posted - 11/03/2009: 06:57:11
As far as water in Mexico, there is nothing wrong with the water there, been drinking it everytime we go down there, and so have all our other US friends. Mexico is a very big place, I would not drink the water on the US, Mexico border!! That is a very dirty place for some reason, but all the other places there is nothing wrong with the water.
And this generation of US children coming up, most of them will die before there parents, unless something is done about the foods they are consuming. You can not live off of McDonalds, Fruiti Pebbles, and this other processed food. Do you know how many people consider a bag of frozen french fries a vegtable??
If nothing drastic happens to the earth, the Amish will be the winners. We are killing ourselves on just what we eat. I live in a Amish area, and we buy about all of our groceries from them, I get my milk from a neighbors cow, or goat, and we also purchase our meat from them, I grow all of our vegy's, with Mother Natures help, not the commercial gardening shop. We make our own soaps and other health care products. Most of the familys in our area do this, or we at least swap out what we don't do or grow ourselves. We have had only 2 cases of what might have been H1N1, nobody knows, and they only lasted for about 3 days.
No most US citizens are destroying themselves and then trying to ruin other countries as well by thinking you are poor if you don't have a Walmart or a McDonalds on your corner.
Jill
What Happens in the Corn Field, Stays in the Corn Field.
MarkRough - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:01:14
quote:
Originally posted by Sam 2
Hum hum mmmmm…hum de dum dum dum…la te dee dee….. Pardon me, excuse me…just passing through. Pay no attention to the goat in disguise.
That was supposed to be goat humor!!!!
_______________________________________________________
People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
Ooooo, that's just so baaaaaaaaad. (I'm sorry. I'm so very, very sorry.) ----------------- Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
stevel - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:05:26
"I'm referring to the Theory of Evolution. There is no evidence that suggests that we came from a big bang or anything of the short. Or that we evolved from a one cell creature, I mean really?! It's just a theory....not a law. But people act like it's a law. That's the garbage of it."
-----------------------------------------------
wow, quite the opinion here. however, i'll keep mine to myself. i'm here for banjo, not politics or religion.
dawgdoc - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:06:31
quote:
Originally posted by Jaminbanjo
quote:
Originally posted by MarkRough
There is, in fact, literally tons of evidence supporting evolution.
Could you present some?
Austin
I have, however, trapped moles out of my yard. The little buggers cause me all sort of problems. (edited because I love the ole BHO and don't want to contribute to a locked topic. feel free to contact me off line Austin.....)
Edited by - dawgdoc on 11/03/2009 07:12:04
Mopick - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:10:14
Sometimes I think we outsmart ourselves by half. We think we have a handle on things or that we can control nature. There is an outbreak of weeds in the Midwest called Horse weed or Mares tail. It has become herbicide resistant. It gets huge at the base and breaks equipment like cultivators and combines. This is going to cost cotton farmers billions in equipment breakdown and loss of crop.
Having grown up on farms in Missouri, I know that in my life time we started relying more on herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer. In the old days, a farmer would let a field lie dormant for a year, allow the weeds and grass to grow, then disc it in the following year and put that organic material back into the soil. But now we can't afford to let a field lay fallow. There is a story in that great work of literature called the Bible that makes a case for the Israelites being carried away into Babylonian captivity for 70 years because they were instructed to let the land rest every seven years. They didn't do this for 490 years, so they were carried away into captivity for 70 years. The earth has a way to pay us back.
We put levees along the Mississippi river to try to control floods, instead of letting the river get out along the flood plane of Southeast Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois. This annual flooding deposited tons of rich alluvial dirt on the farm fields. But now, we see massive flooding along the River when a man-made levee breaks, entire towns are washed away.
I saw a documentary called "The Black Blizzard," It was about the dust bowl and stated that it was largely man-made. Man went and plowed the grass lands of the high plains and planted wheat. Then the government waged a campaign to get people to buy more wheat that drove the price up, causing more people to plow under more grass and plant more wheat. Then came a natural weather occurrence, an El Nino type condition that moved the jet stream that usually carried moisture to the plains. The fact that the grass had been plowed under exposed more dirt that caused heating by re-radiation (like a concrete parking lot). Once the dust storms started, the dust in the atmosphere kept sunlight from heating the ground and causing evaporation that lead to even more drought. It goes on.
Insects getting resistant to pesticide. Virus getting resistant to anti-biotics. You see where I'm going. I'm not saying man shouldn't use his intellect and ability to fight diseases and natural disaster. Just be prepared for the rebound.
It's not nice to fool around with Mother Nature.
I live in the mountains.....
The mountainous region of Central Florida.
Sugarloaf Mountain; 312 feet above sea level.
http://www.banjohangout.org/myhango...albumid=3256
Randy
mike gregory - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:10:37
If the thread is going to degenerate into an argument about evolution versus Scripture, I should like to offer a banjo-related comprimise.
Now let's all grab them Bluegrass Gospel Banjos, and SING!
=========================================
Swinging in the trees,
Swinging in the trees!
Adam, Eve, and Darwin,
Swinging in the trees!
Swinging in the trees,
Swinging in the trees!
We shall come rejoicing,
Swinging in the trees!
=========================
Hey, I hear an ice cream truck approaching.
Might that be the Goat Humor man?
=):{ )
Mike Gregory, Banjo Maker Infraordinaire
When I say my instruments are as good as anything Gibson or Martin ever made,
I mean MEL Gibson and DEAN Martin!
My banjos can be seen on my own website
http://littlebanjos.lunare.net
See me & my SQUARED EEL banjo on the Y'all tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97EfvhFgRBY
kyblugrass - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:13:05
I still say this is what will do us in... it's the machines... THE MACHINES I TELL YOU!!!! 
Scott
“You Can Hang a Sign on a Pig Saying It's a Horse...But It’s Still Just a Pig.”
Sam 2 - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:18:55
quote:
Originally posted by MarkRough
quote:
Originally posted by Sam 2
Hum hum mmmmm…hum de dum dum dum…la te dee dee….. Pardon me, excuse me…just passing through. Pay no attention to the goat in disguise.
That was supposed to be goat humor!!!!
_______________________________________________________
People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
Ooooo, that's just so baaaaaaaaad.
(I'm sorry. I'm so very, very sorry.)
-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
(I'm sorry. I'm so very, very sorry.)Not a problem…….. Even with my limited experience as a BHO poster and reader I can see where this is headed and the inevitable outcome. I figured I might as well go ahead and hoke it up before the toilet flushes. Sorry folks….my Badddddddddd._______________________________________________________ People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
MarkRough - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:21:56
quote:
Originally posted by mike gregory
If the thread is going to degenerate into an argument about evolution versus Scripture, I should like to offer a banjo-related comprimise.
Now let's all grab them Bluegrass Gospel Banjos, and SING!
=========================================
Swinging in the trees,
Swinging in the trees!
Adam, Eve, and Darwin,
Swinging in the trees!
Swinging in the trees,
Swinging in the trees!
We shall come rejoicing,
Swinging in the trees!
=========================
Hey, I hear an ice cream truck approaching.
Might that be the Goat Humor man?
=):{ )
Mike Gregory, Banjo Maker Infraordinaire
When I say my instruments are as good as anything Gibson or Martin ever made,
I mean MEL Gibson and DEAN Martin!
My banjos can be seen on my own website
http://littlebanjos.lunare.net
See me & my SQUARED EEL banjo on the Y'all tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97EfvhFgRBY
Har, har, har!! Good one. . . er. . . ones. ----------------- Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.
Ronnie - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:32:06
Let's be very careful about debating creation vs evolution. This is an interesting thread and I would hate to see it locked or deleted.
www.bobbythompsonbanjo.com
Sam 2 - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:32:10
"I have, however, trapped moles out of my yard. The little buggers cause me all sort of problems."
Is it possible to trap one without him sustaining a life ending event?
I would like to see what he looks like then let him go about his trail building.
_______________________________________________________
People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.
Edited by - Sam 2 on 11/03/2009 07:33:11
dawgdoc - Posted - 11/03/2009: 07:49:40
quote:
Is it possible to trap one without him sustaining a life ending event?
Believe it or not, moles have very cool brains and a friend of mine studies them, so yes, you can. I don't know how to do it, though. I have a personal vendetta against them and admit I'm an evil human. Out this direction, they offer a bounty on them of a buck a tail (the county pays for it). Page: 1 2
|
Feeds
