Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/2/07 10:01 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 8/31/07 10:43 PM, kloneone wrote: i dont know how to say it um...

You dont know how to say it because its wrong. Shelter is something that protects you, an environment is not.

like i said if ur gonna be a bitch then im sorry i misspoke i meant environment the whole time.

why does a desert need balancing?

You tell me, you were the one who said it.

no you tell me fool you are the one saying that deserts are the result of some natural disaster and they havent ever balanced out yet. i dont know why you think that. but ill tell you anyways since youre being open minded. deserts dont need balancing. there you go.

sorry i dont have cable you will have to do a little work and explain a natural disaster thats killed that many animals.

So because of your ignorance I have to work the extra mile? No thanks.

then gtfo you lazy ass bitch. ive had to stoop to your ignorance plenty of times. you could at least do me the favor of enlightening me with your timeless wisdom derived from a show on volcanoes.

dude you arent explaining anything about your current theory.

Because your asking about it

um, yea. thats either a hilarious typo or you are just retarded.

and besides you are basically restating what i said. wtf?

When was the last time you had your eyes checked?

couple months ago i got my contacts perscription updated or w/e.

believe me i do but im just saying you shouldnt be debating science here if you dont know the difference between a mixture and solution.

I'm sorry, I didnt realize you would be confused when I said a two substances mix together.

just read through our posts man your little atlantic current thoery has a big ass flaw try to find it again.

just curious, do you?

Are you joking?

no.

its your primary argumentative theory you tell me buddy.

Actually no, its evidence. Atleast to my knowledge that most of the arctic

try to finish that sentence buddy.

ya that could be fixed too.

By the two of us?

no but we arent the only people that would do anything.

well it just shows what a shitty theory you have.

How old are you?

how much does it matter? i could be 4 years old and it wouldnt matter it doesnt make my points any less credible. lets just say im under 21 that should be good enough.

dont be so quick to belittle me i "get" plenty of stuff. you could easily be the ignorant one here.

Ok seriously, you got me.

Who are you really?

what? who am i? its not like im gonna tell you my legal identification shit. and if im picking up any sarcasm then all im saying is that either of us could be wrong.

---

throw up.. it was hot i kinda had to rush but it still came clean.

---

At 8/31/07 11:16 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Also, LOL @ guy who says Bald Eagles are close to extinction. We've got Bald Eagles up here in NEW YORK for Christs sake. Don't tell me they are about to die out.

i never said they were close to exticntion, i just said they were endangered and they were removed from that list a few years ago. so yea i was wrong congrats on calling me out on a completely irrelevant point we are way past that.

---

At 8/28/07 02:28 AM, fahrenheit wrote: Thats not the same thing.

i dont know how to say it um... yea it is. if you are gonna be a bitch about it then i misspoke i meant environment the whole time.

So thats basically everything except trees.

yea thats not very much where deer come from. and they cant eat every plant there is so the extent of their damage isnt too big.

the sahara isnt a natural disaster. no desert is. i dont know where you come up with this stuff.

Well lets see, you say humans are the only thing to destroy eco systems. Except droughts.

Then you say those things balance themselves out, which most deserts havent.

why does a desert need balancing? its an biosphere, not the aftermath of some natural disaster.

So you keep making up excuses, and changing the discussion when you're wrong.

uh not really its just the truth. i guess you dont know too much about deserts?

So if a typhoon destroyed hundreds of boats it wouldnt be considered a disastor?

stop smartassing your way around my points of course it would be. i meant human constructs like stuff thats man made. i said buildings because i was thinking of tornadoes. there arent any boats where tornadoes happen really.

If you ever see a program called super volcanoes on the history channel, watch it.

sorry i dont have cable you will have to do a little work and explain a natural disaster thats killed that many animals.

yes thats pretty similar. almost half of what is in monkeys is in us. you might say that we are half-monkey.

No, we decended from the same type of animal. We didnt come from monkeys, they're more like our retarded second cousin.

hahah sure but almost half of our genome matched up with theirs so i meant that half our genes are identical to monkeys. hence, half monkey.

I couldnt find a number, but I get that from a video I watched in my biology class. It went on to say that the types of genes isnt what matters, but how they exist within each other.

well you need a number to back up your bold claim that all species are 90something% related. other wise i agree.

when two substances mix they create a diluted solution or mixture.

No, when they are introduced its a diluted mixture, when they mix it becomes (in this case) a less salty mixture.

dude you arent explaining anything about your current theory. and besides you are basically restating what i said. wtf?

you are always saying that i should take some basic science yet you seem not to understand even the most basic technical terms involved.

Thats because you only understand the basic terms, you have to look further into things. Not just scratching the surface.

believe me i do but im just saying you shouldnt be debating science here if you dont know the difference between a mixture and solution. just curious, do you? because you seem not to understand that area of basic chemistry.

salt water freezes at lower temperatures than fresh water.

Not by much, and certainly not enough for it to matter in the arctic.

hey man you asked.

whats your point?

How does the fresh water get there?

its your primary argumentative theory you tell me buddy.

It would be like as if a tornado destroyed the Sears building, and we have to rebuild it.

ya that could be fixed too.

And that is why I dont think global warming is man made. Theres not enough evidence.

well it just shows what a shitty theory you have.

well its not like they were played up by the media wrongly those were all very serious issues.

Yes, but where they on the level of private house affairs? Do you honestly think your house could be blown up by terrorists?

yes.

Was it likely the US was going to be nuked by the Russians? Could the Nazi's have invaded the USA? All of those things were minutelly possible, but not at all likely.

yes and yes. the nazis came very close to winning WWII.

We're actually one of the countries doing the least.

maybe because people like you dont take it seriously enough? youre like hey, humans arent the cause, who cares? maybe you should think differently since many other countries are taking more decisove action.

no, and they want to keep it that way.

Ya just dont get it do ya.

dont be so quick to belittle me i "get" plenty of stuff. you could easily be the ignorant one here.

---

At 8/28/07 04:29 AM, gaine1 wrote: i like introduced you so there you go lol

wtf are you talking about?

---

At 8/28/07 03:56 AM, gaine1 wrote: oh shit look at that sig lol .hurry up and do a throwup

what? you mean upload one? because some guy asked me to and i went and drew one and uploaded it. its on page two maybe.

---

At 8/27/07 06:57 PM, fahrenheit wrote: To things like bacteria, thats not considered shelter but an environment. Bacteria can survive out in the open, but survive much better in certain environments like you said, but thats not considered shelter as much as living in Florida is considered shelter.

you misunderstand then, shelter=environment. its basically the same thing if you dont think of shelter as a cave or a house. shelter as in the place you live, not necessarily somewhere you are safe and can sleep.

What about deer? With no immediate predators they have been known to destroy parts of forests.

the only reason they would have no predators is because we are doing something to kill them off. and deer cant do very much besides eat away undergrowth, which would probably be burned away eventually.

Right, which is why the Sahara is still a desert.

the sahara isnt a natural disaster. no desert is. i dont know where you come up with this stuff. its an environment just like a forest or a bay or a marsh, etc. it supports life.

Tell that the thousands of animals that die.

its not about dying the thing that really hurts is the destruction of human buildings. animals can live anywhere in a place thats been hit by a natural disaster, they dont care if a house that was there is gone now. and very few natural disasters have killed thousands of animals. the only one i can think of is the volcano that wiped out pompei(sp) in italy.

what happens every 50,000 years? anyways, thousands of atom bombs have been detonated,

Ok, back that up with credible sources.

uses the exact words

1. In the article it says that they are the closest relative.

yes thats pretty similar. almost half of what is in monkeys is in us. you might say that we are half-monkey. most other sources even put it around 95%, but for your sake i took the lowest number i saw. i think even in that same article there is some number in the 90s about genetic similarity.

2. Like I said, every animal is close to another genetically. Most animals are within 95% related to other animals genetically.

just hella wrong unless you can back that up.

Because the two waters mix.

when two substances mix they create a diluted solution or mixture. you are always saying that i should take some basic science yet you seem not to understand even the most basic technical terms involved.

Thats a good point, and definitly a hole in the theory.

indeed it is.

But that raises another question, how exactly the the north and south poles freeze fresh water in a salt water ocean?

salt water freezes at lower temperatures than fresh water. whats your point?

Mainly the anatarctic.

ok?

How can we do something about it if it isnt our fault?

we just do. thats like asking how can you possibly clean up juice that someone else spilled. you just can.

No, global warming is happening. But tell me, if the CO2 level is incredibly higher now then it was back then, and CO2 is a direct cause of more heat, why was it hotter back then than now?

magic? not that it matters because stuff wasnt all fucked up back then like it is now. all that proves is that the highest temperatures werent of recently. great. so its not as hot as we thought, but bad shit is still happening so... yea.

Just like most parents dont want their kids to live in a violent world. But despite that people thrive on global disasters, before us it was terrorists (which it still kind of is, but less). Then it was the Russians, the Nazi's, all kinds of global disastors.

well its not like they were played up by the media wrongly those were all very serious issues.

The media feeds us this crap and we suck it all up.

you call national and global disasters crap? we arent the only country looking into global warming.

Because people right now are rioting in the streets and refusing to pay taxes.

no, and they want to keep it that way. maybe mentioning taxes was a little extreme i gave you the wrong idea. but w/e

---

At 4/25/07 05:29 PM, Korriken wrote: However I am a Creationist AND an evolutionist, and I say, the idea is bunk. Want proof of evolution? viruses mutate. Wanna see proof of creationism? consider that new life forms don't just spring up out of the ground and begin taking over.

thats very ironic.

The way I see it, god made the first life, then set up evolution, because things change and animals need to change with it.

what if evolution created the first life? evolution applies not only to living organisms, kind of.

Wanna see more proof of creationism? you don't pop open a jar of peanut butter and find a peanut butter monster inside.

you might find fungi or mold or w/e.

can energy and heat create new life? I don't know, I've never tried it before.

energy=heat(sun) in water(H2O) creates algae=life.

---

At 8/25/07 07:01 AM, Drakim wrote:
And that won't happen because people are afraid. I just find it funny when people are against something so much when they don't really understand it. Cloning will never be about making mass adult clones for an army, yet that is what everybody thinks when they hear the word cloning, I think.

yup i agree. most people think im anti cloning but they dont get it i just argue for the rights and ethics involved. because if cloning really does happen then thats gonna pop up and become a really nasty issue.

---

At 8/26/07 11:35 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Right, and I didnt see where in your article it mentioned how they would do once released back into the wild.

baw/e. its animals in captivity which is what will happen if we use cloning to keep species alive. like i said ill get you some more links later.

Yeah, because obviously you're doing such a fantastic job.

well im not leaving out entire words.

Because thats even a real question? If you knew an ounce about bacteria, that they're microscopic, they cant build or even think like the most simple of animals. Because ya see, bacteria is the simplest form of life, they dont think or build, they just move and consume things.

yea and they respond to external stimuli as well. for example, most bacteria live better in a warm environment, such as the stomach of a cow. many bacteria gravitate towards host bodies so they can feed and reproduce easier. this may be a rotting carcass, or a stomach, a body of warm water, intestines, etc. its pretty hard for most bacteria to live out in the open, or in cold places. its possible but fairly rare to find species like that. but back to the original point, i think its safe to say that every lifeform needs some form of water food and shelter to survive. its just more apparent as you move up the food chain.

Its like asking me to explain why a rock is solid, the question is so stupid that I dont even want to answer it.

thats too bad. :(

Why? I ask you, why is what we do not natural?

because we are the only animal on this planet cabable of destroying our own ecosystem.

Mass floods, droughts, and volcanoes do that also.

yea but thats a different story. those are elements of nature and weather. and in the end, everything swings back into balance. natural disasters are usually only disasters to humans. im not sure if you have ever realized that. they usually play the role of balancing one element of an ecosystem or another. like how a forest fire burns away undergrowth allowing for a lush regrowth, similar to a hair cut, if you can imagine. and besides, its not like they can choose not to happen.

A little extreme? We've dropped an atom bomb what? One, twice? You cant keep jumping to that excuse when on the entie human existance it statistically happens every 50,000 thousand years or so.

what happens every 50,000 years? anyways, thousands of atom bombs have been detonated, two were used in WWII, and theres been plenty of nuke testing. the USSR detonated a nuke equal to 50,000 kilotons of TNT. thats kind of a lot. it was the largest thermo nuclear weapon ever detonated. i wonder how much shit that killed?

No, it isnt. They have a somewhat similar skull and thumbs. And occasionally they walk upright.

hmmmm.

49% of the chimps genome matched up with ours, which we still havent mapped, so it could be more. that seems like more than a couple of skulls and thumbs buddy.

Genetically speaking, every animal is close to another. Hell worms could be considered close to us genetically.

no, you are very wrong. that would mean that we look like worms. dont get into gene theory, i dont think you would do too well. im starting to wonder, are you a christian?

Please, if you werent such a bubbling crock of close minded-ness I would, but since you're just going to come up with some irrelevant excuse or change the subject, why bother?

because, you are starting to look like the babbling crock of shit. the more you shy away from my points the more suspiciously uninformed you look. if you are so knowledgeable then you wouldnt hesitate to blow me out of the water with your absolute logic and facts.

I'm sorry, I just cant deal with stupid people that well.

im afraid youll have a hard life then if you cant even deal with me.

Its my curse, maybe someday I'll overcome it, but until then.

i sure hope so.

Why the hell not?

Ok, as you know, theres a flow of water that goes between the two poles. Thats a given, but when a different type of water is introduced to that system the flow becomes disrupted, diminished, weakened. It no longer brings the massive amount of water to each side, but as the water becomes less dilluted the flow strengthens and reassumes itself.

yes but you still havent explained, how EXACTLY does the current become undiluted? if the warm saltwater melted the cold fresh water and balanced out in to a warm half and half, what variable comes into play to magically take all the fresh water back to the poles and refreeze them to recreate the caps?jesus?

Mine didnt have www.antiglobalwarming.com at the beginning of each of them.

it was hardly all of them.

Maybe you'll learn that just because a site disagrees with you, or proves you were wrong, its not biased.

maybe you should apply that wisdom to my links?

I have no idea what growning is? Is it like groaning? I cant imagine that ice groans.

interestingly enough, ice does groan. thats not what i meant though. i mean for you to tell me which ice body is growing?

Of course it is, why dont you just keep telling yourself that. And as the summers become hotter and the winters become colder you can keep saying its our fault.

no it isnt your fault or mine but we need to acknowledge(sp) it and then do something about it.

Without addressing the link I gave you.

oh poor you i didnt adress your links. until you can prove that they are somehow less biased than mine theres no point. thats why i didnt post around 50 links in my first reply to this topic.

Except that 1934 was the hottest year ever on record.

even if that is true, it doesnt mean global warming isnt happening. if it was so hot then why is permafrost melting now?

people would also like to feel secure knowing that global warming is just a math error,

Really? Is that why there are so many news reports about how safe our world is, why there isnt a lot of crime and very few murders?

yes. youd be surprised how much crap is brodcast on tv.

Get a clue, every kind of sad or displeasing thing out there is reported on because people want to know how good they have it. They want to know that other people are getting killed while they live comfortably, they want to know that other people are starving while theyre full, they want to know they're going to be the last generation of humans that live in an arguably stable world.

i agree, but not on that last part. do all the parents of america really want to gloat over their children that they wont have to deal with global warming and biosphere destruction because they are just going to die before the shit hits the fan? i think not. i think most parents that know whats going on would be concerned with the world they leave to their kids.

No, they wont. If the media told everyone that global warming doesnt exists, why bother with it? Why write books that they can sell, why make news reports that everyone will watch, why bring experts onto the show for more people to think that news station holds a lot of credibility?

yes, they will.

Tell me, why would they do that when they can make so much more money if they dont?

youd be surprised how much mulah big corporations and nervous government bodies would pay to keep the american people safe from those ridiculous claims about global warming and panda bears, and keep them happy and spending money and paying taxes.

---

n00b

---

At 8/26/07 03:21 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Which isnt what we were talking about, we were talking about a animal raised in a false environment would do in the wild.

yea. thats an animal raised in captivity.

Have you argued with a 5 year? And they think they know everything, so they make up facts and act as if theyre right?

you cant seem to say anything to disprove them.

Ya, thats what its like with you. So I'm going to go into explaining what you should have learned freshman year in HS (if your even that far) because I dont get paid to do so.

lol maybe you should calm down and type correctly. id still like you to explain how bacteria doesnt need shelter. if you are so fucking confident, why not just prove me wrong and be done with it?

So once again, humans arent natural?

what we do isnt natural. how many times man? stop twisting my words.

Other animals interfere with a lot of things, ants enslave other ants, bees massacre other hives, but because their not human its natural?

its not interfering(sp?) because it doesnt involve mass destruction of ecosystems. once again, i cant make you see the difference between ant slavery and humans setting off atom bombs but its there.

To bad theyre not even close to us, just the closest relative.

well its an animal thats very much like a human which is what you were saying doesnt exist. so yea...

And after rereading this sentence, you dont find anything wrong with that?

no. please if youre just going to sit back and sneer at my points you can seriously just gtfo. the way i see it, this whole "smart guy im too knowledgeable to explain anything to your ignorant mind" act means you have come to your wits end. on several of my points you have failed to provide a retort other than something along the lines of "you are ignorant" or "maybe you should get an education" or "wow its funny how stupid you are". why dont you start providing some reasons.

Ok, this has to be a joke. Theres no way that someone who can form words together would be that stupid.

see? why dont you try to contribute to the debate. im honestly curious how you think that works.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

All of those are biased.

and yours arent?

Its a well known fact that some ice is retreating, and some ice is growing. But wait, why would they report only on the fact that some ice is retreating?

what ice is growning? please tell.

Because it sells.

because its really happening.

So instead of confronting what I said, you try to change the argument to something.
I have to say I'm not surprised, I just feel a tiny bit of pity.

no. im simply saying if you want more links, i have more. once again you take the uppity cock position and fail to explain anything. why dont you get off your horse and say something useful.

Yeah and I have articles from NASA and ABC. Its one giant journalism war, and guess what! Most people want to hear about how theyre going to die, and the news journalists will give them that.

people would also like to feel secure knowing that global warming is just a math error, and in fact they have no part to play, and no responsibility to the planet. a lot of people dont want the insecurity of knowing that global warming is a real issue, so the media will give them that too.

Alright, go.

ok ill post some articles later.

---

At 8/25/07 06:52 AM, fahrenheit wrote: That talks about the challenges of breeding and innifientancy of the small exercise areas.

yes and other things. its animals in captivity.

Maybe once you finish school you will understand.

maybe once you stop being a stuck up ingnorant fuck and actually try to contribute to this debate you will stop looking like an dumbass. try explaining it in your own words professor of bacteriology.

Well that really depends on what you mean by natural? Are they made from natural things? Yes.
Can they occur in the nature without human intervention? No.

key word=human intervention

But is there any animal like humans? No.

yes. primates.

It really depends on your view of nature, just because it doesnt already happen in wildlife doesnt mean its not natural.

actually it does.

Why? Because its made by animals?

yes. it is something produced naturally by their bodies. they dont construct it or research it. its just there, like piss or blood and its natural.

Hipocrite much?

no.

Jesus christ, not much common sense huh?

jesus christ, why dont you stop being a smartass and explain it yourself.

If the flow of water was disrupted how is the warm water going to travel to north and south poles?

you tell me.

Ya see, another thing you should have learned, is that when you mix water and salt water, eventually they come together to form slightly less salty water.

and how does this slightly less salty water restore balance to everything and refreeze the caps? lay out all your cards man, stop hiding behind this shady atlantic current theory.

Once again, this isnt some random website. Its a newspaper publisher.
And heres some more links.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Pa ge=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060804c.h tml
http://www.mlive.com/forums/jackson/inde x.ssf?extlink?artid=70961
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs /Fig.D.txt
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/lof iversion/index.php/t333048.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/aug ust2006/050806history.htm
http://www.rnla.org/Newsletter/ViewArtic le.asp?ArticleID=226

Need I say more?

ok fine. link war. here, read all this.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

if thats not enough for you, i have plenty more. oh and theres articles from TIME magazine and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in there so i think its fairly credible. if you want info on animals in captivity and their loss of survival skills just ask since the ones above are global warming. enjoy.

---

At 8/25/07 03:18 PM, Brick-top wrote: So we have the right to bring animal species to their knees and do things that do jack shit in the long run?

no we dont. i dont understand what you are trying to point out. we shouldnt pass up clonong as an issue just because animals are dying. it needs to be adressed.

Hence saying "taking years of research" Besides they've already tried mixing DNA from a human to sheep in hopes they can duplicate human organs in animals so they can harvest them. It would probably doing more good than eating it.

youre not really making sense here.

Skin grafting only works under certain circumstances in burn victems and you have to wait a HELL of a lot of time to get the grafts while your ass has melted off. And being the most painful thing in your entire life it's not helping. You'd probably be better off getting plastic surgury to repair the disfigurment.

well we dont need to clone skin because that would still need to be grafted on either way.

You can raise animals in captivity for a certain peroid of time and release them but if were talking about animals that are being hunted to extinction then there is not point in releasing them.

whats the point of keeping an animal alive in a prison basically just because we want to look at it? it would be better for them to die out than remain a hollow shadow of a dying species. you cant just raise them for a certain time and theyll be fine its more complex than that. you simply dont understand whats involved.

You can't really be against cloning because all the arguments people have are it's unnatural and the human race is about as unnatural as it gets. The other argument is Religious belief and religion has no opinion when it comes to scientific progress.

i can be agaisnt cloning because i think clone rights are an issue.

There are no downsides to cloning because it can only being good things to the world. In the future (hopefully the near) there will be no need for organ, bone marrow or blood donations, no more kidney dialesis, pacemakers, catheter and colostomy bags. If something brakes, just replace it. Extinction caused my man would be a thing of the past.

clone rights buddy, right to life. until we solve that, or get the green light with stem cells cloning will be an issue.

---

At 8/26/07 12:15 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Anyway, the first one is to show people that you DO NOT have to clone entire creatures to get the parts you want.

you do have to clone entire creatures unless you use stem cells wich is what i said in the first place. the article says the same thing. you have to strip the egg of chromasomes(sp) or w/e and extract the STEM CELLS from the embryo. it said something like that.

---

At 8/24/07 08:43 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 8/24/07 08:33 AM, kloneone wrote: i think, if given the choice, most clones would say no, assuming they can think and talk for themselves. this brings us back to previous issue... whats the point then?

As I said earlier, what if we can disscover a way to make organs without a whole person with it? That is a pretty valid point for cloning, if it is possible.

yea it is, but its not possible until scientists are sanctioned by the government to do extensive human stem cell research.

---

At 8/25/07 05:47 AM, gaine1 wrote:
we should go like tomorow or day after .saturday-sunday .like one more time i better not have to fukin read.

yea that one pen is like dead tho we hella used that shit at daily city.

---

At 8/25/07 03:08 AM, fahrenheit wrote: Look, we're getting nowhere. Unless either of us can provide evidence, this argument is futile.

this is about zoos but its basically the same thing

.......

Wow, that was, just wow.

Please stop, your going to give me a heart attack from all of this laughter.

why is that funny?

And because humans are so god like that just because we do things that dont normally happen it makes us unnatural.

humans are very natural, our constructs are not. how many times do i have to say it? do you really think atom bombs are natural? or how about radioactive waste? infected needles? oil drilling platforms? guns? come on man use your brain.

I guess because snakes, scoropians, and spiders develop venom inside their bodies (which most other animals dont) they arent natural.

animal venom is natural. i cant make you see the difference between that and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, but its there, trust me.

Actually CO2, according to the evidence shown, isnt as big as a contributer as popularly thought.

Besides, what I'm talking about is a theory on why the earth is getting warmer. There is a current in the Atlantic that runs from north to south pole, it brings cold water to the warm equator and warm water to the cold arctic. This is nice and balances the temperature somewhat, but every hundred years the warm water traveling to the north and south slowly melts the ice caps. As that happens fresh water is released into the ocean, disrupting the flow of water. If you look at graphs, the north and south poles are increasing in temperature, moreso then anywhere else, which this theory explains why.

As this happens cold water isnt brought to the warm equator, so the middle of the earth radically increases in temperature. And the cold north and south lowers in temperature, very low. Which some scientists think caused the little ice age (1700-1900). Eventually the water mixes and the flow is brought back to normal.

how do the caps magically get colder if they melted because they were getting hotter? how does the water "mix" and miraculously bring it back into balance?

You're right, my mistake. How could I be so naive? I mean its so simple, despite the fact that CO2 has been on a steady rise since the 1900's, and there was a drop in temperature for over 40 years from 1940 to 1980.

Besides

i found no credible sources in that article besides the nasa goddard institute, and i cross referenced what he said in the article, about the 1930 record temps, and found nothing. if you can show me a credible source to back up that record temerature scandal then ill consider that article to carry some truth.

What?

you thought something i said was so funny that you posted a pic of calvin and hobbs laughing their ass off. im wondering what is so funny.

---

At 8/25/07 01:40 AM, fahrenheit wrote: So the extinction rate of todays world is the highest of todays world?

yes. besides historical natural phenomena like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Skills? Not every animal hunts, some animals eat fruit and vegetables. Those things dont need skills.

yes i agree but the ones that dont hunt still wont have the skills and knowledge needed to survive. if you raise an impala in captivity and then realease it into the wild, how will it know that a cheetah is a threat, let alone out run it? and a lot of species DO hunt, so if you rule those out as a cloning possibilty, thats a vast amount of animals.

Is that even supposed to be real?

its a hypothetical situation, that could happen, not likely, but it IS possible. i brought it up do demonstrate what we would be doing if we raised animals in captivity using cloning instead of just solving the problem now.

Because they know how to eat?

once again you fail to realize suriving in the wild involves more than eating.

Most animals are born with survival skills, in the infant stage they cant defend themselves or hunt, but give them the right age and allow them to fight when they want then they can survive.

animals are born with insticnts, not survival skills. theres a huge difference. you cant get by on insticnt alone.

I think you dont, so instead of beating around the bush why dont you just drop it. Because explaining what I mean defeats the cleverness of it.

well maybe you shouldnt have said it the place because i knew what you were getting at which is why im beating around the bush, leaving you in a position to explain your stupid insult.

Bacteria needs shelter?

amazingly yes it does. why do you think it thrives on invading bodies and creating disease and sickness.
there is also good bacteria that our bodies allow to live inside us, for the exchange of services they provide us. its a mutual beneficial arrangement: the bacteria get shelter and our bodies get whatever it is they do, im not exactly sure. i could look it up if youre going to try and call me out on it.

Once again, why? Does the material we use come from a different planet? When you put a rock and a long piece of wood together, is the spear unnatural?

it doesnt work like that. humans have forcibly combined chemical agents that dont combine in nature creating unnatural substances and hazardous chemicals. another big unnatural thing we humans have created are nuclear missles and atom bombs. atoms dont split in nature, and spent radioactive waste doesnt exist in nature.

Ok, wait. I'm sorry, let me collect myself.

dont worry this debate is turn based take all the time you need.

Because thats why you're arguing with me?

arguing with you doesnt consume my entire life. i have planty of time to other things between posts.

Why? That guy gave you links that disproved what you said, and your reply was BS with absolutely no real comeback. So if I did explain it you would probably retort with a

nuh-uh

just because something is on the internet doesnt mean its true. if you want i could find endless links that support my side of the argument, but im trying not to turn this thread in to a link war by going "oh yea well look what this guy said and this guy and this other one..." etc. nothing can be proven or disproven about global warming until it actually happens. its like debating about the apocalypse. we wont know anything for sure until it actually takes place. all we can do is educate and convince others of different sides.

so please, explain yourself how water is such a big contributer of CO2.

Look at a graph sometime genius.

believe me ive seen
plenty

and you still havent answered my question about the desert earth so i dont see how its funny until you try to show how that was a stupid thing to say.

---

At 8/25/07 01:25 AM, Boarean wrote: The people who could be saved, the knowladge that could be attained. If morality is willing to humans from geting an extra 1o years of life and boundless knoweladge of the human body over silly moralty, a minority of peoples morality at best, then throw wm in chains and start cloning

its not only ethics and morals its human rights.

---

well they cant take away guns simply because of that second amendment. simple as that. as long as that amendent stands any of us can own a gun(s). and about the car and realestate stuff all i can say is that it wouldnt be different anywhere else really and this is america if you dont like it oh well thats just how it is.

---

At 8/24/07 10:10 AM, Brick-top wrote: We pump billions of tones of pollution in the air everyday, we cut down thousands of acres of woodland every day, we bury countless tones of trash in the ground everyday, we bring animals to the brink of extinction and you would like to preserve nature? Call it unnatural? My friend everything the human race does is against nature.

yea i know, and cloning is one of those things. just because we are ruining the environment doesnt mean its hopeless and should dismiss new issues simply because the biosphere is going to hell anyways.

How would you feel if one of your family or yourself has cancer or a diseased organ, and all they would have to do is take a DNA sample of the organ in question and two weeks later BANG you walk out the hospital bright and healthy.

you cant clone individual organs buddy. why do you think its not happening if that were possible?

And not just clone organs, clone any part of the body. If you had a severely burnt piece of skin all you would have to do is get that part cloned and replace it. Bobs your uncle you have a lush arm. This technology could double life expectancy. how can you say no to that?!

once again, you cant just pick and choose. and we already have skin grafting(sp?), so thats not an issue.

All the animals that are becoming extinct could be brought back from the dead. The white tiger would benifit GREATLY from this technology. Simple beause they are all decendants from one animal so they are all inbreds which causes many problems especially with the eyes, hearing and immune system. All you would have to do is get the DNA from a normal tiger and take the specific parts of DNA from the white tiger and job done. 500 could be in the thousands in less than 10 years.

But that sort of cloning would take years of research and have to be backed up with gene manipulation.

how can you raise a cloned animal in captivity and then expect it to survive in the wild?

---

At 8/24/07 01:39 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: You cannot "clone a organ" simply because an organ is not alive, even if we could clone an organ, it would be useless, because it would become unusable before we could make a transplant, If tried to clone an organ, it would probably end upas the animal which you had cloned it from.

exactly. noone seems to understand that. you need to clone an entire body to be able to harvest an organ, you cant just grow any random organ. for that you need stem cells which is a different subject.

---

LOL that story had me crackin up hella hard. hahaaa fucken salad fingers.

---

At 8/24/07 11:44 PM, a2toedmonkey wrote: AH! i didn't read the bottom of the page, well, stupid me, still feel free to tell me kinks

what about the page w/e. finally someone with some logic. maybe now that its coming from someone else they will understand it. the only kink i see is a carnivore that eats bugs. unless you consider bugs meat. i would have said a lizard or a bat or something that obviously eats a diet filled with bugs. but i agree with you. these other guys dont seem to understand that concept.

---

At 8/24/07 06:39 PM, fahrenheit wrote: You never said todays world, you said the world.

lol i said todays world go look at my post.

Because thousands of people have to focus on one animal?

yea, thats not enough to control what happens to an entire species of animals that are already endangered.

Does it really matter? Beef nowadays is enlarged un-naturally, does that make it taste worse?

yes i think ethics matter.

Animals dont think like we do, they dont question their own existance, they just try to survive.

they cant survive if they are grown in a lab. they wont learn the skills that are normally passed down from their parents.

Once again, you can say the same thing about babies.

w/e man youre going in circles

Well guess what, I wont be. And neither will you, so you have no idea what its like and neither do I.

how can you be so sure? not too long from now machines will have rights... and its not about having an idea its about being cloned and raised in a lab by something that isnt of the same species.

Why just captivity? Why not release them into the wild?

how will they survive? they wont have any survival skills. they need to be raised in the wild to wild to understand that there are other animals that want to kill them. you cant just live in a cage all your life and then be put into the world and expected to survive.

The sad thing is you didnt even understand what I just said.

i think i do. and if i dont then you shouldnt have said "pro choice".

Didnt do so well in biology did you?

i did actually. instead of making a smartass remark why dont you try disproving what i said.

Why? Because we're the ones doing it? Who's to say that just because we kill other things, that we're not natural?

last time i checked cars and oil drilling werent natural.

If we werent natural, nature would kill us off right?

humans are natural. machines are not. its kind of hard to kill off constructs made of steel and titanium. but nature does have the ability to do it. and thats us. thats why we need to take responsibility.

Wow your so clever, you repeated what I said but switched 16 with 7. I'm so jealous.

no all i did was make it the reality because im not a 7 year old girl.

Because you have nothing better to do.

well i do so you will have to think of a different excuse.

Water, mainly.

ahahaa wooow. ok explain that.

Oddly enough those things arent directly related to rising temperatures. Or atleast if you look at the evidence it isnt.

they are directly related, just use some basic logic.

Please, redirect your eyes to the picture below. Because unfortunatly I can only convey text and pictures accross the internet.

nice picture. i fail to see how that relates to anything besides a stupid insult to me.

Like the old saying goes, isnt that the pot calling the kettle black.

w/e man i could care less

---

At 8/24/07 08:49 AM, Pheidippides wrote:

its bullshit thats how i explain it... ... dont even get me started on the walking versus driving contributing to green house gasses.

Okay, get started. Back up your claims for once.

walking= consumption of food
driving=consumption of food, consumption of fossil fuels, exhaust CO2

---

At 8/24/07 08:48 AM, Pheidippides wrote: Guess what the REAL number one contributor to green house gases is. That's right, plants...

ok heres backing up a satement: plants convert CO2 into O2. how does that make them a top contributer?

---

At 8/24/07 08:52 AM, TheReno wrote: Admit it klo, you lost. You know we are right so just admit it.

just because its three on one doesnt mean i have lost. actually, you guys can never win this debate, and neither can i. all we can do is debate. that is the whole point of debate. if it could be proved one way or another it would have been done already by politicians and scientists, and we wouldnt be having this conversation.

---

At 8/24/07 08:37 AM, TheReno wrote: Lol. What about all the other creatures? The ones that produce methane that is thought to be a cause for global warming? I said it once and Ill say it again. We have not been on the earth long enough to fuck it up on the enormity on which you say it is. Now call in all those years when humans werent around when the earth was according to you adapting to the current enviroment then maybe ill agree that there is a possiblity that the earth is fucked up on the scale in which you say it is.

im not saying the earth is fucked up on such a huge scale, im just saying that it is being set up for a shitty change in the biosphere. humans are like adding gasoline to a small fire. makes it worse.