Blowout Cards Forums
Wave 8

Go Back   Blowout Cards Forums > COMMUNITY > Off Topic

Notices

Off Topic This section may contain threads that are NSFW. This section is given a bit of leeway on some of the rules and so you may see some mild language and even some risqu images. Please no threads about race, religion, politics, or sexual orientation. Please no self promotion, sign up, or fundraising threads.

View Poll Results: Which conspiracy theories/pseudosciences do you subscribe to?
9/11 was an inside job 25 21.74%
There's more to the JFK assassination 64 55.65%
The moon landing was a hoax 14 12.17%
Reptilian elites control us 6 5.22%
The Illuminati control us 14 12.17%
Creation science 8 6.96%
Aliens have contacted us 38 33.04%
The paranormal/ESP 22 19.13%
Homeopathy 5 4.35%
Other 18 15.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-13-2015, 12:15 AM   #126
cardsrus1
Member
 
cardsrus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomington, Illinois
Posts: 2,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullmetal View Post
Why not ponder it? It is quite fascinating to look at situations from abnormal angles. I don't know if I believe it. There is no empirical studies in existence. I can't even imagine how one would be constructed.
Just playing with you using your own words. I think we need to figure out the 'chicken or egg' debate before worrying about potential space aliens.
__________________
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Users/cardsrus1

Buying 2002-03 BAP Signature Series Short Print autos I need.
I can always be contacted through AOL.com
cardsrus1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:20 AM   #127
BGT Masters
Member
 
BGT Masters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellsville, New York
Posts: 7,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
Just playing with you using your own words. I think we need to figure out the 'chicken or egg' debate before worrying about potential space aliens.
I think the egg came first and the baby inside it was a mutation which later passed down the mutation gene to further generations. So my vote is egg.
__________________
If you have less than 30 feedback or poor feedback I'm going to ask that you send first.
BGT Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:24 AM   #128
GeechQuest
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 3,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
Did a climatologists even exist before Al Gore came along and got rich of his global warming hoax? And now we have 100,000 of them? I am sure they all do it for peanuts. Maybe it is time to kill off all the cows so we can save a polar bear...
I'm not sure anything you just said has anything to do with climate change...but...

-Yes climate scientists have been around in some form or fashion since before you or I were born

-Al Gore didn't get rich off his global warming "hoax". The man sits on the board for Apple, and sold Current TV (founded in 2002, 4 years before "An Inconvenient Truth") for a nice
chunk of change


-I have no idea how many total climate scientists there are. If 100,000 then 99,000 of them will tell you man has factored into climate change

-I have no clue how cows or polar bears relate to any of this

Last edited by GeechQuest; 10-13-2015 at 12:26 AM.
GeechQuest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:44 AM   #129
Rhyster66
Inactive Account
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EB31 View Post
I agree.

Along with Virginia, Oregon, Aurora, LAX, Charleston, Boston....
Boston and Aurora were łgt imo.
Rhyster66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:48 AM   #130
Rhyster66
Inactive Account
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,306
Default

And I believe in Aliens moreso in the case that there is life on other planets, just not nearly as advanced as us. No other Planet in the Galaxy has shown life as intelligent as us, except for Mars. But they were most likely just like us, but perished 3-5 Billion years ago.
Rhyster66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 01:12 AM   #131
NickM
Member
 
NickM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thommy View Post
While yes, it's impossible for us to know for certain, the probability that there's another life form in the universe as developed as humanity is minuscule. Not to mention the fact that it would require traveling hundreds of lightyears which is impossible according to most modern science. When you factor that in the probability is about as close to 0 as anything. It's almost fact, it's very much past reason, and WAY past faith.
The probability that there is another life form in the universe as developed as humans is miniscule?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

On the contrary, there is no sound reason to assume we are special.

And "impossible according to most modern science" is both not correct and displays a fundamental lack of logic..

We have no idea what technology an alien civilization might have that could be used to make survivable space travel a reality (assuming it's even technology, rather than a biological process akin to hibernation).

And appealing to modern science? Why not appeal to the state of science in 50 years? Because we have no idea what "modern" science then would have to say about interstellar travel.

You're quite simply making things up because they make you feel better.
__________________
1st superfractor hit by RK Collectibles. 2014 Bowman Chrome Mini BB Chris Kohler.
"What do we want?"
"Time travel."
"And when do we want it?"
"It's irrelevant."
NickM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 01:20 AM   #132
EB31
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,319
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyster66 View Post
Boston and Aurora were łègït imo.

If you are ever interested, pm me. I can't show you a few things that may make you atleast question the media stories.
EB31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 05:04 AM   #133
chitownbears22
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,692
Default

EB31 is back! I am so excited to read what she has to say next!
chitownbears22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 09:10 AM   #134
zachtruitt
Member
 
zachtruitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,315
Default

I want to believe.
__________________
Interested in Orioles HOFers and current O's. Oakland Raiders HOFers along with Rich Gannon. I am always looking for any Eastern Shore League (1920's to 1947) baseball memorabilia, please PM if you know of any for sale
zachtruitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:01 AM   #135
cardsrus1
Member
 
cardsrus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomington, Illinois
Posts: 2,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeechQuest View Post
I'm not sure anything you just said has anything to do with climate change...but...

-Yes climate scientists have been around in some form or fashion since before you or I were born

-Al Gore didn't get rich off his global warming "hoax". The man sits on the board for Apple, and sold Current TV (founded in 2002, 4 years before "An Inconvenient Truth") for a nice
chunk of change


-I have no idea how many total climate scientists there are. If 100,000 then 99,000 of them will tell you man has factored into climate change

-I have no clue how cows or polar bears relate to any of this
The fact you did not understand the last line proves you really do not understand your own beliefs! Here is some fun reading to debunk your obsession that all scientist or in on the hoax.
__________________
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Users/cardsrus1

Buying 2002-03 BAP Signature Series Short Print autos I need.
I can always be contacted through AOL.com
cardsrus1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:11 AM   #136
Addison
Member
 
Addison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: ...on the beach
Posts: 7,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
The fact you did not understand the last line proves you really do not understand your own beliefs! Here is some fun reading to debunk your obsession that all scientist or in on the hoax.
Nothing screams legitimate like a site called "Health Wyze" who advertises these fine products...

Silver in a Bottle 16 oz



Colloidal Copper Lotion (presumably used by tin foil hat wearers to masturbate)

__________________



\m/(>.<)\m/
Addison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:16 AM   #137
cardsrus1
Member
 
cardsrus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomington, Illinois
Posts: 2,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Addison View Post
Nothing screams legitimate like a site called "Health Wyze" who advertises these fine products...

Silver in a Bottle 16 oz



Colloidal Copper Lotion (presumably used by tin foil hat wearers to masturbate)

That is the best retort you have to The Weather Chanel founder suing Gore?
__________________
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Users/cardsrus1

Buying 2002-03 BAP Signature Series Short Print autos I need.
I can always be contacted through AOL.com
cardsrus1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:19 AM   #138
Addison
Member
 
Addison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: ...on the beach
Posts: 7,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
That is the best retort you have to The Weather Chanel founder suing Gore?
Show me the lawsuit. I can wait.
__________________



\m/(>.<)\m/
Addison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:35 AM   #139
chitownbears22
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
That is the best retort you have to The Weather Chanel founder suing Gore?
Hahahaha, that is a hoax story. I bet your believe all that BS people post on Facebook too. It was a story that started circulating around 2008-09, but no lawsuit was ever filed, just a petition which actually hasn't even seen the light of day.

I don't care about this issue either way. I find it funny though that people like you mock people who believe, and cite unfounded sources. How can anyone take your opinion seriously when your beliefs are founded from hoax articles that have no basis in reality.

Here is an idea, go to school, get access to research databases, and form your own opinion. Acting more intelligent than people and spewing ignorance in the form of fake news articles makes you look just as dumb as people who walk around calling people dumb for being climate deniers.

Hypocrites are hypocrites.
chitownbears22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:45 AM   #140
cardsrus1
Member
 
cardsrus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomington, Illinois
Posts: 2,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chitownbears22 View Post
Hahahaha, that is a hoax story. I bet your believe all that BS people post on Facebook too. It was a story that started circulating around 2008-09, but no lawsuit was ever filed, just a petition which actually hasn't even seen the light of day.

I don't care about this issue either way. I find it funny though that people like you mock people who believe, and cite unfounded sources. How can anyone take your opinion seriously when your beliefs are founded from hoax articles that have no basis in reality.

Here is an idea, go to school, get access to research databases, and form your own opinion. Acting more intelligent than people and spewing ignorance in the form of fake news articles makes you look just as dumb as people who walk around calling people dumb for being climate deniers.

Hypocrites are hypocrites.
Both sides of the argument are unfounded sources. There will never be 100% proof one way or another that climate change is man made.
__________________
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Users/cardsrus1

Buying 2002-03 BAP Signature Series Short Print autos I need.
I can always be contacted through AOL.com
cardsrus1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 11:52 AM   #141
chitownbears22
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
Both sides of the argument are unfounded sources. There will never be 100% proof one way or another that climate change is man made.
Right, but you are criticizing other people's beliefs because they don't align with your opinion. And your agenda is furthered by articles that are not based in reality.

If you would have said "In my opinion there is not enough evidence for either side to be 100% certain they are correct, therefore I have an open mind about the possibility the theory could or could not be true." you would look a lot better. Instead you went the other direction, you declared for one side and are now saying your cannot prove it one way or the other.

You have no idea where you stand.
chitownbears22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:08 PM   #142
mainerunr
Member
 
mainerunr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chitownbears22 View Post
Right, but you are criticizing other people's beliefs because they don't align with your opinion. And your agenda is furthered by articles that are not based in reality.

If you would have said "In my opinion there is not enough evidence for either side to be 100% certain they are correct, therefore I have an open mind about the possibility the theory could or could not be true." you would look a lot better. Instead you went the other direction, you declared for one side and are now saying your cannot prove it one way or the other.

You have no idea where you stand.
Unfortunately, both sides have dug their heels in on the subject and neither side seems open to the probability that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the claims made by each side.

I tend to argue against because I do not believe that it is 'settled science' and I also know how easy it is to reverse engineer the model to fit the agenda (because there are plenty of variables that we do not have valid values for so they estimate them and the estimate is made to fit the expected outcome).

What I would like to see is a model that uses data up to say 15 years ago and spits out data for this year that matches this year...with multiple iterations that fit for the last five years. I have yet to see a model that did not grossly overshoot what should already have happened by now. That alone tells me that those doing the modeling clearly do not have a handle on this.
mainerunr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:10 PM   #143
lobo_hacker
Member
 
lobo_hacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,579
Send a message via Yahoo to lobo_hacker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mainerunr View Post
...

What I would like to see is a model that uses data up to say 15 years ago and spits out data for this year that matches this year...with multiple iterations that fit for the last five years. I have yet to see a model that did not grossly overshoot what should already have happened by now. That alone tells me that those doing the modeling clearly do not have a handle on this.
-Some people doing the modeling actually do. Lots, really. From Svante Arrhenius to James Hansen to the IPCC and points in between, all have had success in the macro sense. Some details they didn't account correctly for, but none of those had anything to do with invalidating the hypothesis that an increase in climate energy cause by humans is observable and harmful. Just because it isn't as bad as some have predicted doesn't mean it isn't bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMPKCP View Post
Quoted to show how misinformed the general population is...even educated adults can have no clue what they're talking about. It will be interesting in 50,000 years when the next ice age occurs who the hippies decide to blame that event on...
-So.......that'd be a 'no' on source material?

Got it.

Thanks!

lobo_hacker, wondering where one gets an education on climate other than reading and observing results from the study of the climate

Last edited by lobo_hacker; 10-13-2015 at 12:17 PM.
lobo_hacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:16 PM   #144
fullmetal
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,266
Default

The great thing about scientific research is that it is published for peer review and public review. Any individual can read it and form their own conclusion
Any individual can also find.errors and report them
Nothing is secret. Hypotheses and experimentation further support or discredit past scientific theory. Science welcomes counterarguments. Without them everything we use would be based on unsubstantiated faith, similar to religion, which disregards oppositional evidence.

Einsten has had theories over ruled and he would have welcomed it. It strengthens what we do know and how we go about creating future experiments.

As humans all we really can do is postulate hypotheses and then design experimentations that will provide evidence for or against that hypothesis. 100s of years of experimentation can be disproved by one experiment. That is why science is amazing and so alive.

Last edited by fullmetal; 10-13-2015 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Bumpy car ride
fullmetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:19 PM   #145
JosieD
Member
 
JosieD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 17,694
Default

If the human species didn't have something to do with our current climate and the changes it has gone through, why do some areas have a layer of smog? Why is there acid rain?
__________________
#TEAMConnor #TeamLeoneez

"A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money." John Ruskin
JosieD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:20 PM   #146
chitownbears22
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mainerunr View Post
Unfortunately, both sides have dug their heels in on the subject and neither side seems open to the probability that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the claims made by each side.
I tend to argue against because I do not believe that it is 'settled science' and I also know how easy it is to reverse engineer the model to fit the agenda (because there are plenty of variables that we do not have valid values for so they estimate them and the estimate is made to fit the expected outcome).

What I would like to see is a model that uses data up to say 15 years ago and spits out data for this year that matches this year...with multiple iterations that fit for the last five years. I have yet to see a model that did not grossly overshoot what should already have happened by now. That alone tells me that those doing the modeling clearly do not have a handle on this.
I agree with the bolded. As for my opinion on it, I can be firmly put in the "Jay Cutler Category" Dontttttttttttttttttttt Carrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre LOL.

If I wanted to worry about things like that I would have went to school to study it so I could converse logically. I believe in things like wind, solar, nuclear energy long-term, not because of climate issues, but because I think they will make us less dependent on an energy source that is limited. These are not 100% perfect options as of now, but I believe that technology advances rapidly to create more efficient and cost effective versions of that technology. I have drove a '29 Ford Model A, a 60's Cadillac, an 88 Ford Bronco, a 96 Honda Accord, and a 06 Chrysler 300. Innovation moved rapidly in cars, and the same can be said with computing, home-building, etc.

Who cares about the climate, we should be innovating for efficiency and long-term sustainability.
chitownbears22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:22 PM   #147
cardsrus1
Member
 
cardsrus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomington, Illinois
Posts: 2,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chitownbears22 View Post
Right, but you are criticizing other people's beliefs because they don't align with your opinion. And your agenda is furthered by articles that are not based in reality.

If you would have said "In my opinion there is not enough evidence for either side to be 100% certain they are correct, therefore I have an open mind about the possibility the theory could or could not be true." you would look a lot better. Instead you went the other direction, you declared for one side and are now saying your cannot prove it one way or the other.

You have no idea where you stand.
I have been pretty clear, I have been criticizing the belief that people have started to believe science to be based on fact, when it is in reality based on assumptions.
__________________
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Users/cardsrus1

Buying 2002-03 BAP Signature Series Short Print autos I need.
I can always be contacted through AOL.com
cardsrus1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:24 PM   #148
GeechQuest
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 3,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
Both sides of the argument are unfounded sources. There will never be 100% proof one way or another that climate change is man made.
I think it's safe to say that the argument for climate change is completely founded in decades of research by the top scientists in their field of study.

I couldn't even begin to tell you where the argument against climate change came from...
GeechQuest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:26 PM   #149
cardsrus1
Member
 
cardsrus1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bloomington, Illinois
Posts: 2,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeechQuest View Post
I think it's safe to say that the argument for climate change is completely founded in decades of research by the top scientists in their field of study.

I couldn't even begin to tell you where the argument against climate change came from...
But they are still making assumptions. Climate "change" has been going on for millions of years, long before we started raping the planet.
__________________
http://www.checkoutmycards.com/Users/cardsrus1

Buying 2002-03 BAP Signature Series Short Print autos I need.
I can always be contacted through AOL.com
cardsrus1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2015, 12:26 PM   #150
chitownbears22
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsrus1 View Post
I have been pretty clear, I have been criticizing the belief that people have started to believe science to be based on fact, when it is in reality based on assumptions.
Right, but they are assumptions that are publically released and open for criticism/expansion.

Saying "it is dumb to believe science because it is based on assumptions" is just as ludicrous as saying "I believe in science because it is science".

The scientific method is designed to accept/encourage criticism, so attacking science as a whole is crazy.
chitownbears22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Blowout Cards Inc.