Reece101

and therein is a problem with some who cannot imagine a condition beyond the end of the nose...

They don't think. You said it; I'll acknowledge.

I repeat: you propose hypotheticals, and deny mine?

who says there cannot be a planet of demons? Your sock puppet?

Most demons are associated with a type of knowledge.

We're dealing here with hypotheticals. You can propose hype, but I cannot?

So, if their tech outmatches ours, what is the rationale that they find us threatening, and thus must be wiped out?What threat, if were stone age by comparison, and they can hurl stones interstellar distances? When we've barely hurled a stone beyond our little solar system? Economies of scale, my friend, find you sorely wanting.

They already have, they control our richest and most powerful and have another name; demons.

What point? The errant point that I brought up demons? Sorry, that bird has flown, so that must be an egg, not a point on the head. You have no point

Faith is the medium by which all fear is defearted.

Why can't aliens be spiritual beings?

For that matter, why can't demons be physical beings?

You would be surprised by the number of things that are "mathematically possible". Still it doesn't prove that one could feasibly build one, even with superior technology.

And no, there is no reason for such an invasion. This topic is merely a "Hollywood concept", the twist is that we apply logic to it, without scrutinicing its premise.

The thing is though, distance in space is vast --- really vast. Travelling at speeds upwards of C would essentially be to cut away all communication with your home. The aliens could not get access to the experience of other invasions. In fact, they would lag behind technologically. Unless their spaceships are literal planets, they won't be able to improve on their technology during their travels. Therefore, the distance between them and us, in lightyears, dictate the difficulty of invading us. 

Assumption: Intelligent aliens exist, and they match or outperform our intelligence. They also have a technological head start

Question: would the aliens be able to launch a successful invasion of Earth?

calibration accuracy to replace the executive summary of the 2007 ASIC3 report because the instrumentation dewscribed in this update still refers to calibration technology/equipment developed prior to 2007.

"Instrument calibrations lack traceability to International Standards (SI) units, sensors and onboard calibration sources degrade in orbit, long term data sets must be stitched together from a series of overlapping satellite observations, orbital drift—leading to a changing time of satellite observing time during the satellite’s lifetime—"

Did I say all the predicted disasters were climate-related? No. You merely think I have a one-track mind.

As for the rest, what, you enter one search term and expect that to suffice? No, I will not give you leads. You're not paying me to be your tutor. If you care enough, you will do your own research. Yeah, if you want it bad enough, you will even bleed for it. So bleed. I've done mine.

While you're at at, why don't you see if just temperature measurement devices are all calibrated properly and frequently enough [at least annually], and sensitive enough [the measurement capability must be at least 10x the desired accuracy - in other words, if the incremental measurement needs to be accurate to 1.5 C, then the device needs to demonstrate incremental accuracy of 0.15 C] to assure the measurements are truly reproducible and repeatable accurate data. Hmmmm? IF not, the data will be flawed. I happen to be an expert in this realm, and I don't see this assurance from your experts. I've looked. Have you?

Have you eve read HR109 of the 116th Congress? That piece of shyte that is supposed to be directed at climate change? Ha! Another agenda. And, no, I won't give you the lead on that one either for the same reason as above. You're on your own. Figure out how to do research. You'll think better of yourself n the end.

You ignore that I am old enough to have listened to "experts" say:

Communism will sweep the nation unless we eradicate commies from our shores. Nope, didn't happen.

There are about 2 dozen other predictions by "experts," based on climate, all to have occurred by now, 2021, that didn't happen.

So, how jaded do you think I am when all these "experts" are 0 - for a lot of failed predictions, yet someone gullible is in every crowd. They're all based on science? Funny thing, science is supposed to depend on empiric evidence, not some cloud-cleaner's crystal ball.

Of CO2, I presume you mean.

You maintain there is too much, based on what measure? Yes, I acknowledge that we see historic levels of CO2 in the environment, whether on the ground, in the water, or in the atmosphere. But, what says that "too much" is, indeed, excessive? Simply because it's historic? I have a glass. I fill it to half it's containable volume. Then, I declare, because it has been at a half-glass level for a long time [and we suspend evaporation for purposes of argument], that the half-glass condition is "normal." Then , for reasons that can be discussed [but are not yet hard science], I add half again in volume; an additional 1/4 of the glass's total containable volume, but I declare, again for reasons that can be discussed [but are not yet hard science], that if another ml. of water is added, we will overflow the glass. Again, I ask, based upon what measure is my latter statement justified? As I look at the volume potential of the glass, and the measured amount of water in it, I can see clearly that we are not yet at any threshold that would overflow the glass. Our problem with climate change alarm is that we have no idea what the potential volume of the Earth is that exhibits a hardline threshold, over which the containment of CO2 is truly excessive. We're guessing, strictly based upon the fact that the measurable past of CO2 containment has never been as high as now. What levels have we seen in pre-history? We don't know.

Not to mention that you keep mentioning CO2 in ignorance of the mention of CH4. Is that by agenda, that CO2 can be targeted as having its worst affect by anthropogenic cause, but that natural wetlands produce more CH4 into the water, land and atmosphere, and is worse than CO2 by effect by a factor of 24x, than CO2, and that anthropogenic cause of CH4 is less than half [more like 1/3] of total CH4 levels in the environment, and that natural, and cultivated [like rice] wetlands contribute close to 65%, but nobody who is a GND proponent will admit that? That's wehat I mean by an agenda.

Okay, you argue, we are in our sixth period of mass extinction. So? Tell me how many of those other five periods included anthropogenic cause of alarm? And I challenge a denial that adaptation occurs in response to climatic events. Show me that biodiversity is merely theory; that we do not, in fact, observe its occurrence. 

A theory, my friend, that NASA will not confirm. That CO2 [although, it appears, by the science, that CH4 is a more efficient GHG-producing effect] is a GHG agent is certainly a plausible cause of Venus' current status, notwithstanding, it does not discount the possibility, n o, the probability of species adaptation

You're in a circular argument. Storage is absorption. And there's a tax somehow involved? Yeah, there is; it's called charging carbon credits. That's an excise. Sure that's what you meant?

What anti-Semetic dog whistle? Reaching for a slur that isn't there.  I mentioned nothing about Semites, or dogs, or their whistles. You're ging to have to explain that comment.

Curious that we count death with greater apparent accuracy than life. Your cited article regarding mass extinction says nothing of biodiversity; the article I cited, as if biodiversity is a myth to be ignored. Your extinction article does not give biodiversity, or speciation, a mention. Gee, why not? I see agenda warnings all over. I will acknowledge that the website you cite does have a biodiversity section in the menu, but, what is the current top story? Food systems [showing cows as a graphic] causing 30% of GHG emission. Take a guess what takes most of that pie: wetlands. And a big contributor: rice production: all told, over 50% of GHG's, in particular, CH4. So, eat your rice, but leave my steak alone.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/should-we-eat-less-rice/

Did they? What credentials affirm that consequence, let alone the original condition?

Meanwhile, according to NASA, Venus may have had water. No certainty. Even if it did, was there a humanoid population causing climate change? On that, NASA says naught. So, your conjecture is not accepted.

If the waters of Earth are filled with CO2 to capacity, why do we still call them "sinks?"

So, why belabor the point? No points awarded for belaboring in the Forum.

That link's article subject is not about climate change of any source; anthropo- or by gazelles. You're expecting apples from an orange tree? Go fish.

Fact according to whom? Your sock puppet? Sorry, credibility. At least I cited an article supporting the idea of in creased speciation, in spite of extinction. Your source? And if you have one, define why your source is any more correct than mine. That's part of research responsibility.

Show me the oceans, lakes, rivers and wetlands on Venus, all of which function, among other benefits, as  very effective CO2 sinks.

And, so climatologists, those brilliant, age-old scientists [all of 200 years], are claiming the oceans are rising. Becoming greater, even more efficient CO2 sinks, yeah?

Yes, as with any change effect of the environment, amassing CO2 in the oceans [and other water] has an effect on the eco-system, but, what cannot be immediately observed is the amazing capacity of life to adapt to changing condition. In fact, one paper, specifically directed to the study of climate change, and its effect on biodiversity, suggests that inspite of the claimed extinction increase specifically blamed on climate change, biodiversity [adaptation] is increasing. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pala.12057

How do you quantify "indirectly".

I suppose that it could be said, that everything is an emergent property of evolution.

How is the blueprint for identity an emergent property of evolution?

What is the blueprint for identity?

How so?

I believe the exact opposite; that identity is eternal.

Yes, God knows all things [may not yet have experienced all things, however, but that's entirely another thread].

However, that it no way interferes with our having the gift to be agents unto ourselves. That God knows what we will do has no bearing on what we, ourselves, will choose to do. It merely means that if we choose to follow the plan God has for us, we will end up thinking and doing the things he expects. If we do not, again, by our choice, we will not end up where his plan would have put us, but that was entirely by our choice, as said.

God knows in advance how and what we will choose, and will support, but not coerce, anyone.

Actually, I have a pretty good idea. I met and spoke with Dr. James Watson when he lectured at UCLA in 1966, which was a mile from home.

Telomeres do not, by themselves, establish age. Who told you that? Tell that numbskull they have no idea.

Telomeres protect the DNA strand from rampant degradation, but they start to breakdown by repetitive generations. That's their purpose, to take the hits that would, otherwise, hit the functional genetic molecule's information. They are, therefore, affected by age, but in no way establish age limit.

They ultimately succumb to aging at different times for different people, depending on their prudence of lifestyle and contraction of disease, the greater majority of which is also dictated, according to the CDC, more by imprudent lifestyle than by any clock or circumstance of infection.