• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Pacific Science Center

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

I go with 9mm.

And if you look at our fossil record it looks like earth spent more time in a naturally warm state than a cold one. Large Mammals eating and thriving in what is now a tundra enviroment.

As kids we would go fossil hunting out by Larrabee and find tropical fossils.

If anything the fossil record proves we didn't get here by evolution, otherwise the majority of fossils would be the "missing links". The religious groups haven't proved anything to me yet either. So I remain open minded until something is proven. Otherwise I just won't worry about it too much and go about my life.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
As far as evolution; there is no example EVER in a new species developing from another. Therefore evolution does not exist. What most people commonly get confused is a species adapting to the environment over time. This is not the same.
Hey, a claim that is almost testable (depends how much you play the definition game)!

Let's start with this definition: a population with an identifiable set of traits that splits into a group with the same set of traits and a group that has traits that are different of those which initially defined the species. For example, E. Coli is unable to metabolize citrate, it's one of the defining characterizations of the species. Well, until you observe it happening in lab: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

What about the other definition, though, which is a bit easier for the layman to understand: where a group of sexually compatible for the purposes of reproduction split into two groups, each of which is sexually compatible within itself, but where one is no longer able to reproduce with the other. Surely, if I could show one case of that, I would disprove the claim that "there is no example ever blah blah blah." Instead of repeating other words, how about some links?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

To paraphrase a quote I heard before, but cannot remember the source: It amazes me that people who believe in the christian god have such a narrow view of the universe. Rather than seeking answers to all the mysteries of the universe, they are content to say all of the universe's answers are in a book written by nomadic sheep herders two thousand years ago. Rather than staring in wonder at a night sky and thinking the universe is infinitely more complex and bigger than those desert wanderers could have hoped to comprehend, these people would rather say "no, my god is small and limited! these words encapsulate everything! they're everything one needs!" Instead of being open to the idea that maybe, those nomads with their myths were simply exploring the world and universe from their extremely limited viewpoint, one that could grow and even change as new facts were found about the universe, these modern people would rather the world remain mired in the definitions given to them by writers so primitive that knowledge we now take for granted wasn't even to be known for another 3 millenia.
 

tiggr9

New member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
7
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Thanks joerocket. That's what I was curious about. Don't really know how the other topics came about.

XD grip fits very nicely in most hands, even my sis-law, 4'11" 105lbs wet, has no problems with it compared to her duty Glock 19.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
imported post

OK so who's got the little smiley-eating-popcorn icon? :uhoh:





For my part, I like good ol' 45ACP. Not saying it's better than anything else out there, *I* just like how it shoots.

And Tawnos, I think you're painting all Christians & people of faith in general with a pretty broad brush there. Science and religion are NOT mutual exclusive.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:
OK so who's got the little smiley-eating-popcorn icon? :uhoh:





For my part, I like good ol' 45ACP. Not saying it's better than anything else out there, *I* just like how it shoots.

And Tawnos, I think you're painting all Christians & people of faith in general with a pretty broad brush there. Science and religion are NOT mutual exclusive.

I laugh at how sometimes evolutionist and christians talk about each other like the Brady bunch talk about guns. It has more to do with personal detestment and hatred than reasoning.

And the book of Isiah talked about the sphere of the earth hanging upon nothing. Pretty scientifically acurate for 2500 years or more ago.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
imported post

The hot air from my video card fan is keeping it thawed!

Interesting to find out that the PSC believes all that.

Science is constantly changing. New discoveries are made, sometimes disproving old ones. Guess if I ever go there, I'll have to CC.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
imported post

GreatWhiteLlama wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
Hopefully this thread is frozen.
Not yet...

How about we explain why the libertarian party is more logically sound and patriotic than both the democratic and republican parties combined.

*twirls mustache*
No explanation needed for me, it's self evident in my view!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

G22Paddy wrote:
GreatWhiteLlama wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
Hopefully this thread is frozen.
Not yet...

How about we explain why the libertarian party is more logically sound and patriotic than both the democratic and republican parties combined.

*twirls mustache*
No explanation needed for me, it's self evident in my view!
Yep seems that wayand I don't like party politics.
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

I just want to establish this for anyone reading:

Being a member of and/or supporting the Tea Party movement does not make you a "Libertarian."

Seems to be quite a grab fest on the "Libertarian" buzzword right now.

Example: Sarah Palin is NOT a Libertarian.

I'm done. Carry on.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Was the TeaParty mentioned?

Libertarian as a buzzword? good, hopefully more people will start having libertarian leanings then and be curious what libertarians believe in.
 

skiingislife725

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Lake Stevens, WA
imported post

I don't want to get off topic but I have to throw in my two cents since this thread has already gone down the sh(tter.

gogodawgs wrote:
The only thing that determines the source of weather/climate and all energy is the Sun.
Having just graduated with a B.S. in environmental science and having read a fair amount of scientific journal articles on the topic of anthropogenic climate change, I'm going to have to throw in my two cents on the topic of the sun as it relates...or doesn't to the recent trends in our global climate. From what I've read, studies looking at solar activity correlate somewhat to our climate trends some of the time, but have negative correlations in other periods. In short, solar activity doesn't answer what is going on right now.

Recent papers on the topic:
  • Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
  • Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
  • Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
  • Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
  • Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
  • Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
  • Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
  • Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
  • Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
  • Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
  • Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
  • Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
  • Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
  • Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
  • Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
  • Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
  • Frolich 1998concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
 

SpyderTattoo

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,015
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
OT: I like 9mm - I can carry 1 magazine that holds as many rounds as a single .45 mag, with comparable or superior performance, depending on the metrics used.

I have a Glock 30 (.45 ACP) that carries 10 + 1. I also have a Glock 21 (.45 ACP) that carries 13+1, and with 2 extra mags, that's 40 rounds of carried .45 ACP... Um, the capacity argument is void.

Also, to the other poster, with my .45 I don't need 3 shots to the chest (compared to your example of the 9mm), I only need one... ;)
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

G22Paddy wrote:
My view on
very controllable and awesome with good hollowpoint rounds. is more snappy and has more energy, andhas heaviermore like a really heavy push,

It's all personal preference. They'll all do damage, they'll all get the job done. I would wanna be hit by any of em! Looking at this picture, it seems they all have similar penetration.

handgungelcomparison.jpg




Back on topic:

If you call, ask if they're privately owned or owned by the city. If privately owned, you're probably better off CC unless you wanna test the waters to see if they say anything. If city owned, OC away and bring a prophylactic.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
They are an independent non-profit group.

They believe in evolution and man mad global warming.

Why would you want to go there?

The reason I brought it up is because the evolution and man mad global warming crowd is the same crowd you find at the UN building and are opposed to arms in the hands of citizens.

As far as evolution; there is no example EVER in a new species developing from another. Therefore evolution does not exist. What most people commonly get confused is a species adapting to the environment over time. This is not the same.

As fa as 'man made' global warming; scientifically speaking you cannot take a sample of 130 years of data from over 6 billion years and make a conclusion. (I have read the entire UN IPCCreport and it is flawed from its base) That is not scientifically sound. The climate has moderated and changed for the last 6 billion years and there is no long term effect that man can have to change it. The only thing that determines the source of weather/climate and all energy is the Sun.
You mean global warming is caused by the GIANT BALL OF FIRE we have next to us ? It couldnt be that.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

END_THE_FED wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
They are an independent non-profit group.

They believe in evolution and man mad global warming.

Why would you want to go there?

The reason I brought it up is because the evolution and man mad global warming crowd is the same crowd you find at the UN building and are opposed to arms in the hands of citizens.

As far as evolution; there is no example EVER in a new species developing from another. Therefore evolution does not exist. What most people commonly get confused is a species adapting to the environment over time. This is not the same.

As fa as 'man made' global warming; scientifically speaking you cannot take a sample of 130 years of data from over 6 billion years and make a conclusion. (I have read the entire UN IPCCreport and it is flawed from its base) That is not scientifically sound. The climate has moderated and changed for the last 6 billion years and there is no long term effect that man can have to change it. The only thing that determines the source of weather/climate and all energy is the Sun.
You mean global warming is caused by the GIANT BALL OF FIRE we have next to us ? It couldnt be that.
How many millions of years have we been coming out of the ice age? And theres only a few places left to melt.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

*yawn* Big Business sure makes a lot of profit on this global warming..

I personally don't believe that climate change is that extreme when compared to past days. There have been record lows in certain places as well. With that said, I agree, that, as humans, we should each do our part to keep the world we live in clean. There's no justifiable reason to go out of our way to purposely destroy our planet. That should be a no brainer. I don't think corporations purposely go out of their way with that intention in mind, but greed is the ultimate common denominator here. Powerful people seek more power, even if it means harm for others, or our environment. I think I'm swaying a bit from my own topic, so I'll get back on it.

Do I think humans have caused a drastic increase in climate? Nah, not really. Do I think we're capable of doing it? Absolutely! We also need to take into consideration the type of living conditions that we're setting for future generations. Some people don't really take it in to consideration, or care, and I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, but I do myself.

Now to end this off, I will say that major corporations, and even big government has made a KILLER profit on the "global warming" and "go green" phase. Big Business and Big Government have taken advantage of the marketing of global warming, and have fattened their pockets and bank accounts by feeding off of the fear of the consumer, thinking that they have to "go green" in order to make a difference in the world. Others may disagree with me here, and that's fine, but in my opinion, global warming is a tool used to instill fear into the consumer in order to buy "green products".

In the end, and to answer my own questions - No, I don't think global warming is an immediate or near future threat, but that doesn't mean that it may not be at some point. Seeing how I don't consider it a threat, I don't consider it "man made" or "natural". If there is an increase in climate, I don't feel the damages could be severe enough to make it a serious problem. Finally, yes, I think it's a huge scam!
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Well, luckily for me, I'll be buried before it becomes an issue, if global warming is real...You know, the whole sea rising 100s of ft, cats and dogs living together, fire and brimstone kine stuff...

On the other hand, people who don't accept that the sea levels are rising and things are changing, whether or not it is man made, need to learn to swim really, really, really well.

I mean, the Grand Banks in the Atlantic were dry land at one time. Alexandria wasn't BUILT underwater, it didn't sink...the water rose...

But, then again, some people think the world is ending in December, 2012, too, so what the heck...
 
Top