The Earths Response To The 2040 Astaroid

[clapstyx]

The news from NASA is that there is an astaroid due to hit within the lifetime of many who live amoung us on this day. It is terrible news that nobody wants to hear or talk about and its likely that it will become a taboo subject. History shows us that wars end when there is a common foe and the Earth is called to a consolidated response. Its a real life mission of resolve that we all have to come to grips with. It is a survival challenge of the highest order which will test the strength of our inspiration to find harmony with positivity. We have never faced this situation before in world history and it is amportant that we stay focussed on the complete truth so that our judgement is not misguided.

 

Today there is a theological argument that it is God's will that we be annihilated. Deeper investigation of this situation may reveal that God lost control of the universe and its up to us to win it back. In calling on all universal forces of assistance in the first instance I call on all world leaders to focus on the common mission.

[Turtle]

bullshit.

[modest]

According to NASA,

NASA knows of no asteroid or comet currently on a collision course with Earth, so the probability of a major collision is quite small. In fact, as best as we can tell, no large object is likely to strike the Earth any time in the next several hundred years.

 

-

The Probability of Collisions with Earth

 

~modest

[Eclogite]

Clapstyx what is the source for your erroneous prediction of a 2040 asteroid strike?

 

Secondly, can you give an example to support this claim: "History shows us that wars end when there is a common foe and the Earth is called to a consolidated response."

[Turtle]

allow me to elaborate, as is the fashion. hell, i bet this drivel gets batted around for weeks for that matter.

 

first, claplips is a long time member and knows full well the response coming to his religio-pseudo-scientific assertions. no problem for a troll. bullshit.

 

next, clipraps started a similar thread- sans the dog threats- but dating a strike to 2016 just a few days ago. >> Truth About The Astaroid Heading For Earth In 2016 it garnered well-intended & referenced posts from 3 moderators/admins und moi. claptrap ignored those replies, took a nasa story i quoted on the 2040 asteroid from there and brought it over here in a new thread all dressed up for church. bullshit.

 

never mind there is currently only a 1% chance of this hitting us, and never mind as more data is gathred that chance is likely to decrease and never mind this kind of bullshit annoys members & does not belong on our board. bullshit.

 

it's "asteroid" cliptrap; not "astaroid".

 

well, as i said; bullshit.

[Eclogite]

Turtle, you are mistaken. Let me explain why I think so.

 

Here is my understanding of the function of this site in my own words. I believe it is close in spirit, if not necessarily in letter, to Tormod's original vision and to the intentions of the current admin team.

 

The site is intended to promote the value of science, to acquaint members and visitors with scientific discoveries, to provide a place where members may discuss scientific discoveries, theories and methods.

 

The quality of science education is a concern in many parts of the world. Those uneducated in science often have a distorted view of it, garnered from the popular media, TV documentaries and SF. Many young people (and some not so young) are intrigued by mystery and attracted to the bizarre; others are inclined to challenge authority or to be suspicious of the status quo; and others are motivated by religious beliefs to be suspicious of science.

 

Then we throw into this mix, and into this forum, posts and threads that are clearly - to those of us with some science literacy - the purest nonsense, or at best a serious misinterpretation of reality. How should we handle such instances?

 

Your approach seems to be a dual one of denigrating the author of the idea and berating the admin team for giving the idea bandwidth. That may be a valid approach, but to me it is not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the forum. I see these instances as marvellous opportunities for educating the people referred to two paragraphs back about science. By querying the author of any misguided ideas and providing appropriate commentary this aim is achievable. I have only minor expectation in such cases of convincing the OP, but what of the lurkers who come to the site?

 

Right now there is a young person sifting through google and looking for hits about doomsday asteroids. They chance across this thread. What impression do they form of science when they sse your response? I suggest they interpret it as a dogmatic, close minded, unimaginative stance. They will tend to be driven to the more exciting, the more controversial position of the OP. Science will have lost a recruit and they will have lost an opportunity to enrich their lives.

 

So, I hope the forum continues to attract the weird and crazy and the poorly informed and the illogical thinkers, for it gives us a glorious opportunity to demonstrate how things should be done and to awaken an interest in real science.

[Turtle]

Turtle, you are mistaken. Let me explain why I think so.

 

Here is my understanding of the function of this site in my own words. I believe it is close in spirit, if not necessarily in letter, to Tormod's original vision and to the intentions of the current admin team.

 

The site is intended to promote the value of science, to acquaint members and visitors with scientific discoveries, to provide a place where members may discuss scientific discoveries, theories and methods.

 

The quality of science education is a concern in many parts of the world. Those uneducated in science often have a distorted view of it, garnered from the popular media, TV documentaries and SF. Many young people (and some not so young) are intrigued by mystery and attracted to the bizarre; others are inclined to challenge authority or to be suspicious of the status quo; and others are motivated by religious beliefs to be suspicious of science.

 

Then we throw into this mix, and into this forum, posts and threads that are clearly - to those of us with some science literacy - the purest nonsense, or at best a serious misinterpretation of reality. How should we handle such instances?

 

Your approach seems to be a dual one of denigrating the author of the idea and berating the admin team for giving the idea bandwidth. That may be a valid approach, but to me it is not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the forum. I see these instances as marvellous opportunities for educating the people referred to two paragraphs back about science. By querying the author of any misguided ideas and providing appropriate commentary this aim is achievable. I have only minor expectation in such cases of convincing the OP, but what of the lurkers who come to the site?

 

Right now there is a young person sifting through google and looking for hits about doomsday asteroids. They chance across this thread. What impression do they form of science when they sse your response? I suggest they interpret it as a dogmatic, close minded, unimaginative stance. They will tend to be driven to the more exciting, the more controversial position of the OP. Science will have lost a recruit and they will have lost an opportunity to enrich their lives.

 

So, I hope the forum continues to attract the weird and crazy and the poorly informed and the illogical thinkers, for it gives us a glorious opportunity to demonstrate how things should be done and to awaken an interest in real science.

 

i call 'em the way i see 'em. "alternative" theory? yeah right.

[Eclogite]

i call 'em the way i see 'em. "alternative" theory? yeah right.

I took time to craft a carefully constructed post, which I felt was relevant: not necessarily correct, but relevant. I was therefore disappointed by your rather trite response and puzzled by your derisive snort about "alternative theory". I didn't mention alternative theory in my post, except implicitly to say that we should seek to educate people about how to assess alternaitve theories.

 

I'd like to hear from you, in more detail, what you feel is faulty about my idea. Since I argue that "this bullshit" has a place on the board, since I beleive "this bullshit" should be welcomed for the educational opportunities is provides, and since I intend to continue to address "this bullshit" until you, or anyone else, explains to me what is wrong with my approach.

[Turtle]

I took time to craft a carefully constructed post, which I felt was relevant: not necessarily correct, but relevant. I was therefore disappointed by your rather trite response and puzzled by your derisive snort about "alternative theory". I didn't mention alternative theory in my post, except implicitly to say that we should seek to educate people about how to assess alternaitve theories.

 

I'd like to hear from you, in more detail, what you feel is faulty about my idea. Since I argue that "this bullshit" has a place on the board, since I beleive "this bullshit" should be welcomed for the educational opportunities is provides, and since I intend to continue to address "this bullshit" until you, or anyone else, explains to me what is wrong with my approach.

 

sure eclog. maybe you didn't take the time to read my first elaboration of the facts here? my reference to "alternative theory" is referring to the fact that one of the admins moved this thread from earth science to Alternative Theorys, while there is no [scientific] theory put forward in the op. at best this topic is a silly claim. then i, then buffy, then craig, then you gave claptrap the benefit of the doubt in the first thread he started on a 2016 asteroid and we all presented educational opportunities in our replies. clipclop ignored our responses, took the 2040 asteroid i referenced in my educational opportunity reply over there with a currently 99% chance of missing earth, and started this thread based on the false implication it was going to hit earth and added "Deeper investigation of this situation may reveal that God lost control of the universe and its up to us to win it back."

 

that my friend is trolling of the bullshit kind. clopplop has no intention of learning anything here, rather the intention is to annoy, proselytize and otherwise crap up our board. let's see... top of the Hypography rules section: "If you plan to post messages for which you do not want to be responsible - well, these are the wrong forums for you." shortly after that: "If you want an alternative forum which does not focus on science, we have a sister forum for general chit-chat called PostMagnet which might be of interest." [our sister site is no longer PostMagnet; it is Creativity Forums] then maybe more from the Rules, "■ Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned." or "Posted hoax theories without doing proper research (this is a science forum, not a forum for fanatic nuts)".

 

 

the lessons -you " young person sifting through google and looking for hits about doomsday asteroids"- is "do not suffer fools gladly." , "call a fig a fig and a trough a trough" [and per se "a bullshit a bullshit."], and "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." rest assured i intend to continue those lessons whenever the opportunity presents itself. :)

 

and eclogite, your implication that i am dogmatic, closed minded, and unimaginative flys in the face of my threads here, few of which i have ever had the pleasure to see you participate in. thanks for nothing. :)

Edited September 28, 2012 by Turtle

[Knothead]

So, I hope the forum continues to attract the weird and crazy and the poorly informed and the illogical thinkers, for it gives us a glorious opportunity to demonstrate how things should be done and to awaken an interest in real science.

 

I like that. The first sentence describes me all too well.

 

I don't mind being told I'm a fool if it's done without anger and derision. (though I probably deserve it).

 

Turtle, Please don't take this post as an attack on you. I can only imagine how it must try your patience dealing with people like me sometimes. I see a youtube video about hydrogen generating cars that run on water and my first inclination is to want to believe it. I wanted to believe that Ron Paul had a chance to win the nomination. Silly, I know.

I come here to get brought back to earth. Be gentle. :)

[Turtle]

...I don't mind being told I'm a fool if it's done without anger and derision. (though I probably deserve it).

 

Turtle, Please don't take this post as an attack on you. I can only imagine how it must try your patience dealing with people like me sometimes. I see a youtube video about hydrogen generating cars that run on water and my first inclination is to want to believe it. I wanted to believe that Ron Paul had a chance to win the nomination. Silly, I know.

I come here to get brought back to earth. Be gentle. :)

 

oh i'll be gentle...i'll use the velvet whip on you.

 

but honestly knothead, your genuine "simple" ignorance is not the willful ignorance i greet with anger & derision. not even close. that you and eclog and the rest of the staff cannot see -or acknowledge- that i make that distinction dumbfounds me. moreover, the implication that my criticisms are willy-nilly broad-brush & damn-everyone who posts a question or challenge in good faith rather pisses me off given all of the posts i have made that contradict the implication.

 

do you, knothead, question my evidence and claims about this specific thread and op poster? do you really think you are of the same ilk as claptrap? if so, then maybe the velevet whip isn't for you after all and a cat-o-nine-tails is in order.

 

why bother posting rules at all if there is no intention -let alone will- to enforce them?

 

anyway, it's late and i have to beat the children to sleep before i can turn in so i bid a good even to all. sleep tight.

[Eclogite]

 

and eclogite, your implication that i am dogmatic, closed minded, and unimaginative flys in the face of my threads here, few of which i have ever had the pleasure to see you participate in. thanks for nothing. :)

 

Your positive contributions to the site are well known. I carefully and explicitly suggested that others would interpret your position as a dogmatic, close minded, unimaginative stance.

 

Through that structure of suggestion of how others will interpret your position, it should be abundantly clear that I do not believe that you are any of those things. I'm sorry you didn't read the passage more carefully, for I wrote it with considerable care.

[Turtle]

Your positive contributions to the site are well known. I carefully and explicitly suggested that others would interpret your position as a dogmatic, close minded, unimaginative stance.

 

Through that structure of suggestion of how others will interpret your position, it should be abundantly clear that I do not believe that you are any of those things. I'm sorry you didn't read the passage more carefully, for I wrote it with considerable care.

 

:lol: i luv ya eclog! your care is well known.

 

so what about it young persons sifting through google and looking for hits about doomsday asteroids? did you find this thread? was i helpful or hindering? have you thrown in the towel on science all on account of me? did you find any of the several other threads here at Hypography on the topic? let's hear from you!!

 

and what of you clapstyx? was my direct and hyperbolic "bullshit" on target or have i egregiously misjudged this thread and per se you?

Edited October 2, 2012 by Turtle