Summations Only

No you can't. You know you can't. I know you can't.You cannot support this claim.If you beleive that you can, start a thread.You could call it"50 000 factual non-mythical, scientfically verified stats of the ancient world which says Genesis is not mythical"You know it is not true so you wont do it. You have no idea what ntellectual honesty is. If you did, you would know that this... ...makes no sense.

IamJoseph, I am a little bit concerned that you may actually believe this to be true.Lets look at the facts.You have put forward a solution. You have not been able to provide any possible real way this solution could be achieved. You have not even come up with any half credible ideas regarding how your solution could be achieved. You have been provided with a large number of major problems with your solution. You have not been ableto come up with any credible ways to resolve any of the major problems being put forward by your solution. You have been given information that illustrates how and why your solution is impossible. You have been provided with information that illustrates that your solution is also inhumane.Other posters including myself have provided you with an alternate solution. This solution has been backed up with facts, statistics and verifiable sources. Real world current examples and information has been provided to you that show that it is not only possible, it is actually occuring. The solution i put forward is actual reality. You have not put forward any arguements that illustrate problems with this solution.So we have your solution -untested, unproven, not sourced, not verified, relies on technologies that dont actually exist, inhumane, unsupported, incomplete, unrealistic, not supported by reality, argued against, overloaded with currently insurmountable problems and (some elements) impossible.And the alternate solution -Tested, currently proven to be working, sourced, verified, relies on existing technology, humane, supported by most of the world, realistic, actually occuring in reality, argued for, has no currently insurmountable problems and is not only possible, but currently working.How is it possible that you beleive that your position is the winning position?Oh yeah, you don't recognise reality.As far as I can tell, you have never actually participated in a debate let alone won one.Flinging shit like a rabid monkey then screaming check mate does not alter reality.This is you -You have argued against reality. Your desire to remain intentionally ignorant prevents you from seeing that.Keep clapping your cymbals...

There is no use by date. That is the cornerstone of sustainable development.Your claims that you understand the concept are obviously lies.You have read none of the information on the topic yet you are so bold as to claim to dispute it.How can you dispute something you do not have the faintest comprehension of?This is the definition of sustainable development -Sustainable development"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:1. the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
2. the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.read this -
Sustainable development - Wikipediaand this -Sustainable development - WikipediaWhen you have read those pages, you will have the basic understanding of the concept.Without that knowledge, you comments are nothing but you clapping your symbols.

IamJoseph, This has been covered extensively. Read this message -Message 127 and this message - Message 151.From all of the current data, the total human population should be less than it is now. All of the data points to this result. All of the current data shows the trend. I have provided you with evidence of this and my sources for you to check.Current world population is about 7 billion (Source:World Population Clock: 7.97 Billion People (2022) - Worldometer)Estimated human population in 500 years is less than 7 billion.That is not a particularly accurate estimate. I have outlined why the task is not really possible in Message 127.I dont have an estimate for rabbits. Why would that be relevant?Do you have an estimate?

IamJoseph, No I am not. I said your 'solution' is unproven. As opposed to sustainable development. Sustainable practices are proven to work. There are things stopping us.1. Insufficient technology to perform task.
2. Insufficient funding to research or develop technology to perfrom the task.
3. Insufficient public support for the task.
4. Insufficient need to perform the task.
5. A better, currently succeeding alternate option that does not suffer from the first 4 problems on the list.Those things are stopping us from using your solution. I am not saying that humanity wont at some stage colonise other planets. I am saying that it will not solve the current problems. Since when is pointing out that something is likley to be impossible (your gravity controlling shoes idea) a bogus reason for rejecting it? I would say that this is a pretty sound reason for rejecting something. I have also not said that interplanetary colonisation will serve no purpose. This is you making things up again. My rejection of your solution is based on several key things.1. Some elements of your solution are currently impossible.
2. All of the vital parts of your solution will require enormous technological advancements in areas that currently not being studied or researched by any credible organisation. It would require miraculous discoveries in a dozen different fields simultaneously in the very near furture to begin even testing your solution for viability.
3. There is currently no public support, government support, financial support or need for your solution.
4. There is already a viable solution succeeding in resolving the problem.
5. Your solution gaurantees great human suffering through poverty and most likely war.
6. Your solution is inhumane because it will lead to the death by starvation of nearly every human being on Earth.
7. Your solution is not based on knowledge or common sense.Those are the reasons I reject your 'solution'. No it is not. I have explained why this is several times now. What the fuck are you talking about here? What interim measures are you talking about? What tsunami? Are you talking about Ground Zero in NYC? This is another of your ridiculous claims that you cannot substantiate and does not even make sense. More than 5% of the worlds population would never have been exposed to the Hebrew Bible to reject it. Do you even think before you type this crap? Do you think the popluations of Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Jordon, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc have a problem witnh the Hebrew Bible because "they fall into an abyss when they are exposed as wrong in their claims". No, this is not why they have a problem with the Hebrew Bible. Try stopping and thinking for a second before you post things. It will help you look less like an idiot. No it doesn't. nope. Wrong again. Thats three strikes. I believe you are out. How does that piece of scripture resolve any of the worlds problems? Are you suggesting that the majority of the Earths populations who are living in nations where sustainable development practices are being enacted are the corrupt multitude?Does this mean that you, who are not making an educated decision but a decision based on intentional ignorance are not corrupted?As far as I am aware, you are on your own. This means that you will have to develop the required technology to colonise the moon on your own.Lucky for you, the rest of us will be continuing sustainable development and you will still have a world to live in.by the way, I saw this on another blog, is this you?

I provided you with the information you requested regarding sustainable development and future popluation estimates.From your reply, you have obviously not read any of the information.Without reading the information, you are replying with nonsense and making yourself look stupid.Refer to the video of the monkey clapping his cymbals.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Sustainable development projects are currently working effectively on every habitable continet on Earth. Popluation management is also working in many nations. This information has been upplied for your benefit. You not reading it does not change reality. Your replies, that clearly show that you have no idea what you are talking about, do not support your position or refute mine. They just make you look stupid. Population increase is not universal. Many parts of the world have reducing or stable populations. This is proven reality. what does this mean? Land depletion is also being reversed. Regeneration projects and revegetaion projects are very common. Also, there are measures in place to prevent or reduce land depletion so it does not become a problem. Sustainable forestry, improved agriculture methods etc I think this might be the third, maybe the forth time I have told you that sustainence is not a word. Why are you so intent on making yourself look like an idiot? Sustainable development does rely on some novel ideas. Most of the principles are decades, even hundreds of years old. There is also no imaginative insanity. It is reality. You must at least remember what reality was when you used to exist in it. Sustainable development is not just one plan. It is a huge amount of unified plans. So there are many plan A's, many plan B's, many plan C's and so on. With continued sustainable development, humanity will survive long enough to develop the technology to colonise other planets. So, your plan will eventually be a possability but we will only get there by utalising sustainable development practices.May I ask what your plan B is? This is not true. You have all of the reasons why. Just becasue you wont read them does not mean they dont exist. Can you see any difference between climbing a mountain and interplanetary colonisation? It is not any of those things. You faith does not change reality. This is your opinion. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one (Larry Flynt). except for these bits... Are you planning on actually reading the information that stands against your position or are you going to keep pretending it does not exist?

IamJoseph,You have continually stated that the Hebrew Bible states that people should go forth and multiply and this means go forth and colonise other planets.But that is not what the Old Testament says.

quote:

---

Genesis 1 Verse 28
God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’

---

It specifically says 'the Earth'. In some sections it may not say the Earth, but nowhere is it mentioned to colonise space or other planets.Given this fact, how do you validate your apocalyptic, inhumane, insane, impossible scheme to starve everyone into space?

IamJoseph,Genesis does not support the position of IamJoseph.Sustainable development is the current best idea we have and it is already showing positiove result. I am curious how you can say that the first half of Gen 1:28 is 'not necessarilly attatched' to the second half of Gen 1:28. It is one verse. It is verse 28. If it was not attached, why is it all in the same verse. Why is it attached grammatically? Why is it attatched with the word 'and'? The second half does not even make sense if it is not attatched to the first half.There is no way any rational person could even suggest that one half of the same b;loody verse is not attatched to the second half of the same verse.Consider this -In the beginning when GodThe above is not necessarilly attached to this:created the heavens and the earth.See how that makes no sense? Of course you dont.What is the point of the comment anyway? Even if they were different verses, they both still use the words 'the earth'.I am not sure how you can read the words 'the earth' to mean places other than 'the earth'. The earth, as apposed to the heavens referred to in Gen 1:1. God created the heavens and the earth remember? Isn't the Old Testament divinely inspired? Was God unaware of the other planets in the universe? I believe that the age attributed to the writing of the Old Testament by fundamentalists is around 1500BCE. Are you suggesting that in 1500 BCE there was no knowledge of the other planets? What about the sun? What about the moon? Do you seriously think that no one looked up at night until after 1500 BCE? I seem to remeber mention of other worlds in Genesis chapter 1 - So God seemed to know about the sun, the moon and the stars. All of the planets in our solar system are closer than all of the stars (other than the sun). Some are visable to the naked eye. Why do you suggest that people 2500 years ago were unable to see the moon or know about other planets? What the fuck are you talking about? The word Earth has a definition. Several definitions depending on how it is used. None of the definitions of Earth refer to physicality or material things. The word Earth does not mean either of those so your assertion is baseless. You cant make up meanings for words to suit your own requirements. Here are the definitions of earth. They refute your position.

quote:

---

earth
noun
1.
(often initial capital letter) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 miles (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 miles (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million miles (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

​

2.
the inhabitants of this planet, especially the human inhabitants: The whole earth rejoiced.

​

3.
this planet as the habitation of humans, often in contrast to heaven and hell: to create a hell on earth.

​

4.
the surface of this planet: to fall to earth.

​

5.
the solid matter of this planet; dry land; ground.

---

(Source : Earth Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com) Nowhere in Genesis does it say or even suggest that humanity should occupy any other space other than the Earth. Genesis specifically states "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). You book tells you in no uncertain terms to fill the Earth. This is God giving the instruction remember. He knows about other planets. If he wanted you to go to other planets he would have said some thing like : Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the heavens and the earth and subdue them. But God did not give this command. He commanded you to fill the Earth only. Do you think God made a mistake when he left the heavens out? According to your Gods command, you are required to do the exact opposite of what you suggest. Your crazy idea directly disobeys Gods command. All this sentence proves is that you have no idea what you are talking about. It proves that you have not read any of the information supplied to you. It proves you do not know what sustainable development is. It proves that you are argueing against a position you know nothing about. This sentence proves that you do not know anything about demographics. It proves that you have either not read, or not understood any of the information supplied to you. This sentence proves that you have either not read or not understood the information provided to you. It shows that you are being deliberately ignorant. It proves that you are intentionally ignoring facts in order to remain ignorant. How can you mind fuck yourself so effectively? How is it possible to ignore reality and ignore the information spelt out so plainly to you? It must be hard work ignoring so much information to keep your dilusions active. Incorrect. Your bible does not say anything about overpopulation or modern age pollution. Genesis does not provide a solution to overpopulation, modern pollution or the effects of overusing natural resources.Let me see how clearly i can spell this out to you -The problems are : Overpopulation and the exploitation of the environment.The instructions given in Genesis are : ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.So the instructions of Genesis are to create,continue and increase the problem of overpopulation and to bring (land) under cultivation. (definition of subdue in relation to earth is to bring (land) under cultivation).The aim of sustainable development is : controlled population and stewardship/protection of the land.Lets put that another way.Genesis 'solution'Problem - Overpopulation - action - increase population - problem increases.Problem - modern pollution - action - cultivate the land - problem increases.problem - overuse of natural resources - action - multiply and cultivate the land - problem increases.Sustainable development solutionProblem - Overpopulation - action - population control - problem reduces.Problem - modern pollution - action - protection and stewardship of the land - problem reduces.problem - overuse of natural resources - action - protection and stewardship of the land - problem reduces.How about another wayFail/succeed ratio of Genesis and sustainable development to reducing the problems of overpopulation, modern pollution and overuse of natural resources.Genesis - fail, fail, fail
Sustainable development - succeed, succeed, succeed.If your God anticipated this problem, he would not have advised a course of action that will increase the problem.