Peer reviewed journal on abortion Videos

+imjusthereforcomments  Men are made visual and in this day and age you cannot completely escape seeing those images, but you can choose not to wilfully look at them.

+DarkCode  You are right. Sex is the gift of God to be enjoyed in marriage only. The Lord Himself was very clear on that.

+DarkCode EXACTLY!!! I can loo kat a women and be like oh she has a nice body and that will be allIf I go on and think deviant thoughts that's the sinbut yea you are right too 

It's a Sin either way friend lol trust me i've contemplated this before many times lol its called self control lol that's the only way but easier said than done.

Looking at a women and saying Oh she has a nice body is not a sin, Us men cannot escape that because that's how we are designed. But if we say to our friends "Oh look at her I would do this and that" that is a sin

God has a calling on your life Walter

+ArguingFromIgnorance God has his own plan for everything , either we understand it or not.

No he did no created these other gods he wanted their subjects worship

+Mike Wenger I agree with that; however, they still are not a true God - there is only one and that is YHWH.  And yes, you are absolutely right that they are real; however, as you also correctly pointed out, YHWH created all, and that includes the false gods.  They are real, but not "Gods" because they are created - but the only real, true God.Amen bro, God bless 

YHWH calls himself the creator of all things false gods included they are called false gods not because they are any less real but because they are not the one true got the creator of all things seen and unseen

+11wjf Alas, you seem to be wasting everyone's time here. Why?

well then, let me try this approach that you might be able to follow and understand.I guess you'll just have to figure it out. and That's just your problem, I guess.This conversation is a circular non God related and waste of my time.  Don't bother to reply back, I'll be automatically deleting without reading any further replies from you.God Bless.

+11wjf For all your pompous claims and wholly unwarranted superiority complex, you seem pretty crass yourself. This may come as a rude shock to you, but I am quite educated myself and you don't impress me.

+Jason Wills I think your earlier  replies speak for themselves.  And my over education is just a fact that doesn't connect to my point on your earlier crass responses.  You disparaged my writing, I merely noted that I have some serious writing qualifications and your earlier responses were at best rude and unhelpful - in fact I think the askers response to you was that type of response is what pushes people away from God.Look I'm not here to snip back and forth with people who want to spar on non God type things or personal slights.  If there is nothing further regarding God specifically, my time is limited and in this form limited to serious seeking questions where like minded people can edify.  So, thank you for your constructive criticism and I will watch clarity in the future (I'm being sincere).Thank you.  God Bless. 

+11wjf Hmmm. These days, I guess your level of education is determined by how many fatuous (and frequently misspelled) words you can type in a single comment.Oh, and your sniveling sarcasm about my "level of empathy, compassion, clarity, logic, and seeking the truth" is a total non sequitur and a rather cheap sophomoric insult that is hardly worthy of someone claiming to be so overeducated.

+Jason Wills Sorry Jason, it seems pretty clear to me.  I know I type fast but I am also extremely over educated (i.e., years of graduate programs and degrees) so that should offset each other to an understandable level.  Sorry if the reply was too long for you but it wasn't really meant for you it was for  transcendentape who asked a brilliant question and I took the time to try to give it a deserving answer (not a one liner like - "I guess you'll just have to figure it out." or "That's just their problem, I guess" like you answer.  Yeah, your level of empathy, compassion, clarity, logic, and seeking the truth is hard to match.If you take the time to actually read rather than skim (at the pick up window) you just might edify yourself and be the better for it.God bless.

+11wjf Well, for 1, your previous comment was so long and repetitive, I just kinda skimmed it; and 2, your second point is unclear. 

+Jason Wills "To cut your very long and tedious comment short"Missed that in you comment.  Well for one, you don't have to read it.  and 2, when you are doing more than what some man tell you to do, it takes thought and consideration -- not some sound bite or cleaver catch phrase.  Open your mind and think for yourself --- You put yourself in Jesus' hand, pray for understanding and for the holy spirit to guide you as you search, study and consume the Word/bible.  It often takes many words and time to find the truth and it's not just a matter of pulling up to the pick up window or a quick fix.  God bless

Just the opposite   I want know what the Word really is.  Based on your logic - Whose terms should I follow.  Should I follow what you say the terms are --- or should I respect God and search his truth.  Your logic is circular to demean me -- just do as your told and don't question --- really, is that what Jesus said.  I missed the part where Jesus said he was just kidding about the Pharisees and that we should be just like them and do as we are told.  I must have also missed Act 17:11 that we are told to receive the word with great interest but search the scripture to prove them.  Or the many warnings Jesus gave us on not being deceived and to not follow the traditions of men. Jason, your logic does work.  If we don't search the word out then all we have left is to do what some pastor or priest tells is to do.  That is not what the bible tells us to do -- THAT's what the pastor, priest and deacons tell us to do.  You may disagree with me; but I'm going to follow what Jesus said to do, not what the pastors, priest and deacons tell me what to do.  God bless 

+11wjf To cut your very long and tedious comment short: like nearly all people who hate religion, you just want everything on your own terms.

+transcendentape NO, you don't sound like a dick at all.  In fact, your thinking is absolutely correct.  If everyone thought as you do, you wouldn't have all the idiot pastors, priest, deacons, etc that brainwash/lie to all the weak minded religions types.  Actually your approach is ABSOLUTELY refreshing- WOW, man if everyone had that approach what a better world we'd have (seriously, in all things)."how can I to logically evaluate your interpretation over the others"  Well, that's the rub lol.  No, I'm kidding.  It's a hard question. I like that you didn't say, believe or accept, you said evaluate - its the right question, of course it's harder to answer but a good question said the correct way.  You should never "believe" someone interpretation.  I listen/read tons of people (including Godrules here) and I take their comments as "insights" and I check them out against scripture and in checking the scripture that usually involves researching the particular verses, tracking back to the Septuagint, orig, greek/Hebrew, etc.  And cross referencing other verses to see if it harmonizes, etc.It's a process of scripture, knowing church history on when some concept/corruption came in/why, secular history, etc in light of their "theology" and track it.  Maybe the best way to explain is an example.  Homosexuality - the vast majority REALLY rails on about that.  Now, I don't claim to know the answer on it, BUT I can say is that it is not CERTAIN or strong in the scripture about it.  I can go to Leviticus and see that yeah, it does say no man lay with man but it's in the middle of verses about Molech, false god worship, -- the gay thing doesn't fit by itself, it has to tie into the idolatry piece that are before and after it to make sense; then jump to Romans and when you just do an open mind read on the section claiming to be a big gay section, if you read it without that preconceived idea, it is clear that all the stuff they claim as big gay is qualified as idolatry (so there its not gay as the subject its idolatry and gay is modifying it).  So, how can these people run around with such fire and passion that the "Bible says" all you gays are gone a burn.  I don't see it; I don't see how they can be so sure on that subject.  Some how that's their interpretation (they add to it)  why don't they just say what it says, but then again if they said, "I'm not sure about this gay thing, the bible talks about it but its not absolutely clear and it could be wrong but maybe not and here's why"  well, they gay haters would lose their punch I guess.The point is, (like the root of your question) I want the truth of what it says, not what others say it says.  I don't search for an interpretation, I don't want to add or take away from it --- so what does it really say.  As the example of gay --- I don't know BUT I'd rather say, I don't know then GOD SAYS xyz.  I don't want to interpret, I just want to find out what it says.  If it really says Gay is bad then okay, but it doesn't really come out and say that -- is that interpretation? -- I don't think so, or at least its a different type of interpreting -- I just want to interpret the words NOT theology not create dogma. I don't know if all the above made any sense.  It was a really good question;  In fact your question is the key in finding the truth (i.e., your question is the difference between reading just what's there or listening to people making it say what they want to say).  Man, you are right on with your question.  

+transcendentape Such are the perils of the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

+11wjf This is going to sound like I'm being a dick, but I honestly don't mean it that way.  Why should I take your interpretation of the Bible as accurate over another's?  If you recognize the possibility of errors in translation and corrupt motives, then why should I assume that your interpretation is the correct interpretation?  How am I to logically evaluate your interpretation over other contradictory interpretations?

+ArguingFromIgnorance sorry for the long answer and it probably typos and all trying to compose in a reply box.  AND you are asking some really good question which I can answer but they its deep answers to deep questions that you kind of have to digest the whole bible, figure out all the corruptions to the translations, corruptions in the churches and pull separate and global message from it all --- all real complicated to in the end get a simple answer/direction.  I'll try best I can to explain, pls ask on any holes I leave and I'll do the best I can.  God Bless 

+ArguingFromIgnoranceNo, they are not rival Gods.  They are not Gods at all.  “They” are either 1) just some made up thing – i.e., “volcano god” “rain god” “frog god” et etc.  Or “they” are organized  by Lucifer or other fallen angel (I’ll call this group “evil” for short) 2) Satanist; or 3) Lucifer joins in with the volcano god or anything else.  And, no Angels were not made to test humans.  There are angels (most)  that didn’t fall.  And I don’t know why God created Angels or us – I’m not God.  And it’s not testing, it’s conditioning/forging – to strengthen to acquire endurance or certain skill needed for a future challenge and although dealing with evil can be a part of life and conditioning, its just a part of life – do you make God your life or do you think very little of God and a lot of worldly things, like money, greed, volcano god, etc.  Your choices and life experiences become your conditioning .   God doesn’t need to test us; he knows end from the beginning.  On the Israelites.  Abraham and Moses saw God the most – the others, not so much and in general, no.  And although I don’t exactly know details of the process, understanding the bible from Gen to Rev, there is a process in the process (our individual process and his process with humanity in general.  At different phases of his process he engages differently.  However, he has detailed a lot of how he has, how he will and how he will finish.  So, if you study it, history tracks it, digs show it (at least the stuff he said how he would do it) and how he finishes it completes his general process.  Israel is a piece of the process.  Israel is interesting and I think largely misunderstood.  Even Steven referred to them as always stiff necked.  Yes we are graphed on the root of the Jews and the Jews are his people, but Church and Jews are in God’s eye but with different destinies and processes.  And no, we are not at a disadvantage, we had Christ, we had Daniel (and others) proving Christ and we have Jesus teachings and cross.  So, no, really we have the advantage.  And they weren’t tested they were definitely going through their intial process (it took 40 hours to get them out of Egypt but 40 years to get Egypt out of them) (they took 40 years to make an 11 day trip)  No, its actually an example of a/the process.No, they are limited to counterfeiting everything and deception.  You do raise an excellent point here but if we really knew our bibles, the answer is there.   The bible is really clear on no symbols, no idolatry, God is the priority.  But your excellent point (and the bible often warns of it) is deception, and man is there a lot of it.  Godrules here does a good job pointing out the deception/corruption in translation, history of church, where it came from, how its in the churches, etc.  But that’s the only real power of Lucifer/fallen etc seemingly indistinguishable from God.  Lucifer – if he can get you to not focus on God, focus on him, or something else, or not to believe there is a God.  That’s his real goal (although he would prefer you worship him) and he can only get there through deception.  How can you tell the difference --- learn the bible, who God really is, what REALY is a sin (not all the non sense generally given) and don’t distract from that.   Oh, and if they can get you away from that, well then they get you on your own – and a lot of bad things can happen when the only protection you have is you; bc yeah, Lucifer has a lot of power compared to you, he’s nothing compared to God.  Just make sure your right with God from the bible and Lucifer is not a problem.God Bless

+ArguingFromIgnoranceThat's just their problem, I guess.

+Jason Wills It's answers like that which turn people away from Christianity.

+ArguingFromIgnoranceI guess you'll just have to figure it out.

+11wjf So, you are of the opinion that the 'rival gods' described in The Bible are allowed to exist for the purpose of testing / training humans?But when the Israelites of The Bible were tested, they had the benefit of God physically revealing himself to them. It would appear as though we are at something of a disadvantage by comparison. Whilst Lucifer / fallen angels may not have the ultimate power of a god, from our perspective, their methods and abilities are seemingly indistinguishable from that of a god. How are we supposed to tell the difference?

+ArguingFromIgnorance yeah there are answers to all your question; but your question seem to be more from a place of argumentative rather than seeking knowledge.  But I could be misreading it so I answer a couple.  This world and what we go through is a process - example I always give is running a mile in 5 minutes - it takes a lot of training, fitness conditioning, and no one can do it for you.  I don't know exactly the next world (God does) and he doesn't "snap his fingers" bc that won't help us run in 5 minutes.  Related/connected is that he loves us and anyone that has been in love also wants the person they love to love them back; however, if it is real love, the return love needs to be real also to fulfill your love (even if you could "make" someone love or act like they love you, your real love wouldn't allow it, their love back to you have to be real - from free will.The other "gods" are not gods - most are people making pretend gods out of stuff/nature/the creation.  The other group, which also connects itself to the first group is the fallen angles and Lucifer.  And yeah, Lucifer has power, power of an angle not God's power.  Now your other question brings us back to the first (why doesn't he snap his fingers ---- this, having to deal with the "false gods", is part of are "fitness" training and it's part of God's process -- look, I don't understand completely God's process, why and what we need this fitness for; however, he does and I'll need it; otherwise I'll be half way around the track bent over puking my guts out bc I'm out of shape for the race.  Hope it helps.  God Bless

+Godrules So then how do you account for an all-powerful god's inability to control these beings? This is a god who is able to kill people with the snap of his fingers [Gen 38:7], to interfere with free will as he pleases [Exod 10].A god who not only created these beings in the first place (why?) but allows them to mess with humans (why?) then mysteriously made them vanish just as soon as we devise methods to reliably measure and record what is true.This has all the hallmarks of ancient storytelling, to me. At the very least, it shows that Yahweh is not all-powerful, certainly not omnipotent; and has apparent difficulty in undoing creations once they are made.

these gods spoke of in Greece were based on actual beings..  Read the Book of Enoch and you will learn of them..  They are fallen angels.

Yes, exactly.. But it sounds so convincing when you don't think about it..

Lastly, how is one against human rights for standing against something? There is no coercion here like with PP. You can choose to practice your faith or not. I don't believe that my tax dollars should go to funding activites I'm against. I don't lie to women like PP does with the lack of info, ultrasound. I don't send Dalcon shields to the 3rd world to destroy the health of women, kill future women, get women engaged in sex, push sex selection, etc. You really know very little about the subject.

Lomberg misunderstands that 1) ecosystem services are finite in the their ability to replace and recycle resources for humans 2) he misguidedly thinks that technology can solve all problems despite the new probelms that they create. A good example is the invention of cars,no more horse poo on the street is all that lomberg would have seen, ignoring the rampant air pollution created by the new tech. Most Tech usually increases consumption due to reduction in the price of extraction of resources.

The risk of death to under 18's is greater from pregnancy than from abortions. As I have already stated,I only support VOLUNTARY contraception and VOLUNTARY means you have a choice. I have already stated than I am against coercive contraception. Actually PP supports any form of contraception that is voluntary including Sympto-Thermo. They do not support forced sterilisation. The alternative to using voluntary contraception methods is overpopulation and deaths as a result, which do you prefer?

PRI are against the primary method of reducing abortions (namely contracepetives) yet claim to be anti-abortion . Their argument and yours is inconsistent. Also anyone suggesting (which includes PRI) that every gamete is a potential child, will, if they follow that logic to its conclusion will find themselves supporting enforced sex because to not do so is denying a "potential" child of life. The very fact that PRI wants to ban contracepetives is evidence of their attempts to deny women choice

So things only matter if they are forever rather than the moment? I think people sometimes prefer the comfort of believing there is a happy "afterlife" rather than accepting that we really don't know or that it is unlikely. By accepting you probably only get one shot at life, you are more likely to do something useful with it rather than just sit back and say,"i'll just wait until the next life".Why are so few priests excited about the end of their lives if they truly believe in the afterlife?

As I already explained, it was because of people like Paul Erlich that voluntary family planning got substantial funding delaying the issue. "Screw the Scientific Papers u keep talking about."- sums up your scientific knowledge.If everyone was as selfish as you and had six children and your over-privileged lifestyle then there would be 14 billion by 2040 and 100 billion within 100 yrs. You have the nerve to say everything is fine when have no idea about the rest of the world you spoilt brat.

"I say if they believe it they would agree to remove themselves to make room for innocent aborted children who die in the developed world to facilitate the luxury of the developed world" -I say that there is no need for deaths if voluntary contraception is made available to those who want it and I think they probably agree with me. I would say to you that by "your" logic that every potential "conception" could become a baby, why don't you support a law that bans people from rejecting sex?

Over 100 national science academies have stated that humans are using ecosystem services faster than they can recycle and replace resources. The average bio-productive land use per person is 2.1 hectares but only 1.8 hectares are available per person. We are overpopulated. See also "one planet one child" and "overconsumpulation" for more evidence of overpopulation. The video was not meant to "prove" overpopulation it showed how PRI is a misleading organisation with no scientific credentials.

The 'access to contraception' is like a mantra with the zero pop growth zealouts. Even National Geographic published a story 10 yrs ago where they put current food capacity at 35 billion. The population is projected to go to 9 billion by 2050 and then drop. Lastly, we are not numbers. Stop quantifying people. The population growth people only care about themselves. It took Gates, not PP and company to fund against malaria. "More from the fit...M Sanger, the real face of the ZPG advocates.

The short answer to most of your points is, if Marx et al was right in his theories, all of what you say is correct, and nothing really matters in the end anyway, so why bother with any of this moral stuff. And, who cares if the planet is overpopulated, polluted, going to be wiped out in a nuclear war, etc. What really matters is survival of the fittest, and obtaining as much gratifying stuff and experiences in as short a period as possible. And finished off with a painless death. Right?

People like me don't want to kill babies to preserves them, give 6% of income--could be much better. People like me are from S. America. I don't prioritize people--PParenthood does when they single out the poor ("More from the Rich..."). I realize that not all will have the same standards of life, nor should they. People have the fundamental right to thrive. You are no one to tell people who few or many children they should have. BTW, PP receives 300 mil+ from US Govt. Who's well funded?

Actually it was $1000, not $10,000 and the same economist lost out to a biologist David South in 1996. Paul Erlich helped to raise awareness and funding so that women worldwide could choose to have smaller families, this delayed some of the overpopulation issues but it didn't solve them. 58 national science academies agree we are overpopulated, you have yet to name a scientific peer reviewed paper that agrees with you? p.s. Look at the copper price now. Resources per capita are falling.

Thank you for articulating your views on this subject and I have to admit that you are absolutely correct in your rational explanations, IFF there is no supreme being and no immortal soul for us human beings, and there never was divine inspiration, nor the incarnation of God. I guess my only refuge is the inability of science to identify the essence of life, or the existence of love. Perhaps they're related. Can science prove you love your children, for example? Where does our soul go?

Yes the world is overpopulated according to 58 national science academies and our reliance on a non renewable. I think you haven't noticed that there are ethical ways of reducing population which are 100% non lethal to already existing people e.g. condoms. By the way assuming people like the PRI are against anything that stops a "potential" life , what is to stop them taking another step and promoting laws that ban fertile people from rejecting any opportunity or request to have kids?

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Scientific American published strong criticism of Lomborg's book. The Union of Concerned Scientists strongly criticised The Skeptical Environmentalist, claiming it to be "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis", accusing Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature.

+MegaMementoMori It could be.

+Sony SinghSounds logical. In this case, why can't the current warming be a combination of many factors, with CO2 emissions being only one of them, and some unknown factor contributing in an even greater extent?

+MegaMementoMori We do not know the reason for that event. As with everything else, it was most likely a combination of many factors.

+Sony SinghThanks, now I understand some of the arguments, although I did not really get the part about the equator and rock breakdown. Furthermore, if this is normally such a slow process, why did the "little ice age" (which was no joke, the Baltic sea was frozen!) started and ended in such a short time before releasing carbon accumulated in the ground became a problem?

"You will not convince anybody like this, you need to explain what caused this alleged 97% to say that today's melting of the Arctic to differ from (proven geologically) melting of the glaciers before carbon emissions were a thing."There is only a certain amount of CO2, water and pretty much everything on Earth. If you reduce something somewhere, you increase it elsewhere. If you increase something somewhere, you decrease it elsewhere. Here is why man made climate change differs from nature climate change: Natural climate change happens much much much slower than what we are doing. AND, despite the difference in rate, natural climate change was responsible for almost all of the past extinction events. By burning fossil fuels, we are liberating CO2 that was slowly absorbed out of the atmosphere during the Carboniferous period, which lasted 60 million years. We are going to liberate 60 million years worth of greenhouse gasses in a matter of a few hundred years. This rate of change is too high for many animals to adapt and survive. The natural climate change is mostly due to breakdown of rock, which uses atmospheric CO2 in the process. If the continents happen to be on the equator, then this process is accelerated, otherwise the release of CO2 (through volcanic activity and rifting) keep the system in equilibrium.There was once a time no one believed in climate change, it was the data itself that turned this around. You can imagine yourself as the savior of individual thought, but this process has already happened. Those who have actually looked at the data know which direction it points.

+Sony SinghYou are using a arguing strategy right now ;)The evidence is there, however it is open to interpretation and argument. Otherwise, it is not a scientific debate, it is blindly following a dogma. This is actually what many supporters of man made climate change say: "we have 97%, therefore we are right". You will not convince anybody like this, you need to explain what caused this alleged 97% to say that today's melting of the Arctic to differ from (proven geologically) melting of the glaciers before carbon emissions were a thing.

+MegaMementoMori "so I know quite a few arguing strategies"I don't have any arguing strategies, I only have 500 years of science. This shouldn't be about argument or opinion. It is a matter of following the evidence. I can't continue continue this unless you acknowledge this, otherwise we are arguing on difference planes.

+Sony Singh Don't worry about me, I am a law student, so I know quite a few arguing strategies ;)Geology. So you study the Earth. Carbon dioxide emitted for the past 2 centuries isn't exactly in the Earth, otherwise it would not cause any climate change in the first place.You can study the terrain effects of the long-lost glaciers, which melted away much earlier then humans began to emit carbon through anything other then breathing. You can see the effects of water level increase, which sunk the Bering Bridge, separating America long before H. Ford built there his first factory.Climate was changing before humans did what they do now. Global climate change was fast and deadly back then, the Vikings were forced to leave Vinland due to cooling. Some Indian tribes abandoned their cities due to droughts. Many spices died out due to climate change, many new evolved thanks to it.What is the difference right now?

+MegaMementoMori Just so you know, my background is geology, so if you decide to continue taking about climate change, you will be disagreeing with a geologist.

+Sony SinghYou are not correct, Greeks had very elaborate tools used to calculate the trajectories of various planets, one of them - Antikythera mechanism - looked more like something built in the XIX century. And yet, the science was not correct.The church did propagate this theory (which was supported by 100% of scientists at the time they adopted it) just like the government is propagating the theory of climate change today. So what?

+MegaMementoMori It all depends on how good our evidence is. People who concluded that the sun went around the earth did so based on very little evidence and their everyday experience. Are you telling me that the church did not propagate this belief? Do I need to explain how science works? We don't believe anything, that right is reserved for people of faith.

+Sony SinghGeocentricism was not created by Church autgorities, it was created by an ancient scientist, Ptolmey. At his time, after doing research, it was a logical conclusion, yet it turned out to be wrong. Don't be too sure about all these "peer reviewed" theories, as even Newton turned out to be wrong. Besides, people like Galileo and Copernicus were not killed by the Church. Bruno was, and tell me, what was the scientific breakthrough that got him killed? Besides, attacks ad personam are not well seen in a debate.

What a stupid thing to say. Did you know what happened to the people who questioned the Church's position that the sun orbited the earth? They were killed. The religious people were wrong then and they are wrong now. And if you had an ounce of brain cells, you wouldn't compare dogma with peer reviewed science.

It is all politics at the end of the day. That's for sure.

+spillarge if we really dig into the evidence and information we start to see scam in almost every situation. like the war on cancer, i mean they've getting paid since it was launched in the 70s. and still havent introduce a cure yet.. but then we start to realize now that cannabis oil and seed has been helping lots of people with all sorts of cancers. so now they have the war on drugs and its main target eliminate cannabis and restrict it from legal use. now that the most effective natural herbs are out the way big pharma can continue to get richer while keeping patients sick,  the war on cancer society continues to get paid, the  war on drugs society continues to get paid and we continue to get fucked..

+Daniel MurraySorry to sound overly aggressive in my last post Daniel. Having re-read it I have the wrong tone.What I am trying to say is that science is about the facts and too many people and scientists today simply believe without question in what is promoted through the IPCC and the media. I have studied the subject for four decades and I fully understand the theory, atmospheric dynamics and climate. I also understand why it is still a theory without a shred of conclussive evidence. When I really started understanding the details and the science I found that it simply made me disbelieve even more because I found more unanswered questions, more contradictions and the theory simply seemed even less likely. Therefore it lead me to look into why this one theory has gained so much momentum. When one understands who is funding it and how the funds are spent it all becomes clear. My position is that I absolutely do not find that the science stacks up. However, I do believe the message and I wholeheartedly believe that man should be using renewable energy and man should be limiting his impact on the environment where it is overly detrimental to other life. The message is a good one, but the science is not what underwrites this.

Understand the science, understand the subject before you simply ape a theory dreamed up by someone else.When you do, you will know that it cannot be.

you seem not to get it, it is not about climate change as you refer to it, it is about climate change through man made cause. get it? But, you make good points after, I think you'd get more people to consider your view without that start.

No I won't. I don't care about the rest of the world enough to set an example. I would rather the 90% be comprised of strangers. Anyway the environment always defines what is eugenics and what is disgenics. In the past people have had preconceived ideals about this but they have never actually known ( and never can really know ) what is eugenics and what is disgenics. People can't even well predict what bringing new species of insects to new environments might lead to.

Excellent interview. The truth always comes out. Good always triumphs with truth. No matter what the elites think the eugenics machine consisting of Agenda 21 and sustainable development will never work in the long term. Using pure love and activating our true potential through the Pineal gland we will thrive in the years to come. Mass meditation. Mass awareness. WE are powerful! Thank you Jurriaan our collective thoughts are with you! Long live 100% of us and them.

Just like in the games you've played all your life, only there will be no button to start again after the GAME OVER screen. Dumbing down is working so well most intelligent people just like yourself can't work out that if we followed the wishes of the elitists you and yours have 90% chances to be exterminated. Then again you may be one of the elitists :-)

I don't know about you, but I have better, more interesting things to spend my daydreaming on, than on 90% of humanity dying. And if there are resource use and wealth production problems, I'd rather try to contribute to rational, humane solutions, than going about talking about mass death.

Speak for yourself. And, if you truly believe that idea, why not give the example and kill yourself? But you won't. [Of course, don't do it. While I'm making a point, I would never encourage anyone to do anything that estranges you from the Creator, namely, to commit suicide]

Ahw common ! What are you doing to your own heads ? I'm a decent atheist person, and I recommend the zen Buddhist view. The sole purpose of life is to LIVE it. All of it. Good bits, terrible bits. Live every second of it. It's all you get.

I never suggested that others kill themselves. I only said that if 90% of people died then it would be good for the survivors.

We ARE locusts. 90% random death of humans would be generally good for survivors. This does not imply eugenics.

If you won't, that is what is called hypocrisy.

You have a great point--- the "journal"will be great fodder to trash and tear apart. Heck, I think I'll submit a few papers to their "journal" myself! :-)

yea i do know that and my position rests on a razors edge but i want to look at the bright side