“I understand your frustration and I would like to apologize for being a little facetious at the beginning.
I think you're correct to an extent, and I would like to see more efforts being made to help people get jobs rather than sending them money each week (if you are on benefits maybe you should be assigned a 'sponsor' who sits down with you and assists you in job applications each day; some people are just really bad at selling themselves. The sponsor will see you applying for jobs and can direct you to website such as those that you posted above...some people are just really bad at knowing where the jobs are.)”
“It would be impossible for you to prove your statement because it's based upon your assumption that people who are on 'benefits' want to be because they are lazy. When you start from that premise I would assume the data is reviewed with tinted glasses.
Andy S on Dec 7, 2013 at 23:04:53
“Just because you wouldn't believe it doesn't mean it's impossible to prove. The simplest proof is the existence of so many unskilled jobs that are going unfilled.”
“I need compelling evidence that there are 'freeloaders' who would rather sit on their can than get a suitable job.
I also need compelling evidence that 'liberals' are happy to reward such attitudes.
Correlation does not imply causation of course...so lets have none of that.”
Andy S on Dec 7, 2013 at 22:36:56
“I can give you the data but you would twist the meaning. If you don't believe in correlation then this conversation is over. And if you don't believe in correlation then nothing Obama would ever propose would be considered plausible. He would have to sell everything with a lie like he did the ACA.”
“I agree. Maybe we can talk about modern bio technology...the peer reviewed research alone proves we have enough food to feed the world. Pass me your email and we can get more into it.
We can also talk about countries like Sweden who uses 55% renewable energy to power it's country. The technology is literally there to be used. This is not a 'dream' or a rose-tinted view of the world...this stuff literally exists and we should be using it right now.
My background is science, so lets get more into renewable energy and bio technology.”
“*sigh* that is what I'm saying though. We can't sustain this population based upon outdated methods i.e., burning fossil fuels for energy. Your point seems to be that this planet cannot sustain the numbers...my argument is that it's not the numbers but the manner in which those 'numbers' interact with the planet.
I would suggest that we CAN maintain these population levels using modern GMO techniques for food, and by using renewable sources of energy as much as possible (wind, water, solar etc.) That is my point and why your original statement was nonsense.”
ikik2 on Dec 4, 2013 at 01:37:00
“I cant take anymore of you illogical everyone is perfect mind set, its like talking to child.”
Land, food and water are required to sustain the world population. End of debate. If we try and make everyone live to the standards that the western world are living in then I would argue that this is impossible. However, we have enough technology to supply the entire population with enough water, food and land. Simple.
What the planet can NOT support is the Western Lifestyle...not the volume of people.”
ikik2 on Dec 4, 2013 at 01:06:52
“There is much wrong with your train of thought. First sure in math you could support everyone, but not in reality because of how food is produced and distributed. Second there is only one thing that let us become this populous, oil. We burn so much oil trying to feed people and keep them alive, hence my point. The way your thinking has no bearing in reality.”
“Believe what you want, but stop messing with science. If facts get in the way of your beliefs that's your issue and something you will have to deal with internally. But lets stop messing with young minds...minds that could contain cures for cancer.”
“Radiometric dating is extremely reliable, but not infallible (methods can mess up results etc.) That said,a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages does not invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, that conclusion is illogical.
You are muddying the debate with this claim. Radiometric dating is NOT controversial and when mistakes are made they are written about in scientific literature. Nothing is hidden. Nothing is thrown out.
So no, radiometric dating is actually VERY reliable.”
“You date the rocks from radiometric dating. So I don't know what you're actually talking about. Then, if a fossil is contained with a section of rock it is apparent by isotopic data how old that fossil is. Simple.”
rumbleebee on Nov 27, 2013 at 20:40:27
“Radiometric dating is not reliable and when it disagrees with what they belive they throw it out.”
“usually because of religious people in politics to be honest. When your elected official believes that the earth is 6000 years old it worries many people. If religion was separated from politics I honestly don't think atheists would care. I know I wouldn't.”
“'Plus-size' ?! What have us males done to this culture. Madness. We need to change this stupid obsession with skinny people. It's rank and unhealthy. Be healthy, sure, but within reason...and that goes for men and women.”