How do we make sustainable environments? Is "Evolution" always the most applicable?

[Hans Blaster]

My criticizm isn't aimed at evolutionists per se in this example, but at scientists (note that I mentioned evolutionists, atheists, and scientists). It is the scientists (who are also evolutionists of course) that are the main culprits in our polluted lakes problem as they are providing bad advice to the authorities.

This statement makes no sense.

You say you criticize scientists, but not evolutionists in particular. (One can only think that by evolutionists you mean scientists who study evolution, like those who study chemistry are called chemists.) Then after that you say the scientist are the culprits in polluted lakes, but somehow those scientists are all evolutionists. (There seems to be a serious problem with set theory here.) I'm not sure why evolutionary biologists (or any other scientists for that matter) are responsible for polluted lakes. Do they own big farms with lots of run-off? Do they consult for lawn fertilizer companies? Do they argue against run-off control at construction sites? What's going on here, man?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thank you for confirming my previous statement that all you have are bizarre irrelevances.

This is precisely my point. Creationists are so poor at arguing their case that they don't know how to even construct an argument.

Wasn't another one of the people here who attempts to discuss evolution asking what an allele is?



Previously he was posturing by saying that he would be prepared to speak to any evolutionist. I was trying to see if this was an empty claim because he actually had nothing worthwhile to say to them. I think the answer is now very clear that he does not.



You don't have enough understanding of evolution to make any meaningful statement pro or con.

The topic isn't evolution per se, but sustainable environments. My ideas, imo, trump everything coming from the scientific community. We must reduce populations, conserve resources, restore proper soil fertility and adopt sensible farming methods. Not find clever ways around these.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This statement makes no sense.

You say you criticize scientists, but not evolutionists in particular. (One can only think that by evolutionists you mean scientists who study evolution, like those who study chemistry are called chemists.) Then after that you say the scientist are the culprits in polluted lakes, but somehow those scientists are all evolutionists. (There seems to be a serious problem with set theory here.) I'm not sure why evolutionary biologists (or any other scientists for that matter) are responsible for polluted lakes. Do they own big farms with lots of run-off? Do they consult for lawn fertilizer companies? Do they argue against run-off control at construction sites? What's going on here, man?

Simple. Biologists like waterways teeming with life, termed "hyper-eutrophic". Clean water that most would enjoy is of little interest to them. The paradox is that civil authorities go to them for advice on how to clean up our waters. They have asked the fox to guard the henhouse, and the result is sadly predictable.

 

[Speedwell]

The topic isn't evolution per se, but sustainable environments. My ideas, imo, trump everything coming from the scientific community. We must reduce populations, conserve resources, restore proper soil fertility and adopt sensible farming methods. Not find clever ways around these.

And unlike those dumb scientists, you also no doubt believe that the Earth orbits the Sun and that molecules are made of atoms. You sure are smarter than scientists.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Simple. Biologists like waterways teeming with life, termed "hyper-eutrophic". Clean water that most would enjoy is of little interest to them. The paradox is that civil authorities go to them for advice on how to clean up our waters. They have asked the fox to guard the henhouse, and the result is sadly predictable.

Here's the definition of eutrophic Google found for me:

"(of a lake or other body of water) rich in nutrients and so supporting a dense plant population, the decomposition of which kills animal life by depriving it of oxygen."

So which biologists are these that want lakes to be so nutrient rich that plant decay deprives animal life of oxygen. I think it's time to get specific. No more generalities. We can't really tell what the stone in your shoe is until you let us know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And unlike those dumb scientists, you also no doubt believe that the Earth orbits the Sun and that molecules are made of atoms. You sure are smarter than scientists.

It's not so much what you know that counts, but what you do. Women are smarter than men, but men generally run things. Why do you think that is?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here's the definition of eutrophic Google found for me:

"(of a lake or other body of water) rich in nutrients and so supporting a dense plant population, the decomposition of which kills animal life by depriving it of oxygen."

So which biologists are these that want lakes to be so nutrient rich that plant decay deprives animal life of oxygen. I think it's time to get specific. No more generalities. We can't really tell what the stone in your shoe is until you let us know.

You're new here or you would be familiar with my at least decade long complaint on these boards about the lakes in my area. Under the supervision of scientists they are a weed-choke, stinking mess, with frequent fish kills and beach closings because of the hyper-eutrophic conditions, especially huge blue/green algae blooms. This is a national problem as well.

And don't get me started on the shopping carts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're new here or you would be familiar with my at least decade long complaint on these boards about the lakes in my area. Under the supervision of scientists they are a weed-choke, stinking mess, with frequent fish kills and beach closings because of the hyper-eutrophic conditions, especially huge blue/green algae blooms.

I imagine that has much less to do with scientists and so much more to do with local government.
And we know about your complaints. And they really buzz all in the end, especially on here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're new here or you would be familiar with my at least decade long complaint on these boards about the lakes in my area. Under the supervision of scientists they are a weed-choke, stinking mess, with frequent fish kills and beach closings because of the hyper-eutrophic conditions, especially huge blue/green algae blooms. And this is a national problem as well.

So how is it that *scientists* are responsible for *making* the lakes eutrophic? Do they argue against runoff control? Do they run "save the algae" campaigns? I get that you don't like the way local government and polluters have made your lakes suck, but how are the scientists responsible?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I imagine that has much less to do with scientists and so much more to do with local government.
And we know about your complaints. And they really buzz all in the end, especially on here.

Local governments generally follow the recommendations of the scientists they consult with. Scientists aren't free of personal agendas, and often suggest their own pet ideas as solutions to problems, to be carried out at taxpayers expense, and with no conditions or liabilities for the scientists. Pretty smart them scientists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So how is it that *scientists* are responsible for *making* the lakes eutrophic? Do they argue against runoff control? Do they run "save the algae" campaigns? I get that you don't like the way local government and polluters have made your lakes suck, but how are the scientists responsible?

I told you. They prefer waters rich in biological life. If you hired a plumber to make something you can bet it will be made out of pipe. A carpenter would make the same thing out of wood.

They do argue for runoff control...which is an expensive and ineffective losing game...and they know it. They are using the condition of the lakes as a barometer of the success of their efforts in the watershed, which is an abysmal failure by any account. Secretly they are pleased with the failed outcome or they would change tactics (apply definition of insanity here).

 

[Hans Blaster]

I told you. They prefer waters rich in biological life. If you hired a plumber to make something you can bet it will be make out of pipe. A carpenter would make the same thing out of wood.

Animals are biological life. You seem to have a very specific group of scientists in mind. Name them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Local governments generally follow the recommendations of the scientists they consult with. Scientists aren't free of personal agendas, and often suggest their own pet ideas as solutions to problems, to be carried out at taxpayers expense, and with no conditions or liabilities for the scientists. Pretty smart them scientists.

Except you'll often find that the deciding factor was, is, and always will be: government.
If there's a problem with the lake in your area, then it's the local government's fault for how it got that way. You can wail and gnash your teeth, screaming "IT'S ALL SCIENTISTS FAULT!!", but virtually everything that will go down, good or ill, will always be decided by government.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Animals are biological life. You seem to have a very specific group of scientists in mind. Name them.

The ones in control of the advice given to local authorities. They would include various science departments at the university, the scientists employed by the Department of Natural Resources, and various visiting scientists from all over the world who have come here for a century to study our lakes. In fact this group has co-opted the ownership of the lake from public waters to their own private study, and special interest use, lakes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except you'll often find that the deciding factor was, is, and always will be: government.
If there's a problem with the lake in your area, then it's the local government's fault for how it got that way. You can wail and gnash your teeth, screaming "IT'S ALL SCIENTISTS FAULT!!", but virtually everything that will go down, good or ill, will always be decided by government.

It's a consortium, a cabal, an unholy alliance, between the scientists and the government regarding the lakes. I include them in my general condemnation.

The government is the instrument of the scientists, to put their pet theories into practice. Government, having no other ideas, happily writes them a check out of the public coffers and they do what they're told to do.

If you really want to laugh you should view the city's "no spray" weed control program, clearly devised by someone who profits by the sale of weed spray.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The ones in control of the advice given to local authorities. They would include various science departments at the university, the scientists employed by the Department of Natural Resources, and various visiting scientists from all over the world who have come here for a century to study our lakes. In fact this group has co-opted the ownership of the lake from public waters to their own private study, and special interest use, lakes.

Which university, DNR, lake, etc.?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's a consortium, a cabal, an unholy alliance, between the scientists and the government regarding the lakes. I include them in my general condemnation.

Wow. Just... wow.
And yet you probably have no problem singing the other tune when the government and scientists do something you like. Don't both replying, I know you do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wow. Just... wow.
And yet you probably have no problem singing the other tune when the government and scientists do something you like. Don't both replying, I know you do.

I like good science, not bad science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I like good science, not bad science.

Science is science. It's neither good nor bad. It's only when it becomes applied that you can attach a morality to it. And it's 99 times out of 100 applied by government.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which university, DNR, lake, etc.?

University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Wisconsin DNR.
Lake Mendota.