For all of the fools who can't face reality. If you ahve a problem
with these stats, take them up with the various governements
(US/UK/AUS/NZ) that compiled them.
Tony
By 1994, most European Union member states had an average 10 - 15 per cent
non-White population, with this figure effectively doubling every fifteen
years. This will mean that, unless current immigration trends are halted, all
of Western Europe will have a non-White majority population by the year 2090 at
the latest, and possibly earlier. These statistics are from the EU's own
official records, Eurostat, in Belgium.
Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991
census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per
cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White
partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where
one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. (Ethnicity in the
1991 Census, ONS, 1991).
(If white women are having black children, then the white race ceases to
exist.)
HISPANIC Immigration SET TO SWAMP MANY SOUTHERN STATES
A 1996 report on population trends in America, issued by that country's
official census office, revealed the full extent of Mexican and other Hispanic
immigration from Central and South America. The report predicted that natural
Hispanic reproduction rates will mean that by the 2005, Hispanics will surpass
Blacks as the largest minority. In that respect, the report failed to take into
account the effect of mass illegal immigration, ad Hispanics surpassed Blacks
as the largest minority group in mid 2003, when they officially topped 38.8
million in number.
From 2020, the US Census office says, more Mexicans will be added to the
population each year than Blacks, Asians and Amerinds combined. From 2019, the
relatively youthful Mexican population will have America's lowest death rate.
According to the census bureau, in 1998 there were over ten million Mexican
children under the age of eighteen. This has led to entire slices of many of
the southern states of America: New Mexico, Texas and southern California,
becoming virtual tiny replicas of Mexico, with the lingua franca becoming
Mexican Spanish rather than English.
White American Decline
The long-term rise in the number of Hispanics, who have the highest birth and
immigration rates in America, will coincide with a decline in the number of
Whites, the report states, predicting that by 2028, the number of White
Americans dying will exceed those being born.
The population as a whole is projected to increase by 50 per cent by 2050, to
394 million, from 263 million in 1995. Although the White population is set to
increase steadily in real numbers, expressed as a percentage of the entire
American population, their numbers are in radical decline: in 1996, Whites made
up 73.1 per cent of the population. That is projected to fall to 52.8 per cent
by 2050.
USA Population Projections, millions (rounded off)
total white %white
2010 298 202 68
2020 323 207 64
2050 394 208 53
2100 571 219 45
(Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series
P25-1130, "Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050". )
CANADA - MASSIVE ASIAN IMMIGRATION
According to Canadian government figures, from 1981 to 1991, 74 per cent of all
legal immigrants to Canada came from non-White countries. During this time
there were 1.3 million legal immigrants: 26 per cent came from Europe; 47 per
cent came from Asia (Chinese is the fastest-growing mother tongue in Canada);
12 per cent from South America or the Caribbean; 9 per cent from North and
Central America, and 6 per cent from Africa.
Due to declining White birth rates - in 1997 the birth rate was 1.67 children
born per woman, (less than the replacement rate of 2.1) the Canadian government
formally decided in the 1980s to actively seek out further immigrants. The top
ten source countries (in order) in 1995, were Hong Kong, India, the
Philippines, China, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, England, the
United States, and Pakistan.
In 1997, Amerinds officially made up three per cent of the population
(865,400), while officially Blacks made up two per cent (576,920). The
established Asian population was swelled by 962,000 immigrants in the 1980s -
pushing the total of Asians well over the 2,8 million mark.
These are all official figures of legal immigrants: illegal immigration always
shadows legal immigration, and it is possible that the actual figures may be
nearly double the legal ones.
Given that the total population of Canada in 1996 was 28,846,761, some three
million or more legal non-White immigrants have settled in that country prior
to the year 2000. In terms of illegal immigrants, the number is of course far
higher. All this translates to a non-White population of just under 5 million -
or 17 percent of the total population - in 1996. This figure is set to increase
exponentially.
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND - ASIAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN INFLUX
Prior to the 1970s, virtually all immigration to Australia was White: however,
like the rest of Europe and North America, the last 25 years of the 20th
century has seen a massive increase in non-White immigration into Australia,
mostly from Asian countries.
According to the 1991 census, Australia had a population of 16,849,496. The
1995 estimated population, including Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, and
Norfolk Island, was 18,338,000.
Australia's total population grew at an annual rate of about 1.4 percent in the
early 1990s. The principal reasons for this growth were the continued high
level of immigration and the associated increase in the numbers of younger
people in the childbearing and childrearing age groups.
AUSTRALIA 27% ASIAN BY 2025
White Decline - from 30% of World's Population to 15% in 2000
The massive increases in the world's total non-White population also makes
serious food for thought: in 1900, the earth's population stood at 1,625
million, with some 485 million being White. This meant that some 30 per cent of
the earth's population was White at the beginning of the 20th century.
In the year 2000, the earth's population will stand at around 6,095 million,
with around 953 million being White. Although this is an increase, in terms of
the total planet's population, it marks a drop of over 50 per cent - in 2000,
Whites will make up only 15 per cent of the earth's population.
The exponential and explosive growth of the non-White population of the earth -
which effectively doubles itself every 34 years -(compared with White
population which now only doubles itself every 200 years), means that by the
year 2100, only three per cent of the earth's population will be White.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
09 Dec 2004 07:56:51 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041209081802.08281.00002187@mb-m04.aol.com...
"tw"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041208071459.06431.00000998@mb-m26.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only
"prove"
a
positive, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable
to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the
first
site.
Wrong.
I proivided the UN site
No, initally you provided a white >supremacist site.
Wrong. I didn't post a link to any site, Amy did that. I posted info that
can
be traced back to the US Census and UN.
The interpretation of which came from a white supremacist site. How many
more times?
, Dee then provided the US Cnesus site.
You Liberals are so afraid of the truth that none of you bothered to
search for
yourselves.
This speaks volumnes about where you >>are coming from.
LOL!
You find putting your heads in the sand to be funny?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
11 Dec 2004 02:25:41 PM |
|
|
On 09 Dec 2004 13:18:02 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
"tw"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" < > wrote in message
news:20041208071459.06431.00000998@mb-m26.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the first
site.
Wrong.
I proivided the UN site
No, initally you provided a white >supremacist site.
Wrong. I didn't post a link to any site, Amy did that. I posted info that can
be traced back to the US Census and UN.
, Dee then provided the US Cnesus site.
You Liberals are so afraid of the truth that none of you bothered to
search for
yourselves.
This speaks volumnes about where you >>are coming from.
LOL!
You find putting your heads in the sand to be funny?
No - you're a NUT BAG! A total freak.. THAT is what is funny. We
ain't laughin' with ya, hun .. ;)
Dani
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
09 Dec 2004 06:22:29 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
"tw"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041208071459.06431.00000998@mb-m26.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the first
site.
Wrong.
I proivided the UN site
No, initally you provided a white >supremacist site.
Wrong. I didn't post a link to any site, Amy did that. I posted info that can
be traced back to the US Census and UN.
The text you posted only exists on one web site on the WHOLE internet.
Or are you claiming that you wrote the article for white-history.com ?
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
10 Dec 2004 03:11:57 AM |
|
|
"Absolute Zero" <amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cpaq4s$3of$14@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
The text you posted only exists on one web site on the WHOLE internet.
Or are you claiming that you wrote the article for white-history.com ?
I have to concur with Absolte Zero on this one, I ran a comprehensive,
multi levelelled, fuzzy logic, fractal search patter on your words and
all I came up with is this...
http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
That proves beyond all doubt they don't exist elsewhere.
--
krib
;0)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
10 Dec 2004 04:27:20 AM |
|
|
Krib wrote:
"Absolute Zero" <amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cpaq4s$3of$14@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
The text you posted only exists on one web site on the WHOLE internet.
Or are you claiming that you wrote the article for white-history.com ?
I have to concur with Absolte Zero on this one, I ran a comprehensive,
multi levelelled, fuzzy logic, fractal search patter on your words and
all I came up with is this...
http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
;)
-A
That proves beyond all doubt they don't exist elsewhere.
--
krib
;0)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 08:14:22 AM |
|
|
In article <cp70s5$8r0$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041208071459.06431.00000998@mb-m26.aol.com...
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the first
site.
Wrong.
I proivided the UN site
No, initally you provided a white supremacist site.
Quite true.
, Dee then provided the US Cnesus site.
Interestingly, neither the UN nor the US Census sites indicated anything about
the White Race heading for extinction, as Tony is claiming.
You Liberals are so afraid of the truth that none of you bothered to
search for
yourselves.
This speaks volumnes about where you are coming from.
LOL!
One has to wonder if Tony would have preferred to be born part of the remnant of
Neanderthals if they had not gone extinct. Odd that he'd be a preservationist
when it comes to Race, and absolutely nothing else.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
09 Dec 2004 07:20:10 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Interestingly, neither the UN nor the US >Census sites indicated anything
about the White Race heading for >extinction, as Tony is claiming.
Wrong.
The US Census shows whites at less than 50% in a mere 45 years, simply
extrapolation takes than down to 25% by 2100.
That is heading toward extinction no matter how you want to look at it.
But I know that people like you have a tough time facing the truth.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 04:17:26 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove" a
positive, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the first
site.
Wrong.
I proivided the UN site, Dee then provided the US Cnesus site.
Which proved what exactly?
Did either of those sites prove or reasonable imply...
"Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100"
????????????
Nope, dope!
-A
You Liberals are so afraid of the truth that none of you bothered to search for
yourselves.
This speaks volumnes about where you are coming from.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
09 Dec 2004 07:25:10 AM |
|
|
Absolute Zero
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove" a
positive, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the first
site.
Wrong.
I proivided the UN site, Dee then >>provided the US Cnesus site.
Which proved what exactly?
Which so obviously prove that the white race is shrinking at a rather dramatic
rate.
To deny this is to out right lie.
Did either of those sites prove or >reasonable imply... "Whites will be 3% of
the World's population in 2100"
Sure did, what percentage do you think whites are right now? By whites I mean
Europeans, Russians, European Americans and Canadians, and Austrailia, NZ.
We're only about 15% as of 2000, and with all the growth for the next 100 years
projected in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as in immigrants from this
lands in Europe and the USA, it does not take much to see how it gets down to
3% in 100 years.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 07:35:39 PM |
|
|
[I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive]
What do you think a negative is?...Some kind of mystical magical
number?
The term is often used about God.
The affirmative: There is a perfect God. Prove me wrong.
The counter: You cannot prove a negative; ie., that there is no perfect
God.
But if Robert Blake claims that 10,000 men came after his wife and one
of them shot her as the rest watched; you darn well can try to prove a
negative; ie., that the story is false, that there were not that many
footprints, not enough material evidence exists for 10,000 men being
there at that time, DNA traces of hair etc., space for those men to fit
in insufficient, eyewitnesses saw no such gathering anywhere near the
vicinity.
Now if you want to be ticky tacky about the matter and say well you
can't prove that they didn't land from some cloaked space craft;
that's when one can say, you've made a claim that involves the
unexplainable unreasonable unlikely possibly supernatural, and
therefore 'one cannot prove a negative' to that assertion. That
assertion is crackers, by the way. Plus where is the DNA to prove that
so many men were there? If you say you have not proved the negative,
then I would have to say the burden of proof is on you to prove that
many men were there at that time.
In debates one can often prove the negative by using science.
Affimative: I fathered that baby
Counter: The DNA evidence proves the negative, ie., that your claim has
been proven false.
[, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the
first site.
"Conjecture" <> "proof"]
Debates or court cases often involve proving a negative. There is a
claim for the affirmative and you can if you wish counter by proving
[Incorrect. Court cases punch holes in the oppositions case, and point
out the
possibility of other scenarios. "Reasonable doubt" <> "proven
innocent".]
You mean you can only prove a positive? You did not father that baby.
Here is the DNA proof. Negative proven. As often as you like.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 07:45:15 PM |
|
|
"victor" <christisnotdore@yahoo.com> wrote:
[I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive]
I can prove that you're positive, HIV-boy. Dirty.
wally
.
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 08:04:47 PM |
|
|
I replied with this before, but Goggles keep spitting it back to me
saying they can't post.
Grantie, there is no k-file for Google. Is it true you're wheelchair
bound. There was some thread about that long ago. Could show why you
are so hateful. I can ignore your twisted ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 07:52:15 PM |
|
|
In article <1102469739.499705.316510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "victor" <christisnotdore@yahoo.com> wrote:
[I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive]
What do you think a negative is?...Some kind of mystical magical
number?
It means proving the converse, of course.
The term is often used about God.
The affirmative: There is a perfect God. Prove me wrong.
The counter: You cannot prove a negative; ie., that there is no perfect
God.
But if Robert Blake claims that 10,000 men came after his wife and one
of them shot her as the rest watched; you darn well can try to prove a
negative; ie., that the story is false, that there were not that many
footprints, not enough material evidence exists for 10,000 men being
there at that time, DNA traces of hair etc., space for those men to fit
in insufficient, eyewitnesses saw no such gathering anywhere near the
vicinity.
"Proof by example is not a proof", as every student of higher mathematics knows.
You are confusing "proving" actual past events within a reasonable margin of
error with empirical proofs - they are not the same.
Now if you want to be ticky tacky about the matter and say well you
can't prove that they didn't land from some cloaked space craft;
that's when one can say, you've made a claim that involves the
unexplainable unreasonable unlikely possibly supernatural, and
therefore 'one cannot prove a negative' to that assertion. That
assertion is crackers, by the way. Plus where is the DNA to prove that
so many men were there? If you say you have not proved the negative,
then I would have to say the burden of proof is on you to prove that
many men were there at that time.
See above.
In debates one can often prove the negative by using science.
Affimative: I fathered that baby
Counter: The DNA evidence proves the negative, ie., that your claim has
been proven false.
Again, see above. This is NOT an empirical proof, it is evidence gathering
about a known result. IE we know there is a child, given that child, determine
the father.
[, which evidently Tony's site failed to do and he was unable to
provide
any other site which was able to "prove" the statements made on the
first site.
"Conjecture" <> "proof"]
Debates or court cases often involve proving a negative. There is a
claim for the affirmative and you can if you wish counter by proving
[Incorrect. Court cases punch holes in the oppositions case, and point
out the
possibility of other scenarios. "Reasonable doubt" <> "proven
innocent".]
You mean you can only prove a positive? You did not father that baby.
Here is the DNA proof. Negative proven. As often as you like.
Again, see above. You are confusing several different situation which use the
term "proof" and lumping them together. A hypotheses can be "proven" in the
positive, or it can fail to be proven. There is no such thing as
proving a negative!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 08:27:57 PM |
|
|
[I disagree. You cannot "prove" a negative. Ever. You can only "prove"
a
positive]
What do you think a negative is?...Some kind of mystical magical
number?
[It means proving the converse, of course.]
No. If A kicked B, what, the converse would be B kicked A.
The negative is proving an assertion or claim false. One way would be
by providing a better model than the claim does, which is irrefutable
by human standards.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 08:14:02 PM |
|
|
So then in the world of humans and human assertions, one can only prove
a positive, eh? So when Amy and Krib stated one cannot prove a
negative, they weren't referring to Tony's argument being specious till
proven true; and that one cannot prove his assertions as false because
that would be proving a negative. In the world of human assertions, one
can prove falsehood. If you want to call the negative the truth of
positiveness of the negative, fine with me. That's what it comes down
to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 08:14:42 PM |
|
|
So then in the world of humans and human assertions, one can only prove
a positive, eh? So when Amy and Krib stated one cannot prove a
negative, they weren't referring to Tony's argument being specious till
proven true; and that one cannot prove his assertions as false because
that would be proving a negative. In the world of human assertions, one
can prove falsehood. If you want to call the negative the truth of
positiveness of the negative, fine with me. That's what it comes down
to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 02:38:34 AM |
|
|
"victor" <christisnotdore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102472082.122442.258780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So then in the world of humans and human assertions, one can only prove
a positive, eh? So when Amy and Krib stated one cannot prove a
negative, they weren't referring to Tony's argument being specious till
proven true; and that one cannot prove his assertions as false because
that would be proving a negative.
Your pedantry is amusing but I wonder why you're so desperate to
argue your point? the focus of this particular debate is that tony's
so called 'facts' are gleaned from websites that cannot be relied upon
for telling the truth, he also stated that these are government supplied
facts yet, when asked to provide links to the governments that provide
them, he ran away from doing so.
In the world of human assertions, one
can prove falsehood. If you want to call the negative the truth of
positiveness of the negative, fine with me. That's what it comes down
to.
Maybe to you it does, personally I think you're being specious but
that's your choice to be so. Over here in the UK we're in the middle
of a 'speaking plain English' campaign, perhaps you could try that.
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 05:37:52 PM |
|
|
In the world of human assertions, one
can prove falsehood. If you want to call the negative the truth of
positiveness of the negative, fine with me. That's what it comes down
to.
[Maybe to you it does, personally I think you're being specious but
that's your choice to be so. Over here in the UK we're in the middle
of a 'speaking plain English' campaign, perhaps you could try that.]
Clearly one can prove a negative; as long as the disputed claim does
not include leaps of faith involving the supernatural, very
unreasonable requests for belief, or very illogical requests to accept
precepts as being true (illogical maxims asked to be taken for
granted). That is partly what debate is about.
Not desperation, only addressing Woods' clinging to 'one cannot prove a
negative' as something written in stone and applicable in every case.
If Tony claims he fathered a child; one can prove the falsehood of that
claim by using DNA evidence. Woods' contortions were not a refutation
of that example. By proving that Tony did NOT father said child, one
has proven a negative.
Woods claimed that one can only prove positives and never negatives.
That is a semantic argument; like saying you can never call a glass
containing water half empty; but you can call it half full.
I don't see my retorts as being specious. There are countless cases of
proving a negative. I am not a fan of absolutes, nor Platonic ideas or
universals.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 05:14:20 AM |
|
|
Krib wrote:
"victor" <christisnotdore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102472082.122442.258780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So then in the world of humans and human assertions, one can only prove
a positive, eh? So when Amy and Krib stated one cannot prove a
negative, they weren't referring to Tony's argument being specious till
proven true; and that one cannot prove his assertions as false because
that would be proving a negative.
Your pedantry is amusing but I wonder why you're so desperate to
argue your point?
Victor often runs defence for Tony when his fat arse is hanging out.
The usual strategy is to stir up a storm of distraction.
This should be interesting given vik's distaste for Tony's race argument.
-A
8<
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 06:18:29 AM |
|
|
Absolute Zero
wrote:
Victor often runs defence for Tony when >his fat arse is hanging out.
Wrong.
Dee usually speaks up when you freaks are totally ignoring the obvious.
He kind of clears it up for you fatheads.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 04:18:30 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
Victor often runs defence for Tony when his fat arse is hanging out.
Wrong.
Dee usually speaks up when you freaks are totally ignoring the obvious.
He kind of clears it up for you fatheads.
Meanwhile, on planet earth..............
-A
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
09 Dec 2004 07:31:38 AM |
|
|
Absolute Zero
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
Victor often runs defence for Tony >>when his fat arse is hanging out.
Wrong.
Dee usually speaks up when you >>freaks are totally ignoring the obvious.
He kind of clears it up for you >fatheads.
Meanwhile, on planet earth..............
-A
Guess you missed this one from Dee.
"Well it would help if you can refute the stats for Australia, Europe
and elsewhere outside of the US. If not, unfortunately the article
might not be far off. You are impugning without checking. As it stands,
China, India, the Middle East, Central Asia, Oceania, Latin America,
make up a large percentage of the population today, without taking into
account immigration."
He's not running defense for me, he's telling you that you're wrong.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
09 Dec 2004 06:18:35 PM |
|
|
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
Victor often runs defence for Tony >>when his fat arse is hanging out.
Wrong.
Dee usually speaks up when you >>freaks are totally ignoring the obvious.
He kind of clears it up for you >fatheads.
Meanwhile, on planet earth..............
-A
Guess you missed this one from Dee.
"Well it would help if you can refute the stats for Australia, Europe
and elsewhere outside of the US. If not, unfortunately the article
might not be far off. You are impugning without checking. As it stands,
China, India, the Middle East, Central Asia, Oceania, Latin America,
make up a large percentage of the population today, without taking into
account immigration."
He's not running defense for me, he's telling you that you're wrong.
I'm not the one who's TRYING to make a case... that would be you.
tap, tap, tap.
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
10 Dec 2004 08:46:04 AM |
|
|
Absolute Zero
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
Victor often runs defence for Tony >>when his fat arse is hanging out.
Wrong.
Dee usually speaks up when you >>freaks are totally ignoring the obvious.
He kind of clears it up for you >fatheads.
Meanwhile, on planet earth..............
-A
Guess you missed this one from Dee.
"Well it would help if you can refute the stats for Australia, Europe
and elsewhere outside of the US. If not, unfortunately the article
might not be far off. You are impugning without checking. As it stands,
China, India, the Middle East, Central Asia, Oceania, Latin America,
make up a large percentage of the population today, without taking into
account immigration."
He's not running defense for me, he's >>telling you that you're wrong.
I'm not the one who's TRYING to make a >case... that would be you.
The case has been made, you just can't accept it and no amount of explaining or
evidence will change your mind.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 08:52:48 PM |
|
|
victor wrote:
So then in the world of humans and human assertions, one can only prove
a positive, eh? So when Amy and Krib
tw, not krib.
(unless my SRAM fails me)
stated one cannot prove a
negative, they weren't referring to Tony's argument being specious till
proven true; and that one cannot prove his assertions as false because
that would be proving a negative. In the world of human assertions, one
can prove falsehood. If you want to call the negative the truth of
positiveness of the negative, fine with me. That's what it comes down
to.
For heavens's sake don't go applying your argument to the argument else
you'll create a black-hole.
Nothing sensible to say... nighty-nite.
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
07 Dec 2004 09:24:16 PM |
|
|
You're probably right, wasn't Krib apparently.
[For heavens's sake don't go applying your argument to the argument
else
you'll create a black-hole.]
Funny. As most informed people know by now, Hawking admitted he was
wrong about the exaggerated mysteries of black holes, such as taking
things to other universes; and paid off someone at Cal Tech with a
baseball memorabilia book (or similar item). Only a tangential sidebar.
I wonder if wormholes are a myth as well.
[Nothing sensible to say... nighty-nite.]
I declined the offer to elaborate on the link. The stats were obviously
familiar. If a guy gets hanged, it should be for something other than
semi-truth. In the distant past, I defended Aron, which wasn't very
popular either. I have a distaste for Tony's politics.
Anyway, I was trying out Google like a new car today. I will be less
active probably in the future with my posting. My favorite baskball
team won today finally. All is not lost in the world. Have a good
morning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 02:38:35 AM |
|
|
"victor" <christisnotdore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102476256.321039.92410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You're probably right, wasn't Krib apparently.
Nah it wasn't but no worries we all make mistakes.
My favorite baskball
team won today finally. All is not lost in the world.
Good things still happen it's not the hellhole some people like to
believe ;0)
--
krib
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 04:51:48 PM |
|
|
victor wrote:
You're probably right, wasn't Krib apparently.
[For heavens's sake don't go applying your argument to the argument
else you'll create a black-hole.]
Funny. As most informed people know by now, Hawking admitted he was
wrong about the exaggerated mysteries of black holes, such as taking
things to other universes; and paid off someone at Cal Tech with a
baseball memorabilia book (or similar item). Only a tangential sidebar.
I wonder if wormholes are a myth as well.
Betcha.
Hawking <= Overrated celebrity physicist.
The ultimate insult for him I think; would be if in the fullness of
time, Hoyle became celebrated over him.
I suspect that the whole BB model is toast. It will take time of course;
there’s a massive investment.
Try this for a good evidence based debunk.
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
[Nothing sensible to say... nighty-nite.]
I declined the offer to elaborate on the link. The stats were obviously
familiar. If a guy gets hanged, it should be for something other than
semi-truth. In the distant past, I defended Aron, which wasn't very
popular either. I have a distaste for Tony's politics.
Anyway, I was trying out Google like a new car today. I will be less
active probably in the future with my posting. My favorite baskball
team won today finally. All is not lost in the world. Have a good
morning.
Thanks, I did.
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "victor" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 06:22:01 PM |
|
|
Lerner looks like a neanderthal. LOL
Probably can knock the daylights out of me in physics though. The guy
might be biased, since his specialty could be plasma physics and
fusion. I have a good book which goes through the arguments against the
BB. Most astrophysicists seem to support the BB as you noted; even
calculating the happenings of the first tiniest fractions of a second
in the birth of the universe we're in. I dunno if we need to worry
about the origins of the universe, the way ignorance keeps guiding
world events.
I'll go back to lurk status for a while now. I feel a lot of guilt for
reading apn for several weeks before and after the election here.
My bosses at work deserve better work than I have been doing recently.
Yesterday reminded me of the days when I spent countless hours writing
in newsgroups for no monetary pay off. I better start finishing
projects I put off.
If someone posts obscenity using my screen names, it's probably from
Grantland. One can check properties or whatever the Google groups
resources are. Tony can take care of himself. Actually I don't like
seeing lynchings. It wasn't so much that Tony and I are close in any
sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Whites will be 3% of the World's population in 2100 |
08 Dec 2004 07:22:17 PM |
|
|
victor wrote:
Lerner looks like a neanderthal. LOL
Too slight.
Probably can knock the daylights out of me in physics though.
I should hope so.
The guy
might be biased, since his specialty could be plasma physics and
fusion.
Check out his "reply to a widely circulated criticism" sometime.
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm
I have a good book which goes through the arguments against the
BB. Most astrophysicists seem to support the BB as you noted; even
calculating the happenings of the first tiniest fractions of a second
in the birth of the universe we're in. I dunno if we need to worry
about the origins of the universe, the way ignorance keeps guiding
world events.
You'll probably recall that I've always favoured a Universe, infinite in
space AND time. That had nothing to do with Lerner, he completely
slipped under my radar until recently. My father switched me on to him
partly through his involvement in a push to upset the apple cart of
research funding in this regard. I've tacked on some text at the end.
Anyway, PC predicts
No begining.
. . .
No end.
That *could* be tough on many religions.
I'll go back to lurk status for a while now. I feel a lot of guilt for
reading apn for several weeks before and after the election here.
My bosses at work deserve better work than I have been doing recently.
Yesterday reminded me of the days when I spent countless hours writing
in newsgroups for no monetary pay off. I better start finishing
projects I put off.
If someone posts obscenity using my screen names, it's probably from
Grantland. One can check properties or whatever the Google groups
resources are. Tony can take care of himself. Actually I don't like
seeing lynchings. It wasn't so much that Tony and I are close in any
sense.
'K
-Au revoir.
Text Of An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the
predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would
this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way
of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the
least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model
both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These
and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of
the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation
of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the
redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even
predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the
big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not
explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising,
as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of
funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be
freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in
most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that
"science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent
are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they
have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those
who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged
right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So
discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy
distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This
reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free
scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources,
and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by
supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang
within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the
scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines
a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing
of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased
discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those
agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction
of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and
observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer
review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of
astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
