fauxlaw

1. Fossil Fuels: formed over millions we don't actually know by measurement of years it takes to produce the raw materials, but kn ow that it has been going on for billions, not just millions of years, and therefore know not what replenishment requires in time. Organic matter continues to be produced from the beginning of life on Earth and are consumed much faster than they replenish. either faster or slower in time - again, nwevber been measured, so we don't know. We assume, and you should know that means wow guess. Sorry, I do not agree with eliminating an energy source before we know we can replace it too the degree it contributes to our energy grid, and green right now, is far from capable of doing so, ot3ehrwise, we would be doing it now.
2. Minerals & Ores: Metals like copper, gold, nickel, and rare earth elements (e.g., cobalt for batteries) exist in fixed quantities. constantly replenished quantities by continuous raining of space dust all over the Earth ever since the solar system was formed. Therefore, a renewable supply. We do not exist asa planet stuck in a vacuum of space.
3. Freshwater: While water itself cycles, usable freshwater in aquifers and surface water is limited and finite in specific locations. Yes, however, the raw materials of water, H and O, are in abundant supply, and apparently these atoms readily combine into molecules. Replenishment. Also, we can build aqueducts from supplies of fresh water to where it is needed, such as from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to the southwest US, but don't. We also would potentially alleviate flooding on the gulf coast. We know the tech, but choose to ignore providing it.

Fertile Land: Topsoil can be depleted faster than it's formed through natural processes. Doesn't have to be, and there is both agricultural land [used] and arable land [not

used; is idle, and can be used]. We have 38% of the former of all types of landmasses, and 11% of the latter of all landmasses, or 49% of all landmass types; sufficient for

our current world population, and more, but we use it poorly. As I said, we do not have either a resource or population problem; we have a land management problem as well

as too much greed. We know how to fix both but don't.

Did I say I was a tax expert? No, but I am fluent in English in reading, writing, speaking, and have access to my OED for difficult words, and 60 years' annual IRS experience filing out returns. The US tax code is not rocket science. Who knows, maybe I have more deductions I am unaware of, but I must be abiding by the right ones so far. Besides, I like the club and don't mind paying the dues I think I owe. Never been audited, and never used a tax accountant, so I must be doing it right enough.

I do not vote against my interests, and I don't vote directly on legislation, but, I know the people who do have my vote think along the lines I do, or I would not vote for them. I have met and spoken with my Senators and Representative on several occasions and know their ideals, and they know mine, personally. You?

Sorry, ain't going to happen. Many have tried, including a Junior-year undergrad philosophy professor who promised me the same thing, only he was an atheist, and swore he world convert me. I nearly converted him, by his own end-of-year admission. He had no idea what I had as firm, historic knowledge in his own topic, let alone religion, and as personal witness to sufficient experiences ion. my life by keen observation of use of personal revelation to prove to me without doubt that I am on firm ground. You effort will not succeed, either. Sorry, but, go ahead if that is your schtick.

especially when calculations don't favor the latter.

But, fortunately, we do not, in this regard, need to depend exclusively on calculation, short of physical evidence. The physical evidence of buried deposits of all kinds of resources are evident on the walls of the Grand Canyon, let alone elsewhere all around the world of similar phenomenae. What was once surface areas of deposits of resources are now billions of years old, and, now, thousands of feet Ito the layers of Earth. Ever been there to see it for yourself, and realize the record that is exposed for all to see how the Earth replenishes resources? Apparently not.

ordinary plants and animals decompose and ordinarily add to the surface layers of the planet

There's a difference, my friend, between day-to-day time and geologic time, and real scientists of real sciences, in this case, geology, know yester-eons' surface layers become...

...deep enough or in enough quantity to replace the fossil fuels.

See, you've admitted it yourself. The walls of the Grand Canyon are sufficient testament to that fact. It is a record of hundreds of millions to billions of years of replaceable "surface layers" into which we know there are buried deposits of all kinds of resources: water, precious metals, non-precious metals and other minerals, and...,

and,

...and crude. Get it?

This site engages two separate arenas of participation of members [I ignore a third, gaming, which has no conversant relation to the other two.]

Forum is an open conversation wherein claims are made and have no formal requirement to provide scholastic credibility of any claim [though it may still be a credible idea].

Debate is a structured conversation wherein two opposing positions are held, generally pro and con of a stated resolve. The Burden of Proof [BoP] exists on both sides of the Resolve, in favor of, and opposed to the stated Resolve. Proof, being the burden, must provide evidence of the stated BoP. It will not suffice to merely use the Resolve as a claim as if it is obvious without evidence that it is either true or false. The Resolve cannot be assumed to be proven merely by its claim. Which ever opposing side that is judged more complete in its supporting evidence of the BoP is generally the winner of the debate, and generally requires the unbiased judgment of each voter.

Given the gap, why not admit that the claims of "finite resource" may be flawed, just as was the claim debunked that the Earth centered the universe?

LOL = frightened little girl, such as the #metoo poster woman who claimed of Harvey Weinstein in his hotel room [as if she thought that was a safe place to be alone with him by her choice], "He told me to take my clothes off, so I did." Yeah, real smart.

I do not have a science degree, though I have 3 PhDs and several baccalaureates; the last earned just a a year ago, in my old age. I do read voraciously all subjects of interest to me.

Sterilize population, or face infinite population growth 

As if you can only assume two choices. There3 are more. Two types of landmass that are effectively useless to human habitation: arctic and desert. Both can, by human intelligence of innovation, be terra-formed to productive use without taking forest, meadow, ad by improving urban by more occupation of the useless land. Example: the American southwest, and other desert areas such as the Sahara, or central China. Both could be provided water. In the US, by aqueduct from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers which would also mitigate flooding to the Gulf Coast. Move more people from crowded urban conditions to developed desert areas that cannot produce food and other commodities by provision of water. Very little occupation of current wild green space. We avoid de-populating urban spread because we merely choose to do so. Choose other options.

"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

And still, you must conclude that even inspired, as prophets were, how they interpret "inspiration" varies widely from what may have actually been inspired. Hence, differing interpretations from those inspired. Then, camp on top of that the variable translations that have occurred to different languages than that spoken/written by those who were inspired. Who is infallibility derived fr4om that confusion?

But, the question you propose is not posed to a single person, is it? It is posed to a variety of persons with a variety of beliefs relative to God; therefore, variant answers. Therefore, the answer is inconsistent.

The over-population of Earth, in modern time, was first proposed late in the 18th century [1798] by English clergyman and economist, Thomas Robert Malthus. That's like asking a plumber for legal advice, or vice versa. Point is, he's not educated in the field of his claim. Nor was polititician, AlGore, with regard to "an inconvenient truth" which turned out to be false, as Mark Twain once quipped: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." At the dawn of the 19th century, Earth's human population was estimated to be 1 billion. Earth's total landmass is estimated at 149M km^2; about 29% of the total surface of Earth. Now, on that same landmass, the population is 8x of that counted in 1800. And still, all 8B of us could be accommodated with 1.5 acres, each, just on the total segment of landmass that is agricultural [38%] and arable [idle agricultural land - 11%], 49% total. leaving all urban, meadow, arctic, desert, and mountain landmass [51%] totally unpopulated. We are not overpopulated, we are poor land managers.

Peak oil [a predicted maximum availability of oil worldwide] was predicted in 50s by M. King Hubbard, a geologist [at least in the right educated field] to occur in the mid-70s. It didn't happen, and has yet to happen even 50 years later. He assumed [as is still assumed] that petroleum crude is a finite resource that will eventually be depleted. Who says? By what measurement? The resource is organic life - animal and plant, gone to ground by death. Being organically supplied, why should the resource be finite? Who or what will be responsible for ending the natural process of petroleum crude production, since the material supply will endure as long as life in abundance occurs on Earth, and dies? And who has measured the production time? We guess millions of years, but who measured, and with what measurement tool? We do not actually have an empirically derived answer of product manufacturing time. Further, tell me what other naturally occurring process has just quit as petroleum crude has allegedly quit? Water? Air? Nope. Anything else? Nope.

Oil will eventually "run out" because it's a finite, non-renewable resource formed over millions of years.

How do you know the elements making up petroleum crude, a natural product, are finite? The organic matter that is the resource of the stuff continues to be produced in generations today, just as millions and billions of years ago. That is a guess, not empirical knowledge. And, therefore, it is "renewable, and always has been.

How do you know it takes millions of years to produce petroleum crude? Who did the production time measurement? That is a guess, not empirical knowledge.

How do you know "Peak oil" is an empiric reality. Yes, it was predicted long ago, and the prediction of its occurrence ended up being flawed, just as tyhr many predictions of the end of the world have been demonstrated as false. King Hubbard, himself, declared his prediction in the 50s was wrong. Oops.

The Bible, itself, does not declare its alleged infallibility, so, all your repetitive questions are the wrong questions. And the Bible, alone, is not the only scripture in which I have personal assurance of the existence of, and supreme authority of God. And, even the Earth, herself, and the universe beyond it, testify to the existence and glory of God; we do not even need to limit that assurance to a document such as the Bible.

Because I assure you, oil will run out as predicted,

You do so enjoy making claims without substantiation. Why will oil run out? What prediction has offered its reasons why it will occur? None that I have ever seen. Making the claim, alone, does not make it so. Get it? What is the great natural cause of its sudden unavailability if all the elements of the natural production process of petroleum crude ion the Earth continues its availability? Does the Earth eventually stop making water out of hydrogen and oxygen? Not bloody likely since those elements rain on us in cosmic dust every single day of the world since the world and the universe around it came into being. Only the complete destruction of Earth will do it, with an assigned;le cause [which you do not have, otherwise], and then, we won't care, will we?

As long as the legal tax code allows for benefit to me, wouldn't I be crazy to ignore the availability? Change the law if that is your schtick; I don't care, but that is your course to take; I'm not so inclined. What's stopping you from personal wealth? I'll tell you because it's obviously simple: Look in the mirror; there is your greatest nemesis.

When did I say my acquisition of wealth beyond the 20% I donate is just for me? I have children and grandchildren. Inheritance.

As I advised Savant, you'd best read the Catholics Catechism, which declares the Bible as "the infallible Word of God." No, I don't thin that is so since it is a product of ordinary men and women who were "inspired." But inspiration is not the same as authorship.

But hey, what do scientists know.

What, indeed? Climate science is all of about 200 years old. Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, are thousands of years in existence. Less than 200 years ago, "science was telling us the Earth centered the Universe. Blah, blah...

And a thinking species is not required to decompose and produce petroleum crude in the Earth. Ordinary animals and plants do it, and always have.

Sorry, but my copy of the Catholic Catechism declares that the Bible is "the infallible Word of God." That's very explicit, not subject to interpretation. It also declares God as its "author," which, itself, is a poorly used word because that implies he more than "inspired," but actually penned the scriptures. He did not. That was the work of ordinary mortal men and women.

Why should a renter derive tax advantage from a property not owned? What, because you cannot afford to buy a home? I don't see anything but entitlement there. What are you doing with your income that I did not, relative to "toys," for example. Eating out instead of learning to cook from scratch? Getting an education to afford a higher income? Invest in yourself rather than in those toys? How much plastic do you use, thinking it is disposable income? Ambition, planning, and execution is what my father taught me. It was good advice. I applied it early and it paid dividends in real value. No, I did not inherit a fortune from my father, I made it myself.

If you mean by that claim if it is derived from Luke 12: 15, that most English translations do not specify "money," but covetousness; the envy of any possession, not just money. It is possession, with unhealthy desire for it, that is sinful, and not its mere acquisition and safe-keeping. If one is faithful in their use of possessions, making them a blessing to others, as well, what, pray tell, is wrong in that?

No, no one inherits sin from anyone else, parents or otherwise, unless one denies the effect of the Savior's atonement, which even paid for the transgression of Adam and Eve. To accept that we bear their transgression is to totally deny Christ. Nope; I don't go there. We are each responsible only for our own transgressions, and no one else's. There is no "original sin," and no one can show me scriptural evidence otherwise.

Who says it is a sin to acquire wealth? There are many ways to acquire wealth that are sinless. Money, itself, is not the root of anything at all if its acquisition and use are not, themselves, sinfully done. The advice Jesus gave to the young man to give all that he had was not advice to all, because everyone who is wealthy is not also miserly, as the young man was. Do not read words that are not there, and pray about those that are that we may interpret correctly.

It is not sinful to afford things that others are not able to buy. The lack is not the wealthy one's fault, necessarily, unless the rich man has stolen from the poor. Yes, that does happen, but not all wealthy people are thieves and misers, and it is not good to assume they are.

re-distribution of wealth in order to make all of relative worth is not good, either, because that allows sloth and entitlement to generate. Let all be ambitious enough to be of a wealth with which they are properly prepared to earn, and earn it.

Let all be charitable to the degree that the government need not be involved in being the source of any charity. The injunction Jesus gave to give to the poor was not an invitation to Caesar to perform, but to the people.

There are several passages in the Holy Bible that say it is dependable as scripture, that it contains the path of righteous living to attain the presence for God, but that it is void of error is never claimed absolutely. There's good reason: I'll argue all day long that it is inspired, but I also claim the US Constitution is an inspired document. But God did not write it, and, by my reading, and I have read the Holy Bible cover to cover numerous times, it never claims God wrote the words. Inspiration is not written as its form that enter's man's mind. Its entry is by reading the words, but who wrote the words? Men and women did; all of it, cover to cover. Anything man does is imperfect until he, himself, becomes perfect in all respects. We're not there, yet. So, anything we do, ever have done, or ever will do until the day of perfection is blessed upon us, is flawed to some degree. That's why the Bible also says we are to go to God in prayer to inquire about the things we read therein, and thus receive personal revelation of what is, and is not correct principle.

Just one of the problems: The Bible, as we know it today, has been subject to translation from "original" languages [Hebrew and Greek] for 1600 years, at least. Translation has several issues: No language has the exact, word-for-word lexicon of another language. One example: "love" in English, is 7 different words in Greek. Many words share this problem, and who is to know if translators are sufficiently fluent in both languages to know how translation its best accomplished to reflect both language and cultural differences correctly?

Another problem: "the Bible" did not exist in antiquity, The "books" were separate documents, not a cohesive collection. A work that may still, 1600 years later, be in progress.

So, where do we get off claiming the Bible's "infallibility?"

The solar system, including Earth, is not sitting in an empty vacuum of space. We are made up of space, but also a star, planets, moons, asteroids, meteorites, comets, and cosmic dust. All this stuff is both organic and inorganic. As a result, we, Earth, reside in a soup de jour of elements that are depositing on Earth from space, and ejected from Earth into space. Therefore, in reality, of the elements constantly entering into Earth's atmosphere, much of it eventually falls on Earth, continuously supplying us with the elements that make up our organic and inorganic materials, which is why there is really no such thing as finite resources, organic, or inorganic. Get it?

fossil fuels and are not renewable

Who the hell says that? AlGore? King Hubbard? A pair of idiots. I know you just did, but do not bother substantiating the claim anymore than they ever have. Loser argument. Do you think water is not renewable, but a finite resource? Why? It's made of two simple, plentiful, singular elements that easily combine. Just what do you think "renewable" means? Isn't breathable air renewable, not a finite resource? Again, several simple, plentiful elements. So, too, is petroleum crude. It is a natural process that has not mysteriously ended just because that is a convenient green argument for discontinuation of dinosaurs. Convenient, but without any proof whatsoever that it is a discontinued natural process, regardless of how long the process may require. When it's a daily process, with no evidence whatsoever of suddenly ending, days eventually add to billions of years.

Being wealthy means having money and keeping it to yourself.

Nope. I habitually give 20% of my revenue stream to charity, but have yet to actually diminish assets.

If you were humble and generous youd give too much away to stay wealthy.

Not when the revenue stream may be without doing any further work, which is not the case in my case, and not when the revenue stream is based upon a continuously increasing value over time starting ahead even off inflation, even if not day-to-day, and finally, not when generosity does not exceed revenue stream.