Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About iCambrian

  • Rank
    The Scientist

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Christian Humanist

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,287 profile views
  1. iCambrian

    Multiple Wives in the US

    Could the wives be treated equal and fairly in one household? Multiple people paying for one house is easier than one or two paying for one house. But one husband paying for multiple houses would be difficult.
  2. iCambrian

    Multiple Wives in the US

    Is it true that the husband of a polygomous marriage would have to provide individual housing for each wife? If that is the case, then yes, the husband would probably have to be part of some Haram occupation, if not living off of welfare or in a ghetto. Unless they are doctors or something high paying.
  3. iCambrian

    Climate change: causes, consequences and solutions

    I'm glad you're aware that you've changed the subject.
  4. iCambrian

    Climate change: causes, consequences and solutions

    The topic being discussed wasn't about whether or not deep sea volcanism melts ice. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235056364-climate-change-causes-consequences-and-solutions/?do=findComment&comment=3137047
  5. iCambrian

    Climate change: causes, consequences and solutions

    This isnt really a response to my post. Its just unrelated commentary.
  6. iCambrian

    Quranic/Biblical stories as allegory?

    At least with respect to the Evangelical Christian view of Noah's ark, this story is certainly not a literally true story. Many evangelicals still believe that the planet is 6000 years old as well. It is embarrassing for Christian's. Not sure where Muslims stand on the topic. Many Christian's I think forget that scripture was indeed written by fallable people. As opposed to being written by God Himself. Typically they're also scientifically illiterate.
  7. iCambrian

    Climate change: causes, consequences and solutions

    The article appears to be legit. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/doi/10.1130/G39633.1/521232/climatic-control-on-icelandic-volcanic-activity Regardless of where we are in our stage of an interglacial, and regardless of how much ice was present during the past ice age or little ice age, there appears to be, as per a handful of research articles, a correlation between loading of ice and underlying volcanism. "Numerical models suggest that glacial unloading increases mantle melt production at depth and alters the storage capacity in the crust (Hooper et al., 2011). Even small changes in surface loading can alter the stress field around shallow magma chambers, increasing or decreasing the likelihood of eruptions at ice-covered volcanoes (Albino et al., 2010)." Just because, it might take 500-1000 years of melt and adjustments in the mantle, this wouldn't be a reason to just ignore the correlation. And really, these articles aren't particularly surprising either. Large magmatic chambers are often unstable on their own. Why would anyone be surprised that if you removed weight from the surface, that you would affect things like rates of mantle melting, which subsequently would affect things like volcanism. It's probably just not referenced much because it seems like a large scale change that would take hundreds of years to unfold.
  8. iCambrian


    Hold on, let me use my magical powers to provide proof against a claim that has no basis.
  9. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/us-france-britain-propose-un-resolution-syria-chemical-attack/ https://informnapalm.org/en/syria-chemical-attack-russia-blocks-un-security-council-resolution/ http://www.nrttv.com/EN/Details.aspx?Jimare=13678 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947 https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-chemical-russia/russia-says-syria-gas-incident-caused-by-rebels-own-chemical-arsenal-idUSKBN1770H3
  10. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    I suspect this is sarcasm.
  11. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    That's what Russia said. Unless he intentionally blew up the facility of chemical weapons, thereby spreading those chemicals to the surrounding area which killed innocent people.
  12. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    " What Russia said at that time was that they hit a chemical weapons cache of some armed group by mistake. They didn't know it was there, obviously those groups don't go around telling people where they store these things. So the Russian explanation may or may not be true, but it is plausible. " Yup, lets just feign ignorance. Yes we have satellite imagery (at least Russia does), we knew they were stockpiling weapons, because anyone with eyes can see that (that's why we targeted it to begin with). Oh, but we weren't sure if blowing this location up would affect the neighboring town thereby killing the innocent. We decided to blow it up anyway...oh but we didnt actually know what we were blowing up, we figured that we would just fire the missiles and find out what happens after the fact. We didn't fire those chemical weapons. Oh what, they watched our airplanes fly directly to that location the day of the bombing? Oh well let's just say we didn't know what we we're attacking, yea that sounds good. This is just poor and irresponsible^. And there is no way around this. And this is a best case scenario for the regime. Either be a tyrant firing the weapons, feign ignorance and lie about not knowing what you're blowing up, or simply make poor choices based on weak intelligence that involve the loss of the innocent. People here on SC, are too "pro-assad". Everyone says "well maybe Assad did this, but he probably didnt". But nobody ever entertains the idea that, maybe...just maybe...even if it were just one time, in the course of this huge mess of a situation, perhaps Assad "probably did". Because he and his regime consist of fallable people who inevitably make bad decisions. I would say, that the western world is actually holding Assad to unrealistic standards by responding to any seemingly small mistake he may have made. If a nation is torn into pieces and you are fighting to save your home, in a multi year, messy war, mistakes will be made. And I think the west knows this, and is highlighting this. Both because the west doesnt like Assad, but also because realistically, he is a poor leader.
  13. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    I highly doubt that Syria would possess a massive arsenal of chemical weapons, but never in its history had it ever produced any. As if the world consists of saints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_chemical_weapons_program#Stockpiling_and_production https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1tQdMzm08L64WGbBIeGkTTZSmJzA&ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&ll=34.63495454639024%2C38.015173499999946&z=7 I'm not sure that I could be convinced that they never tried such a thing. Its unlikely that any militarized country in modern times, has not produced chemical weapons. It may have predominantly stockpiled them, versus produced them, but to say that Syria never produced them, I couldn't imagine. Regardless, we still have investment in research and maintaining stockpiles as well. where investments are made in a chemical arsenal. If my country was torn apart in civil war, and I had invested in stockpiling and researching chemical weapons, regardless of if I produced them, I'd be hard pressed to just get rid of everything just because some foreigners from the other side of the planet, who I don't like to begin with, told me to do so.
  14. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    Any response regarding my words of last years attack? " Again, I am not saying Assad didn't do it, but there is no real evidence that he did. " I recall last years attack, and people argued that no clear evidence was provided. Then the pentagon released information of observed routes of Syrian military jets during their attacks. Indicating their attack. Russia claimed that Syria didnt use chemical weapons, rather they just bombed a chemical weapons facility and the toxic chemicals just happened to have spread around and killed innocent people. Now, if I knew there were a stockpile of chemical weapons, it would be irresponsible of me to blow the place up, knowing that these chemicals could spread. Alternatively, the jets may have just launched chemical weapons. Also, if I had invested in a chemical weapons program, and I was in the middle of a multi year civil war, i wouldnt necessarily give up on my arsenal which I have invested time, research and finances into, just because some foreign nations said not to. Either way, you have some form of irresponsibility, and perhaps indifference by the regime. And for the sake of survival, maybe this ruthlessness is considered necessary.
  15. iCambrian

    US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    If I recall, last year when there was a chemical weapons attack. The route of the aircrafts that made the attack was clearly observed. Russia stated that the Syrian government didnt use chemical weapons, rather they simply attacked a location that stored chemical weapons. Which thereby resulted in collateral damage and the uncontrolled spread of toxic and lethal chemicals, which indiscriminately killed innocent people. Whether Syria used chemical weapons produced from one of its chemical weapon production facilities, or whether they used regular weapons and simply attacked these chemical storage locations, is irrelevant to...what the outcome was. If I knew that a storage facility contained chemical weapons, and I shot a missile at it, and that facility blew up, thereby spreading toxic chemicals into the surrounding neighborhood, killing innocent people...then i would see myself just as guilty, as if I had simply used my own chemical weapons to do the same. Especially if I had an alternative means of seizing the facility, such as with ground troops. Here we are a year later. Everything Assad does, can be seen. Its not like he has some sort of stealth plane technology that hides his actions. Given Assads history and his nations chemical weapons program, and his history of producing and using chemical weapons, there is little reason to think that at some point, he wouldnt use chemical weapons, or further little reason to doubt that such actions could be observed by the pentagon. But further, the events of last April demonstrate a form of carelessness, indiscriminately for his people. Then you have Russia Initially denying that any chemical weapons were used, but then they turn and say, well actually yes, chemical weapons were used, but it was staged by the UK. Good job Russia. Just sharing, feel free to respond Haji.