Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

[OnceWasLost]

If you want a good read there are a good number of articles out there about crop yields by decade. If we are to believe it is because of warming or Co2 either way yields are up. If Co2 is the cause then that means that whatever we contribute is not a zero sum gain, in fact how much of what we create is just eventually plant food?

God put in place a system that reacts to what is natural (Co2 is well over 90% created naturally) we have too high an opinion of ourselves to believe that what God made can be destroyed by our so called "negligence"

[csharpdotcom]

csharpdotcom: This brings me to another point, in order to understand the changing climate, it's necessary to look at records going back many hundreds of thousands and even millions of years through glaciology and geology respectively. Most Christians are against at least the radical elements of environmentalism, quoting Scripture saying God created man to have dominion over the earth. Fine, I certainly agree with that. Unfortunately, some of these Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a global flood about 1500 years later, for which there is no evidence. Consequently, they are undermining their own arguments against radical environmentalism by rejecting the science that could back up their claims in the name of a particular dogmatic interpretation of the Bible, and a general anti-science stance. How can people put forward coherent arguments if they reject a good fraction of the science that could back up their arguments?

Perhaps if many Scientist would quit trying to pass off their assumed values for unkowable variables as if they were confirmed facts, then I might be more inclined to listen to their arguments. Instead, they continue to build evidence based on scientifically unprovable assumptions.

By drilling through ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica scientists can look at the gasses and other material trapped in the ice, and deduce how the climate changed in the past. This matches up very well with changes in climate during the historical past. Not only that, records of droughts in Egypt as recorded in the Bible are seen in the glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya.

There are many scientist that believe in a young Earth...Do these scientist have an anti-science stance?

Yes they do! I have met several of these so-called creation scientists in person, and asked one of them what evidence would make him change his mind on the age of the universe, to which he replied that none would. Thus by his own admission he is not doing science. If you disregard the evidence and claim you are doing science you are being dishonest.

[csharpdotcom]

Is this any different than the scientist who takes money from a organization with an atheist agenda, then publishes a paper supporting the theories of the atheist organization? Loss of funding due to disagreeing with the funding organization's point of view is a very great possibility for any scientist. The business of science is profits.

You may argue that scientists employed by, say, the tobacco companies, will be tempted to slant their research in a way favourable for the tabacco companies. However, as a professional scientist myself, and having published in peer revewed journals, I can say that scientist involved in investigating the nature of the universe just want to uncover how the universe works, and have no specific agenda, atheistic, Christian or other. If some makes a new discovery, naturally they want funds to investigate this further.

I believe that the Bible is the truth.

So do I, but it is a different kind of truth, which has little to do with empirical science.

I don't varnish that truth with talk of "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith." (I Timothy vi:20b,21a, KJV).

I.e. the 11th Commandmant: "Thou shalt not think, thou shalt just believe without asking questions." I've seen this and similar biblical quotes taken out of context to endorse a militantly anti-intelectual agenda. Christianity should be open to everybody, not just those who don't have a science education, or those who think that having an education in science is somehow sinful.

I can count, and the Bible tells us how many years it was from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to the Exodus, and from the Exodus to the Temple. I believe that the Author of the Bible is not a man that He should lie. So why should I believe mankind's "science" which is daily influenced by greed and obstinate pride over the facts as presented in the Bible? The same Bible that tells me that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and that there has been only 6000 years from that creation until now is the same Bible that tells me that Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, died for my sins and rose again, offering me and all of humanity eternal life. If you have a problem with one fact from the Bible, do you have a problem with all the other facts as stated in the Bible? If so, you've got bigger problems than whether or not the earth is 6000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews xi:1, KJV).

Just like James Ussher, but at least he had the exuse of living at a time when we still thought the Sun orbited the Earth and other modern knowledge. Guess what, I can think for myself, and accept that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, yet at the same time do not believe in a literal 144 hour creation week. I do not buy into the one size fits all type of interpretation of the Bible.

[WarGamer]

csharpdotcom: Unfortunately, some of these Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a global flood about 1500 years later.

God's word says there was a flood. That settles whether you or I believe it or not.

YBIC

[Iovan]

The global flood answers a lot of the questions about glacier formation, how the sediment was layed down, etc. Csharp still at it huh? *shakes head*

The "evidence" of old age is hardly overwhelming, and much of it isn't even evidence under the scientific method period. Creationists can be scientists just as much as Atheists. They can approach science from their presupposition just like Atheists. They can propose theories and use the scientific method to either uphold or refute those theories just like Atheists. Trying to saying creationism can't be linked to science is just a way to shut off debate.

Atheists approach science with their own "unbreakable" rules. Such as "there is no God", "billions of years is needed to make evolution and uniformitarian views work", and "the universe created its self". They will not bend on these no matter what. They will change theories, but not their presupposition. Creationists will likewise change theories but not their presuppositions.

Glacier core ages are not confirmed and are in fact subjective. Old Age(as if 6000 isn't old to begin with.) scientists subjectivly decide what age the cores should fit. They do not have accurate measurments for it. They just have a world view that required old age, and uniformity. So they propose the ice was laid down slowly over long periods of time. It is more likly that the glaciers were formed during an Ice Epoch after the flood.

[csharpdotcom]

God's word says there was a flood. That settles whether you or I believe it or not.
YBIC

In other words I should just shutup and believe without question! Yes, there was a flood, but to propose that there was a global flood covering Mount Everest around 2400 BC is patently absurd, and Christians who make claims like that, and insist that you believe that without question are making Christianty look absurd and unbelievable. How can you possibly persuade someone in the liberal left to stop supporting abortion, for example, by saying on the one hand that you are a Christian, then bringing up absurdities?

Incidentally, did the Eqyptians use submarines to build the Pyramids, as they were built at about the time the flood took place claimed by Answers in Genesis?

[Iovan]

According to faulty dating methods they were built around then. Csharp the bible calls for a Global flood, there is no logical way around it. You make christians look ridiculas when you claim it was less than global, and you make God out to be a liar. The whole of the earth was judged. Let go of your secular dogma, it is neither supported or logical.

Edit: And everest could easily be covered when you understand that maybe the way the earth looks now isn't the way it looked then. A lot of geological reconstruction happened during the flood. How can you explain sea creature fossils being found at the tops of mountains?

[csharpdotcom]

The global flood answers a lot of the questions about glacier formation, how the sediment was layed down, etc. Csharp still at it huh? *shakes head*

In other words you know more about glaciology by reading Answers in Genesis tracts then going out into the field and doing real work!

The "evidence" of old age is hardly overwhelming, and much of it isn't even evidence under the scientific method period. Creationists can be scientists just as much as Atheists. They can approach science from their presupposition just like Atheists. They can propose theories and use the scientific method to either uphold or refute those theories just like Atheists. Trying to saying creationism can't be linked to science is just a way to shut off debate.

In astronomy at least, which is my area of expertise, the evidence of an ancient universe is so overwhelming that there is really no question. I presume that real geologists who know much more about their work than you or I are equally convinced. Judging by your blunders on helium and other tit bits of science in another thread, and I say this with all due respect, you know little about science.

Atheists approach science with their own "unbreakable" rules. Such as "there is no God", "billions of years is needed to make evolution and uniformitarian views work", and "the universe created its self". They will not bend on these no matter what. They will change theories, but not their presupposition. Creationists will likewise change theories but not their presuppositions.

How many times do I have to say that science has nothing to do with theism or atheism, it is just about trying to figure out how the universe works. Some scientists have specific Christian or atheistic agenda, but what matters at the end of the day are to formulate theories that best fit the observations.

Glacier core ages are not confirmed and are in fact subjective. Old Age(as if 6000 isn't old to begin with.) scientists subjectivly decide what age the cores should fit. They do not have accurate measurments for it. They just have a world view that required old age, and uniformity. So they propose the ice was laid down slowly over long periods of time. It is more likly that the glaciers were formed during an Ice Epoch after the flood.

No they don't, they can study the ice cores going back over recorded history, and find a correlation with climate, industrial pollution and volcanic eruptions. Earlier records correlate with variations of the Earth's orbit and axis tilt, known as the Milankovich Cycles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles . This data totally contradicts a global flood around 2400 BC that somehow produced the ice caps.

Of course you will disagree with that on principle because it contradicts your particular interpretation. After all, people working for Answers in Genesis will agree with this quote from the father of post WWII creationism in the USA:

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." - Remarkable Birth, p. 94 - Henry Morris.

Of course by declaring that one knows the answers in advance, and any evidence that contradicts them is wrong by definition, renders illegitimate any claims one has in doing science, and is dishonest to claim one is doing science, i.e. breaking the 9th Commandment.

Yes, I believe that the Bible should be used in science, namely that one has to conduct one's work with honesty and integrity. People who ignore or twist data they do not like because it disagrees with their agenda are being dishonest.

[csharpdotcom]

According to faulty dating methods they were built around then. Csharp the bible calls for a Global flood, there is no logical way around it. You make christians look ridiculas when you claim it was less than global, and you make God out to be a liar. The whole of the earth was judged. Let go of your secular dogma, it is neither supported or logical.

No, the Bible does not talk about a global flood, it uses the Hebrew word "eretz", which means all the land, probably all the land known to the author. You are trying to apply the meaning of "world wide" in its modern meaning to what it may have meant at the time the text was written. I won't be intimidated by your claim that I'm saying that God is a liar, which is a common YEC tactic. As God did not write the Bible, it was inspired by Him, and is subjected to interpretation, yet you are effectively claiming that you have an infallible interpretation.

Edit: And everest could easily be covered when you understand that maybe the way the earth looks now isn't the way it looked then. A lot of geological reconstruction happened during the flood. How can you explain sea creature fossils being found at the tops of mountains?

That idea comes from Ellen G.White and the 7th Day Adventist Church around the mid 1800s. Fossils on mountains can be explained by continental drift.

[OnceWasLost]

No, the Bible does not talk about a global flood, it uses the Hebrew word "eretz", which means all the land, probably all the land known to the author. You are trying to apply the meaning of "world wide" in its modern meaning to what it may have meant at the time the text was written.

Gen 7:4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.

Does that mean that God didn't know of other land masses like Moses or Noah did? :idunno