Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

[Iovan]

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

What a cop out. It doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the ice doesn't come with dates attached. It is based on subjective guessing as to how old such and such layer is.


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 believe in another thread I decimated your "overwhelming" ancient universe evidences.


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.


My blunders on helium? Lol ok then. Coming from someone who doesn't even understand the tenets of the big bang theory yet used it in 80% of his argument that is pretty funny. "Real" geologists? There are geologists who disagree with old age, plenty of them.


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.


Yep it does. Nice dodge of the issue though. I never said science in its self was anything to do with either, but the scientists who make theories and gather facts have presuppostions of either. You continuosly confuse their presuppositions with their ability to do science. Strictly speaking, you are biased and not very well informed on how modern science 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.


Yes. However this doesn't always happen, as you can see with the old age theories that have holes put in them and keep on chugging. They got enough believers in them that it doesn't matter what happens to them. Far more than "some" scientists have "agendas". And every scientists has a presupposition they approach a problem with.


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.


The age of the ice is all believed not backed up with solid evidence. Your inability to understand the difference is amazing.


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.


I will disagree with it based on the evidence. My belief that my presuppostions will all be proven over time has nothing to do with the evidence. Evidence can be falsified, it can be mishandled, and it can be misread. We are dealing with fallible man. You can prove my theories or theories I support wrong, but you can't prove my presupposition wrong. Same thing for atheists. Yet your bias disallows you from questioning atheistic science which according to you is not your friend. Strange.


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.


This is blatantly false. You can put forth scientific theory based on your presuppostion. You are confusing the two. Presupposition isn't science, but theories supporting it can be. Your logic is faulty.


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.

Yes they are. On BOTH sides of the issue. You seem to ignore one side though, and rail against the other. Your faith in man is scary, and I wonder if you have thought it through completely.

This all said we are NOT on topic anymore, which we should correct.

[igirocks]

All,


Thanks for taking the time to read my 2 cents. I believe and Know that SATAN knows and understands the BIBLE better than any man. After all, he sees GOD everyday and he understands GOD and his word and he knows his time is growing near the end (IMHO)

Global warming mythology that works on 2 levels to meet his objectives. 1st - man controls man (Socialism / New World Order) 2nd - Satan will have explanations for the wrath that GOD will unleash and therefore can take the road of " See I told you so" mean while the masses are still blinded and dumber and will believe him. All the while the earth and its weather revolts in turmoil and in judgment.


just my 2 cents.

GOD Bless this boeard and please pray for my family and I, we are really under attack lately!!!

[Iovan]

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.


So now you are saying either God didn't know all the land, or that the author wrote it without inspiration. In fact you are wrong in both assertions, but let's just deal with how much of the earth the flood covered. Since it said it covered even the highest mountains, it is nothing but an insult to claim that the writer was "mistaken". What did the writer think the hills were mountains?


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.


I am saying that it is clear on what it says, and it takes throwing scripture through hoops to come out with anything other than what it clearly says. What makes you decide to do that? Man made theories that are poorly supported. The only reason to oppose a global flood is because it completely ruins uniformity and defines the geological stratum.


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.

Poorly explained by continental drift. It is by far the least simple answer. And what idea comes from Ellen G. White? I hope you aren't proposing that the earth not looking the same does, cause that is just a logical conclusion. Only uniformitarian theories call for the earth to have looked generally the same for millions of years.

[TheOddBall34]

We could have kept box cars, or sollar powered cars it is all about corporate America if they can not make money things will change. I do not believe all of this is do to global warming some of this is God's will.

[csharpdotcom]

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

God did know about other land masses, but there is no reason to suppose that the authors of Genesis did. After all, later on it talks about a famine in the whole earth and everybody went to Egypt. Did this include the Eskimos and Ameridians from S.America?

Anybody who believes that representatives of all land animals were on that ark, including insects, must believe in a form of hyperevolution far more rapid than claimed by darwinists, to explain how several thousand species became millions in a short period of time. And what about the plants, the cacti here in Arizona are different genetically to those in the Middle East. Did the cacti hyperevolve and walk to Arizona?

[csharpdotcom]

What a cop out. It doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the ice doesn't come with dates attached. It is based on subjective guessing as to how old such and such layer is.

So in other words you know more about this than scientists who go out into the field to do real work. Look at my previous posts and check up some unversity websites.

I believe in another thread I decimated your "overwhelming" ancient universe evidences.

Nonsense! I'm not an expert on the Big Bang, but clearly by your elementary errors you know even less. No scientific theory is perfect, and YECs can always show deficiencies. In fact that's all they can do, they can't propose an alternative theory that can be tested against observations. Some of the claims made by Jason Lisle are patently false, as I have confronted him in person.

My blunders on helium? Lol ok then. Coming from someone who doesn't even understand the tenets of the big bang theory yet used it in 80% of his argument that is pretty funny. "Real" geologists? There are geologists who disagree with old age, plenty of them.

I do understand something of the Big Bang theory, but at least I don't have the pride to claim that I know it all, and there are experts here in Arizona who know much more than me. You clearly know almost nothing yet somehow imply that you are some kind of an expert. Incidentally, go to http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm , who is a real geologist who started off believing the way you do, but then worked for an oil company. When looking for oil you use real geology.

Yep it does. Nice dodge of the issue though. I never said science in its self was anything to do with either, but the scientists who make theories and gather facts have presuppostions of either. You continuosly confuse their presuppositions with their ability to do science. Strictly speaking, you are biased and not very well informed on how modern science works.

So here you are knowing almost nothing about science, yet telling a professional scientist that the science I do is wrong. That is the sin of pride!

Yes. However this doesn't always happen, as you can see with the old age theories that have holes put in them and keep on chugging. They got enough believers in them that it doesn't matter what happens to them. Far more than "some" scientists have "agendas". And every scientists has a presupposition they approach a problem with.

As I have stated many times, scientists originally assumed the universe was about 6000 years old, but as geology and astronomy developed, it became increasingly untenable to believe in a 6000 year old universe in the face of overwhelming evidence. As I may also have said the modern YEC movement in the USA has it's roots in the 7th Day Adventist Church.

The age of the ice is all believed not backed up with solid evidence. Your inability to understand the difference is amazing.

Here speaketh our science expert!

I will disagree with it based on the evidence. My belief that my presuppostions will all be proven over time has nothing to do with the evidence. Evidence can be falsified, it can be mishandled, and it can be misread. We are dealing with fallible man. You can prove my theories or theories I support wrong, but you can't prove my presupposition wrong. Same thing for atheists. Yet your bias disallows you from questioning atheistic science which according to you is not your friend. Strange.

We are also dealing with fallible men who make fallible assumptions about their fallible interpretation of the Bible. Later tonight I will go out and look at some distant galaxies with a telescope. Are you going to tell me that I will see some kind of an illusion because of the light travel time if the universe is 6000 years old?

Yes they are. On BOTH sides of the issue. You seem to ignore one side though, and rail against the other. Your faith in man is scary, and I wonder if you have thought it through completely.

I have faith that God gave us brains and we can find truth using those brains. I also have faith that God is not the author of deception, and if astronomers all round the world of various different religions or none, come to the same conclusion based on the evidence that the universe is billions of years old, then it seems reasonable that the universe is indeed billions of years old. Nobody has come up with any theory that supports a 6000 year old universe when tested against the evidence.

This all said we are NOT on topic anymore, which we should correct.

Yes, indeed, we should get back on topic!

[csharpdotcom]

So now you are saying either God didn't know all the land, or that the author wrote it without inspiration. In fact you are wrong in both assertions, but let's just deal with how much of the earth the flood covered. Since it said it covered even the highest mountains, it is nothing but an insult to claim that the writer was "mistaken". What did the writer think the hills were mountains?

I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about the authors, and it's no insult to claim they were mistaken, they just didn't know. They wrote within the language and culture of the day.

I am saying that it is clear on what it says, and it takes throwing scripture through hoops to come out with anything other than what it clearly says. What makes you decide to do that? Man made theories that are poorly supported. The only reason to oppose a global flood is because it completely ruins uniformity and defines the geological stratum.

Well, the church at the time of Galileo said the Bible clearly stated that the Earth was motionless, so Galileo used man's fallable and sinful theories to propose that the Earth moved. The reason why a global flood is opposed is because it is contradicted by the evidence, and has nothing to do with uniformitarianism.

Poorly explained by continental drift. It is by far the least simple answer. And what idea comes from Ellen G. White? I hope you aren't proposing that the earth not looking the same does, cause that is just a logical conclusion. Only uniformitarian theories call for the earth to have looked generally the same for millions of years.

Here we go again with our science expert! I don't know what it is, I'm a Christian and I don't claim to be an expert in a field I know nothing about, but anyway. You obviously know little about continental drift, and the earth didn't look quite the same about 20,000 years ago when there were big ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere, and it looked radically different when the continents were differently located say 100 million years ago, so yet again you don't know what you are talking about, IMHO.

[OnceWasLost]

God did know about other land masses, but there is no reason to suppose that the authors of Genesis did. After all, later on it talks about a famine in the whole earth and everybody went to Egypt. Did this include the Eskimos and Ameridians from S.America?

Anybody who believes that representatives of all land animals were on that ark, including insects, must believe in a form of hyperevolution far more rapid than claimed by darwinists, to explain how several thousand species became millions in a short period of time. And what about the plants, the cacti here in Arizona are different genetically to those in the Middle East. Did the cacti hyperevolve and walk to Arizona?Variation of species based on geography and climate have never been claimed as problematic from our side. If it was a dog on the ark then protomutt would do just fine. There are numerous species of dog but they are still dogs.

Environmental effects dictate what protomutt looks like. It isn't a stretch for me to believe that, and that your cactus would have come back after the waters receded. God also said it was all living things that he had made. There are entire books written on this subject if you desire to read them.

Also as a bible literalist I think the author of Genesis was inspired to write as he did. So his limited knowledge of geography could be overcome by God's knowledge on the subject.

All those questions you asked are answered in a number of books I can link if you like; doing each one, one at a time is pointless. Let me know if you would like links.

[Iovan]

I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about the authors, and it's no insult to claim they were mistaken, they just didn't know. They wrote within the language and culture of the day.

How were they mistaken if God inspired them? You are claiming the bible lies when it says how much the flood effected. It is that simple.


Well, the church at the time of Galileo said the Bible clearly stated that the Earth was motionless, so Galileo used man's fallable and sinful theories to propose that the Earth moved. The reason why a global flood is opposed is because it is contradicted by the evidence, and has nothing to do with uniformitarianism.


The church at the time accepted current pagan theories at the time. They didn't get it from the bible, they tried to interpret scripture to fit the scientific norm of the time. And because they felt the RCC was never wrong, they persecuted Galileo. Kinda like gap theory and theistic evolution today? maybe?


Here we go again with our science expert! I don't know what it is, I'm a Christian and I don't claim to be an expert in a field I know nothing about, but anyway.


Never claimed I was an expert, but I can know facts, and I can refute falsehoods. Amazing you have to attack my expertise instead of my argument.


You obviously know little about continental drift, and the earth didn't look quite the same about 20,000 years ago when there were big ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere, and it looked radically different when the continents were differently located say 100 million years ago, so yet again you don't know what you are talking about, IMHO.

I know a lot about continental drift. I find it funny that you attack my knowledge of continental drift, while what you claimed expertise on(big bang theory) I proved you completely wrong on. Interesting.

20,000 years is an unsubstantiated number. 100 million years ago is an unsubstantiated number. I would say it looked different before the flood than after it. A global flood would change quite a bit, especially if the continent break up happened because of the flood. Tsk tsk

[Iovan]

So in other words you know more about this than scientists who go out into the field to do real work. Look at my previous posts and check up some unversity websites.

What a bogus accusation. You are trying to paint it like I am attacking solid scientific evidence. I am not. There are geologists who disagree with the experts you tout. Who is right when they are based on subjective evidence? Your's cause you want them to be? How immature.


Nonsense! I'm not an expert on the Big Bang, but clearly by your elementary errors you know even less. No scientific theory is perfect, and YECs can always show deficiencies. In fact that's all they can do, they can't propose an alternative theory that can be tested against observations. Some of the claims made by Jason Lisle are patently false, as I have confronted him in person.


When did Jason Lisle come into this? Your assertions are ridiculas. They do refute atheistic theories, and they do propose theories of their own that have as much backing as the Big bang theory. You couldn't even get simple facts about the Big bang right, and it was part of your central argument. And yet you claimed the big bang is solid and unquestionable, as if it were a scientific law. I proved you wrong, so it puts your assertions in question.


I do understand something of the Big Bang theory, but at least I don't have the pride to claim that I know it all, and there are experts here in Arizona who know much more than me.


I never claimed I know it all.


You clearly know almost nothing yet somehow imply that you are some kind of an expert.


Where have I been wrong? Prove me wrong, don't assert I am so.


Incidentally, go to http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm , who is a real geologist who started off believing the way you do, but then worked for an oil company. When looking for oil you use real geology.


"Real" geology. How arrogant. Considering that there are plenty of validated theories as to how oil formed during the flood, and forms much faster than has been claimed. More attacks against YEC. I guess if you can't beat the argument you should just claim the arguer isn't a real scientist.


So here you are knowing almost nothing about science, yet telling a professional scientist that the science I do is wrong. That is the sin of pride!


Where have I known almost nothing about science? I have repeatedly proved you wrong. As for you being a professional scientist, do I know this? You sure don't carry yourself like a real scientist, and you seem to not understand scientific processes very well. You confuse presuppostions with theories, and you confuse the scientific method with those who use it. :rolleyes


As I have stated many times, scientists originally assumed the universe was about 6000 years old, but as geology and astronomy developed, it became increasingly untenable to believe in a 6000 year old universe in the face of overwhelming evidence. As I may also have said the modern YEC movement in the USA has it's roots in the 7th Day Adventist Church.


Atheistic scientists who didn't want to believe the biblical account came up with theories that slowly over time the sediment layers were layed down. Nearly all age proofs for old age are based on subjective evidence. The only partially validated one is the speed of light from stars to the planet, and it could just be poorly understood science around what affects light.

Wow, how big of you. Instead of proving it wrong, you try to demonize it by linking it to a movement most YEC are against. :rolleyes


Here speaketh our science expert!


I claimed to be an expert where? Can't attack my arguments instead of me? :rolleyes


We are also dealing with fallible men who make fallible assumptions about their fallible interpretation of the Bible. Later tonight I will go out and look at some distant galaxies with a telescope. Are you going to tell me that I will see some kind of an illusion because of the light travel time if the universe is 6000 years old?


I will tell you right now that your fallible assumptions about light travel time will create an illusion to you about the age of the universe. Your belief in fallible theories that are poorly validated(or not at all) has caused you to A: try to redifine clear scripture B: Consider contradictions between your fallible man theories and the bible as the writer's ignorance C: Consider the bible as lying when it calls strictly for a global flood.


I have faith that God gave us brains and we can find truth using those brains.


I agree. I do not agree with your posistion on what the truth is.


I also have faith that God is not the author of deception, and if astronomers all round the world of various different religions or none, come to the same conclusion based on the evidence that the universe is billions of years old, then it seems reasonable that the universe is indeed billions of years old.

Yes cause concensus proves everything. Like geocentricism, evolution, or a flat earth. :rolleyes


Nobody has come up with any theory that supports a 6000 year old universe when tested against the evidence.


Not true at all.


Yes, indeed, we should get back on topic!
We should, but I wonder if your hubris will allow it.