Global Warming?

[turnkey4099]

Yes they are and they prove the repeated warming and cooling cycles of the natural earth. Thanks for finally coming around!

As well as evidence that never in thne past 100,000 years of cycles has the warming period proceeded at such a fast rate.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

While I'm a creationist evolution guy, for those that understand what that is, I don't argue with, and in fact agree whole heartedly with much science, I have a minor in Earth Science. I have a problem with those that put down Biblical accounts simply by referring to "facts". See, the problem comes from the "fact" that the earth was flat, the center of the universe and you could fall off the edge! Let's not forget sea monsters, mermaids and all those other "facts" of life, which we now know were hooey! We are not at some intellectual peak folks, we learn more every day, so many of today's "facts", will be laughed at tomorrow.

All "facts" that were proven false by science, not religion. IN fact religion only admitted to their mistakes when they could no longer defend them in light of the "facts".

Scoemce sure is wonderful!

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

And they bear out the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth!

And show a _very_ unusually fast rate - a FACT you keep trying to ignore.

Harry K

 

[IslandTractor]

While I'm a creationist evolution guy, for those that understand what that is, I don't argue with, and in fact agree whole heartedly with much science, I have a minor in Earth Science. I have a problem with those that put down Biblical accounts simply by referring to "facts". See, the problem comes from the "fact" that the earth was flat, the center of the universe and you could fall off the edge! Let's not forget sea monsters, mermaids and all those other "facts" of life, which we now know were hooey! We are not at some intellectual peak folks, we learn more every day, so many of today's "facts", will be laughed at tomorrow.

Hey, we agree on something for a change (minus the creationist part). And slash's quote from Heynman is relevant too. As Turnkey points out there is a big difference between "facts" or best available knowledge at the time and the process of ongoing scientific inquiry or experimentation. Facts are useful and it is hard to live without them but they often turn out to be at least partially wrong. The open minded scientific exploration of the planet/biology etc is what raises the bar. Old wisdom is a starting point only and that is why referencing the Bible as a reference is so fraught with problems in matters of science.

 

[/pine]

...And slash's quote from Heynman is relevant too...

There you go again:laughing: ...an attempt at convolution...

Again...if you knew anything more about Feynmen than what you recently searched for...you would know that Fenyman used the line "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" quite often when speaking on the subject of science in general...actually he used the term to define "science"...regardless ...i.e., the quote is relevant when discussing any science...

Do some more searching and you will/should realize the error in your attempt to discredit both myself and the context of the quote...

And for the record I have never mentioned any conspiracies...it's just one of the many cliches you use whenever someone suggests anything that is polar in nature to your liberal (and misguided) leanings...

 

[madmax12]

The flood of Noah is a myth. There is zero evidence anywhere in the world of one and mega mega tons of rock strata that prove there neveer was one. Yes, the creationists twist, distort and ignore scientific facts about the lack of flood but that is not science.
Of course when it comes to religion, there is no way to debate a crationist for they operate on "I know what the bible says, don't confuse me with facts".

Harry K

Have you ever really written out how you view the origins.... How matter became matter, how it manifested time and space, and organized into living beings...?

There is faith involved in every step of your view.

In a society that rejects the supernatural, because, well...its supernatural.... They fail to see how supernatural there own view is. The view lacks one key component. The Designer. The rest, is quite supernatural. Not natural.

If the peers all wish for there to be no Designer, because they wouldn't like to think about it that way, then they start with a bias. With their agreed bias, they weigh facts. Anyone rejecting that bias is not a peer.

In the non Designer faith, we have this challenge. Who designed it? The go to answer...TIME.

The Mt. St. Helens event...experiment el natural... Challenges that view... TIME... As an automatically assumed fact in all of the sediment layers etc.

You ridicule the scientist, so you do not have to face his thoughts.

Why don't you actually review the data for yourself???

Why is that so hard? Why do you want to go to the anti-design cliff notes summary paper??? Read the book for yourself. You think the scientist is a joke? So then why are you afraid to review his/their work?

Ridicule is a response. It is not a scientific one.

All that you condemn as myth, you should write out your view in your own words, and really look at it on paper in front of you on the table.

Myth? You have your own to contend with...popularity, aside.

 

[DarkBlack]

This is a semantic argument- premise is "you can't prove this is not true, so therefore we should treat it as true" similar to the "can you prove Santa isn't real".
Common sense makes it a moot point.

Ok, if your house has some heavy smoke- do you call the fire department? Maybe your house was fated to burn on this particular day. To call the fire department may be going against the designer's plan. What would you do?

Places with 3 digit heat in the US may need some new long range planning- re drought, resevoirs, agriculture. Should we ignore it or plan ahead?
Can we mitigate the effect of tornado disasters with more warning time, shelters? Should we try?
Should coastal areas reconsider the flood planning to mitigate lives lost and property damage? Or is the warming climate fated, and we should do nothing?

I see it as common sense to address these issues.

Fate and the grand design are party discussion topics. The rest is common sense.

Actually, if you read it better, you will see there is no argument at all. I only posted ideas of questions, that all who want to change the course of this planet, should ask themselves.
If these questions make no sense to you, don't worry, they won't to most people. If they don't spark your mind of the bigger picture, then I think you don't have the vision to dictate to others how things should be.

 

[toppop52]

As well as evidence that never in thne past 100,000 years of cycles has the warming period proceeded at such a fast rate.

Harry K

There are those that disagree, it papers the Greenland warnings of the 1930's as well s Medieval Warming periods were mor rapid.

 

[toppop52]

As well as evidence that never in thne past 100,000 years of cycles has the warming period proceeded at such a fast rate.

Harry K

Actually the Greenland warmings of the 1930's as well as the Medieval Warming, we're both more rapid.

 

[toppop52]

All "facts" that were proven false by science, not religion. IN fact religion only admitted to their mistakes when they could no longer defend them in light of the "facts".

Scoemce sure is wonderful!

Harry K

Those previous facts were also brought to you by the top scientist of their day.