Did these authors observe the last 160 years?

[rjw]

While I am not commenting on whether this paper:-

No rise of airborne fraction of carbon dioxide in past 150 years, new research finds

mentioned at this link:-

http://www.christianforums.com/t7429693/

is correct or not, I am curious in that if Darwinists have to observe evolution for it to be acceptable:

"How come we don't observe any new animals evolving?"

then which of the authors who wrote the paper mentioned in the above link, actually observed the past 160 years?


I think some creationists are arguing with double standards here. What say you?




Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7429693/

CO2 was 0.038% in 1850 and it's 0.038% today.

 

[rjw]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7429693/

CO2 was 0.038% in 1850 and it's 0.038% today.

So it's 1850 today and they can see that quantity, AoS?

Or is it simply an interpretation of data that you are putting to me?




Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

It's called historical data. Observers recorded it ...

So because it's historical it cannot be repeated to ensure that it is correct?

and that data can be observed.

So, it's 1850 today and these authors can show it to you again?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So it's 1850 today and they can see that quantity, AoS?

It's called historical data. Observers recorded CO2 percentages from 1850 onwards and that data can be observed.

 

[rjw]

It's called historical data. Observers recorded CO2 percentages from 1850 onwards and that data can be observed.

So it's every day from 1850 onwards, today, and you can show me all that CO2 today, so that the measurements can be repeated?

Or is it just that you can repeatedly observe some one else's writing from the past, claiming it to be CO2 measurements, and nothing more. And from there you have to place your own interpretation on your repeated observation of their writing?


Did you see them observe CO2?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So it's every day from 1850 onwards, today, and you can show me all that CO2 today, so that the measurements can be repeated?

Or is it just that you can repeatedly observe some one else's writing from the past, claiming it to be CO2 measurements, and nothing more. And from there you have to place your own interpretation on your repeated observation of their writing?


Did you see them observe CO2?



Regards, Roland

If you're going to deny history and historical observation and data then I guess it's obvious why you believe in the global fraud mythology.

 

[rjw]

It's called historical data. Observers recorded CO2 percentages from 1850 onwards and that data can be observed.

C'mon AoS.

It's a big claim made by creationists that because evolution is in the past (apparently it has stopped), it cannot be repeated.

Can you repeat all those past measurements you claim as true?

Or can you only repeatedly observe someone else's written interpretation of what they measured in the past?

I reckon you argue by double standards.

What do you think?



Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

If you're going to deny history and historical observation and data then I guess it's obvious why you believe in the global fraud mythology.

I don't necessarily deny it.

I doubt your ability to not argue via double standards.

You apply something to us, that you simply refuse to apply to yourself.



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

C'mon AoS.

It's a big claim made by creationists that because evolution is in the past (apparently it has stopped), it cannot be repeated.

I don't argue that.

There are many historical events that cannot be repeated in a lab e.g. the resurrection of our LORD Jesus Christ.

"As is well known in all sciences there have been many important events which have not left any trace." -- Hannes O.G. Alfvén, physicist, 1954

 

[rjw]

I don't argue that.

There are many historical events that cannot be repeated in a lab e.g. the resurrection of our LORD Jesus Christ.

And 160 years of historical data? All you can do is repeatedly look at their claims.

"As is well known in all sciences there have been many important events which have not left any trace." -- Hannes O.G. Alfvén, physicist, 1954

Unlike much of evolution which does leave traces in the present, which we can repeatedly observe, and in many different ways!


Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

And 160 years of historical data? All you can do is repeatedly look at their claims.

Despite the desires of revisionist historians, global warming cultists, and others, history can never be changed. Once it happens that's it. It's done.

Unlike much of evolution which does leave traces in the present, which we can repeatedly observe, and in many different ways!

Obviously I and a great many others besides see things differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

 

[rjw]

Despite the desires of revisionist historians, global warming cultists, and others, history can never be changed. Once it happens that's it. It's done.

Like all science, all history has to be interpreted.

I don't know of one historian who does not interpret all data (including historical records) at his/her disposal, do you?


Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Like all science, all history has to be interpreted.

I don't know of one historian who does not interpret all data (including historical records) at his/her disposal, do you?


Regards, Roland

When you read the number 4 do you interpret it as the number 8?

 

[rjw]

When you read the number 4 do you interpret it as the number 8?

Why should I necessarily read "4" and see an "8"?

However I could do so, couldn't I?

But what has this really got to do with the point I am making? Are you a Muslim, based on historical claims and the fact that history supposedly is not interpreted, even by historians?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Why should I necessarily read "4" and see an "8"?

Because you believe in anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2?

However I could do so, couldn't I?

If you believe in global warming, yes.

 

[rjw]

Because you believe in anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2?

Since you appear to accept anthropogenic warming, then what other candidates do you have in mind? Methane is another candidate. Should I believe in warming caused by methane? Yes, it's a good candidate.

If you believe in global warming, yes.

What has any of this got to do with the point I am making in this thread - about certain creationists arguing via double standards, and the method by which they do.

Assume that I do not accept global warming. My argument is the same.

Assume that I do accept it. My argument is the same.



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Since you appear to accept anthropogenic warming

For the record: I do not accept it.

then what other candidates do you have in mind? Methane is another candidate. Should I believe in warming caused by methane? Yes, it's a good candidate.

Neither methane nor CO2 nor any other so-called "greenhouse gas" has had any effect on the global climate in the history of human emissions.

Now there have been supervolcanic eruptions that did effect the climate. But only temporarily.

The Sun and the galactic electric currents are what truly effects the climate.

What has any of this got to do with the point I am making in this thread - about certain creationists arguing via double standards, and the method by which they do.

Assume that I do not accept global warming. My argument is the same.

Assume that I do accept it. My argument is the same.

Regards, Roland

I guess I don't understand your argument. What double standard?

Because I believe in history that's a double standard?

 

[rjw]

For the record: I do not accept it.


Neither methane nor CO2 nor any other so-called "greenhouse gas" has had any effect on the climate in the history of man.

This is the argument in your own thread.

It is of no relevance to my argument in this thread.

It now looks (to me at least) as if you are trying to move goal posts.

I guess I don't understand your argument. What double standard?

Return and review our exchange.

I presume most lurkers understand.

Because I believe in history that's a double standard?

As far as I know we all "believe in history".

I do. In fact I have even met a historian or two. Had one or two teach me as well. Even read books written by historians.


Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

Because I believe in history that's a double standard?

Because you believe in history, you believe in evolution AoS?

After all, it is a process that operated in history, just as it does now. Like rainfall.

If history happened and that's all there is to it, then evolution happened and that's all there is to it. Past activities leave evidence in the present for us to observe, and interpret.




Regards, Roland