Familiarity with the Earth Sciences

[TBDude65]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).


In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?


(Note: I asked these same questions on the "DebateAChristian" subreddit for anyone who may also be a member there. It was posted in the latest "weekly discussion" thread)

 

[Root of Jesse]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).

Very little and very long ago

In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

I think it's very old.

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

A version of evolution-there's lots that believe different things...

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

Hard to know for sure, but I believe old. I don't think Creation and Evolution contradict each other.

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

No

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

Yes, obvious, because of Ice Ages, and the age of Dinosaurs

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

A little

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

There's a general climate and a specific climate. For example, the Ice Ages didn't affect the entire earth specifically, while they did probably affect weather patterns.

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Well, I don't believe any of it is catastrophic, in other words, 'the climate changes, so what?' That doesn't mean we should just waste fossil fuels and litter the planet. We are supposed to be good stewards of the planet.

(Note: I asked these same questions on the "DebateAChristian" subreddit for anyone who may also be a member there. It was posted in the latest "weekly discussion" thread)[/QUOTE]

 

[Halbhh]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).


In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?


(Note: I asked these same questions on the "DebateAChristian" subreddit for anyone who may also be a member there. It was posted in the latest "weekly discussion" thread)

While most learn some basic stuff about geology and some very limited bits about paleontology in high school, my guess that is only a tiny portion of college graduates have actually had a course in either. Most of what I learned in these I learned gradually over the years by an accumulation of various articles and some additionally direct seeing of actual fossil and such from a good handful of visits to major Natural Science Museums in large cities. But the great majority of what I learned in these particular subjects (as opposed to certain other science subject I've read much more extensively in), and just like most college graduates, is only from reading popular science articles, which of course can be fairly detailed, if you have them from a source like Scientific American or other good sources like Science News, etc.

Lemme have fun by just answering every question only from memory as best I can. That's a lot more interesting than merely looking up answers, right?

1. 4.55 billion years +/- 1% by radiometric dating of such as moon rocks, meteorites and such. (by the way, this overlaps some to my actual degree, as some of my physics courses in college covered quantum states of atoms, so I know about radioactive decay in a from-basic-theory way, and it's like understanding Newtonian gravity, just clear and basic).

2. Of course.

3. Interesting recent discovery of formations have shown that early life probably began about 3.8 billion years ago (if I remember the number correctly).

4. I've read quite a range of popular science articles about ancient environmental conditions, but was not interested to learn more about the dating, as it hardly matters to me if something is 2.6 bn years old or 2.1 bn years old. To me, that's not interesting. What is interesting is instead the very broad transitions in climate and atmosphere, especially the early Earth's atmosphere, like how the early Earth did not have free oxygen for instance, and how it got some in time, etc.

5. Nope. Zero on that. Just not my interest. Of course, many will know that the blood of dinosaurs is inside the intestines of blood sucking insects preserved in amber or such, which is fun.

6. By 'perturbations of the global carbon cycle' do you mean the very interesting reality of the 5 major mass extinctions, and details about what caused the extinctions? To me the mere dating side of it wasn't worth more attention. I wanted to learn more about which types of species survived each. It's great fun to see a good exhibit on the extinctions.

7. Sure.

8. Here I'll take 'believe' to mean 'what's your guess based on what you've learned', and then my answer is that my best guess based on what I've learned is we are likely to change the global climate in a far more drastic way than we've seen so far to date. For instance, there's a lot of uncertainty in how long it could take to melt or break up ice sheets in Antarctica, and uncertainty about what might happen to glacier flows if they do break up sooner, etc., and it could be wildly more interesting that the familiar best guesses we've seen in the last 20 years.

9. The oceans and atmosphere cause effects from distant places to affect local climates from far away. It's extremely complex also.

10. Lots. For instance, one worry is that we will cause sub tropical diseases to spread north onto us, and that sudden increase in territory could cause high mortality, somewhere, if not here. Possible. Also, I wouldn't want to be heavily invested in seashore property in Florida say going forward. It's fine to just enjoy it while we can of course.

Let me ask you one.

11. Have you ever considered how extremely propitious and helpful it was that the mass extinction of about 66-65 million years ago for the rise of our ancestors, the mammals? What if the asteroid had been 30 miles wide instead -- what would have been the result? What if the asteroid had been only 1 mile wide instead -- would life have evolved the same as it did after? (Just stuff that is highly interesting in my view.)

 

[HereIStand]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).


In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

Not much older than recorded history in the Bible.

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

Assuming evolution a priori, than yes to some extent.

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

Any of those, depending on which you believe.

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

No for 4, 5, and 6

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

Yes, but the climate doesn't change on its own.

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

Humans contribute to air and water pollution. And the "urban island" effect and lack of trees in cities can contribute to hotter temperatures in those areas. Because of our sin in the world (and original sin), things are devolving in general. We shouldn't sit idly, but the New Earth will only bring about a restored creation.

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

Earth's climate is fluid, but yes, there are repeatable weather patterns in certain areas, unaffected by climate change. The storms in Texas now would be an example

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Pollution of the oceans and suburban sprawl converging on rural farms.

(Note: I asked these same questions on the "DebateAChristian" subreddit for anyone who may also be a member there. It was posted in the latest "weekly discussion" thread)[/QUOTE]

 

[majj27]

1) how old is the earth?

Without looking, 4-6 billion years. I'm unsure as to the current supported date, but it's OLD.

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

Yes, but they certainly aren't the ONLY evidence.

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

Old. Definitely old. You'd have to break physics in half to get the current situation in 6000 years.

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

Familiar, have glanced at the general science behind it, but by no means an expert able to fully describe all the science behind it without a lot of googling. Luckily, I'm good at googling.

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

Same as 4.

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

Same as 4.

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

For certain. Climate is not perpetually static.

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

The science and natural history we have seen definitely supports it, and I haven't seen any valid evidence against it, so yes.

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

Kind of both, I would say? geographical areas can have their own specific climatology, but it is all a part of the global climate.

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Gulf of Mexico's dead zone, the trash continent in the pacific, sea-level rise which will produce HUGE issues with populations in a lot of countries where the majority of people live in low-lying coastal areas, rises in breathing issues that are tied to air quality, the list can be expanded quite a bit. And that's without counting direct human issues such as system collapse or humanitarian crises such as mass refugee situations.

For the record: Lutheran, enjoy science, but most of my classes in college were psychology, sociology, and the humanities.

 

[TBDude65]

While most learn some basic stuff about geology and some very limited bits about paleontology in high school, my guess that is only a tiny portion of college graduates have actually had a course in either. Most of what I learned in these I learned gradually over the years by an accumulation of various articles and some additionally direct seeing of actual fossil and such from a good handful of visits to major Natural Science Museums in large cities. But the great majority of what I learned in these particular subjects (as opposed to certain other science subject I've read much more extensively in), and just like most college graduates, is only from reading popular science articles, which of course can be fairly detailed, if you have them from a source like Scientific American or other good sources like Science News, etc.

Lemme have fun by just answering every question only from memory as best I can. That's a lot more interesting than merely looking up answers, right?

1. 4.55 billion years +/- 1% by radiometric dating of such as moon rocks, meteorites and such. (by the way, this overlaps some to my actual degree, as some of my physics courses in college covered quantum states of atoms, so I know about radioactive decay in a from-basic-theory way, and it's like understanding Newtonian gravity, just clear and basic).

2. Of course.

3. Interesting recent discovery of formations have shown that early life probably began about 3.8 billion years ago (if I remember the number correctly).

4. I've read quite a range of popular science articles about ancient environmental conditions, but was not interested to learn more about the dating, as it hardly matters to me if something is 2.6 bn years old or 2.1 bn years old. To me, that's not interesting. What is interesting is instead the very broad transitions in climate and atmosphere, especially the early Earth's atmosphere, like how the early Earth did not have free oxygen for instance, and how it got some in time, etc.

5. Nope. Zero on that. Just not my interest. Of course, many will know that the blood of dinosaurs is inside the intestines of blood sucking insects preserved in amber or such, which is fun.

6. By 'perturbations of the global carbon cycle' do you mean the very interesting reality of the 5 major mass extinctions, and details about what caused the extinctions? To me the mere dating side of it wasn't worth more attention. I wanted to learn more about which types of species survived each. It's great fun to see a good exhibit on the extinctions.

7. Sure.

8. Here I'll take 'believe' to mean 'what's your guess based on what you've learned', and then my answer is that my best guess based on what I've learned is we are likely to change the global climate in a far more drastic way than we've seen so far to date. For instance, there's a lot of uncertainty in how long it could take to melt or break up ice sheets in Antarctica, and uncertainty about what might happen to glacier flows if they do break up sooner, etc., and it could be wildly more interesting that the familiar best guesses we've seen in the last 20 years.

9. The oceans and atmosphere cause effects from distant places to affect local climates from far away. It's extremely complex also.

10. Lots. For instance, one worry is that we will cause sub tropical diseases to spread north onto us, and that sudden increase in territory could cause high mortality, somewhere, if not here. Possible. Also, I wouldn't want to be heavily invested in seashore property in Florida say going forward. It's fine to just enjoy it while we can of course.

Let me ask you one.

11. Have you ever considered how extremely propitious and helpful it was that the mass extinction of about 66-65 million years ago for the rise of our ancestors, the mammals? What if the asteroid had been 30 miles wide instead -- what would have been the result? What if the asteroid had been only 1 mile wide instead -- would life have evolved the same as it did after? (Just stuff that is highly interesting in my view.)

11) mammals were already around prior to the K-Pg (formerly K-T) extinction. So the effect of the bolide impact was similar to the effect of other triggers to previous mass extinctions, it resulted in niches being vacated by organisms that had dominated them for millions of years. Thereby freeing them up to be filled by new species that adapt and evolve in the post-extinction world.

As for its relationship to humanity, humans wouldn't be here if not for every mass extinction experienced on earth nor would we be here if any of the triggers for these extinctions had been severe enough so as to sterilize the planet and/or destroy it. For instance: Had the bolide been large enough, it could have destroyed the earth and/or sterilized it. Had it caused the mammals to go extinct (either through sterilizing the earth or some other such mechanism), then humans wouldn't be here. But on the flip side, the early earth experienced a period of heavy bombardment. This series of large bolide impacts during the earliest portions of earth history also would have effected any living organisms trying to gain a foothold on earth. Meaning that the last common ancestor for all life (plant, animal, and single-celled organisms) wouldn't have been successful if not for the circumstances that caused it to proliferate instead of a different related species. Meaning that we wouldn't be here if not for the bolide impacts either.

Humans aren't here because circumstances happened in our favor, that is a view that is erroneously focused on humans as some sort of end-goal for life on earth. In cases like this, we give ourselves too much credit and assign too much importance to the existence of our species. We are here because our ancestors managed to survive these perturbations and catastrophic events. We are also here because our specific species (any species in the genus Homo is a human) managed to outcompete other humans species/sub-species (like Neanderthals) in a world that was beginning to warm (negating adaptive advantages to the cold that the Neanderthals possessed). Meaning that modern human civilization could have been dominated by a different species of human had events been different.

And that's the ultimate conclusion we can draw from studies of extinction. If things had occurred differently, the species affected would have differed. Resulting in a different evolutionary trajectory for entire lineages, different groups going extinct, and different groups flourishing. The world would be different, but how different is impossible to say. There isn't anything about our specific lineage within the mammals (the great apes) that indicates that no other lineage of animals could have evolved in a similar way that we did (convergent evolution). Perhaps a different set of circumstances for the K-Pg extinction would have resulted in intelligent molluscs dominating? Or a lineage of intelligent reptiles? Or perhaps circumstances would never have permitted a similarly intelligent (similar to humans) species to evolve.

 

[Halbhh]

11) mammals were already around prior to the K-Pg (formerly K-T) extinction. So the effect of the bolide impact was similar to the effect of other triggers to previous mass extinctions, it resulted in niches being vacated by organisms that had dominated them for millions of years. Thereby freeing them up to be filled by new species that adapt and evolve in the post-extinction world.

As for its relationship to humanity, humans wouldn't be here if not for every mass extinction experienced on earth nor would we be here if any of the triggers for these extinctions had been severe enough so as to sterilize the planet and/or destroy it. For instance: Had the bolide been large enough, it could have destroyed the earth and/or sterilized it. Had it caused the mammals to go extinct (either through sterilizing the earth or some other such mechanism), then humans wouldn't be here. But on the flip side, the early earth experienced a period of heavy bombardment. This series of large bolide impacts during the earliest portions of earth history also would have effected any living organisms trying to gain a foothold on earth. Meaning that the last common ancestor for all life (plant, animal, and single-celled organisms) wouldn't have been successful if not for the circumstances that caused it to proliferate instead of a different related species. Meaning that we wouldn't be here if not for the bolide impacts either.

Humans aren't here because circumstances happened in our favor, that is a view that is erroneously focused on humans as some sort of end-goal for life on earth. In cases like this, we give ourselves too much credit and assign too much importance to the existence of our species. We are here because our ancestors managed to survive these perturbations and catastrophic events. We are also here because our specific species (any species in the genus Homo is a human) managed to outcompete other humans species/sub-species (like Neanderthals) in a world that was beginning to warm (negating adaptive advantages to the cold that the Neanderthals possessed). Meaning that modern human civilization could have been dominated by a different species of human had events been different.

And that's the ultimate conclusion we can draw from studies of extinction. If things had occurred differently, the species affected would have differed. Resulting in a different evolutionary trajectory for entire lineages, different groups going extinct, and different groups flourishing. The world would be different, but how different is impossible to say. There isn't anything about our specific lineage within the mammals (the great apes) that indicates that no other lineage of animals could have evolved in a similar way that we did (convergent evolution). Perhaps a different set of circumstances for the K-Pg extinction would have resulted in intelligent molluscs dominating? Or a lineage of intelligent reptiles? Or perhaps circumstances would never have permitted a similarly intelligent (similar to humans) species to evolve.

Good stuff. As a side note, I like high quality science fiction also where there is an intelligent alien species and they are not humanoid, etc., just as a fun entertainment. But, we know there are certain traits of the humanoid form that are advantageous to our environment (obviously), like the energy efficiency of bipedal locomotion. Humans can run down faster animals they are hunting by just staying on their trail and wearing them out. Convergent evolution is a fun thing too, btw.

Also, I read not that long ago the theory that Neanderthals were not as cooperative (by instinct) as we are. Stronger and intelligent like us, but not with the built in instinct to cooperation. So we could easily overwhelm them over time then, of course, just from that factor. Just an interesting theory I saw a year or two ago.

It's a useful thing to know perhaps that the Catholic church embraced evolution as a viable idea of how God managed the unfolding of life on Earth about 70 years ago, as did already many other Christians too, before then and later also. I never encountered anyone preaching so-called Young Earth Creationism way back in the 1970s growing up. That seems more recent. A new thing, given an odd prominence, even though merely a theory not in the Bible. It went from just another viewpoint no one seem to think important to discuss even, into an odd new thing, with new invented elaborations and such.

People used to most everyone just presume God could handle it anyway He wanted to, over whatever period of time, hundreds of millions or billion of years, whatever, no problem.

People all seemed to know dinosaurs were far older than humans, and no one bothered to worry about that.

Obviously Genesis chapter 1 is written in a poetic way, if you merely read it without a prejudice, it seems much like a stylized vision even (stylized visions are common the Bible, in many places). In any case, the text says nothing about how much time passes between any of the 'days'. To me personally, the Young Earth stuff preached by anyone is a....departure from what Christianity is, really a competitor, in that it displaces the preeminence of the gospel (found in the 4 Gospels in the New Testament telling us Jesus's words and actions) with a theory about how God created in Genesis. It's practically another religion, to me, since my focus is instead on Christ's words and teaching, and I know He tells us to follow Him (not some theories people have about their own pet version of creation). The Teacher Who taught us more and better how to
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
and gives us what it takes to do it even when it's hard to do, if we rely on Him.
He's got the way to real peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).
BS degree in geology.

In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

4.55 billion years.

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

Of course.

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?[/qouite]

Old Earth only. YEC's can't deal with reality at all.

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

Somewhat.

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

Not really. This is a new one for me.

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

This seems to be rather similar to 4).

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

Of course.

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

The evidence is very hard to deny.

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

No, the Earth has quite a few "climates". Which is why one must look at the entire Earth when studying climate change. Climate change is a measure of the average change of all climates. Some may even get cooler.

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Pollution is always an ongoing problem that we need to deal with. I remember when DDT decimated eagle populations. Now they are almost regarded as pests in some areas. So far we have been able to correct our problems after we have made them.

 

[eclipsenow]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).

I'm a Sydney Anglican, which are generally taught at Moore Bible College to be Theistic Evolutionist's that accept everything science has to say where science is qualified to say it. That is, they respect the scientific method, not scientism which claims science is the only means to knowledge which tends to be atheistic and relies on philosophical presuppositions to 'prove' that the empirical method is the only way to knowledge. (Prove that statement empirically without philosophical presuppositions!)

I know many Sydney Anglicans that don't only respect evolutionary and climate science but the whole environmental catastrophe, and critique silly anti-intellectual Christian Denialists regularly in internet radio talkback shows, etc.
登录 Facebook | Facebook

One of my best online mates is studying a Phd on the church's responsibility for a world in crisis, and is minister Byron Smith.
nothing new under the sun

Dr John Dickson has a Phd in history and is an active minister and founder of the CPX, the Centre for Public Christianity. They critique the history of young earth creationism here:
The history of Creationism
It's a sad and sorry tale, and I'm ashamed of how popular blind, literalistic creationism is in America. It not only embarrasses Christianity, but blinds them to the wonderful theological truths in early Genesis. They're so literalistic they misread the entire genre of early Genesis, and read literally what should be read as literary. They've failed basic hermeneutics, and not understood how the original audience read it. I personally feel sorry for modern day Creationists, not just because they have to live in such terrible fear of everything 'sciencey' that indicates an old earth, but because they're missing out on the theological *gold* that is in Genesis 1 because of their literalistic reading of it! Dr Dickson on the genre of Genesis.
Articles | ISCAST

 

[Chesterton]

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Terrorism. Democratic politicians say climate change causes terrorism.

 

[eclipsenow]

Good stuff. As a side note, I like high quality science fiction also where there is an intelligent alien species and they are not humanoid, etc., just as a fun entertainment. But, we know there are certain traits of the humanoid form that are advantageous to our environment (obviously), like the energy efficiency of bipedal locomotion. Humans can run down faster animals they are hunting by just staying on their trail and wearing them out. Convergent evolution is a fun thing too, btw.

Speaking of great alien series, have you read Peter F Hamiton's Commonwealth saga? The first chapter started off so dry and technical about our first landing on Mars, and then this amazing, funky, hippie thing happens, and I was so relieved. "Yes! It's still Peter F Hamilton ROCKING the genre!" So good, and the alien species is *so* alien and weird in motivation and different to us. Warning: he can get a bit explicit in bedroom scenes.
https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/peter-f-hamilton/commonwealth-saga-series

Anyway, as you appear to be a Theistic Evolutionist, I'm wondering if you've come across Dr John Dickson before? He's a mate, and a very good read as well.
Articles | ISCAST

 

[eclipsenow]

Terrorism. Democratic politicians say climate change causes terrorism.

It does.
Drought sparked off the Syrian civil war which begat ISIS.
How Global Warming Helped Cause the Syrian War

Also... the Pentagon calls climate change the ultimate "threat multiplier".
"We realised that climate change would be a threat multiplier for instability as people become desperate, because they have extreme weather and the seas are rising, and there are floods in one area and droughts in another, fragile states become more unpredictable." Sherri Goodman, Fmr. Dept Undersecretary of Defense
The Age of Consequences - Four Corners

 

[Chesterton]

It does.
Drought sparked off the Syrian civil war which begat ISIS.
How Global Warming Helped Cause the Syrian War

Also... the Pentagon calls climate change the ultimate "threat multiplier".
"We realised that climate change would be a threat multiplier for instability as people become desperate, because they have extreme weather and the seas are rising, and there are floods in one area and droughts in another, fragile states become more unpredictable." Sherri Goodman, Fmr. Dept Undersecretary of Defense
The Age of Consequences - Four Corners

Thank you. If you hadn't said that I'd be afraid people might not believe me when I said people actually say that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does.
Drought sparked off the Syrian civil war which begat ISIS.
How Global Warming Helped Cause the Syrian War

Also... the Pentagon calls climate change the ultimate "threat multiplier".
"We realised that climate change would be a threat multiplier for instability as people become desperate, because they have extreme weather and the seas are rising, and there are floods in one area and droughts in another, fragile states become more unpredictable." Sherri Goodman, Fmr. Dept Undersecretary of Defense
The Age of Consequences - Four Corners

You are conflating ISIS, which arose in Iraq, with Syria's civil war. Yes, Syria's civil war was caused largely by climate, change, but ISIS arose in Iraq and then exploited a bad situation in Syria that existed independently of them.

It is a lesson that climate change can have a wide range of affects.

 

[eclipsenow]

Thank you. If you hadn't said that I'd be afraid people might not believe me when I said people actually say that.

No, you're not listening. It's not "people" who say that, but the strategic analysis of the PENTAGON! But thank you for showing how denialist's just bypass rational evidence, and attempt to dismiss clear evidence as mere personal opinion, as "people say that". I'm prepared to have a conversation with you when you cut your smug nonsense and are ready to discuss, you know, the facts. Like an adult.

 

[Job 33:6]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).


In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?


(Note: I asked these same questions on the "DebateAChristian" subreddit for anyone who may also be a member there. It was posted in the latest "weekly discussion" thread)

Hm, a survey?

Earth science classes?

Physical
Historical
Structural
geomorphology
climatology
hydrogeology
geophysics
minerology
petrogeology
geochemistry
environmental geology
invertebrate paleo
stratigraphy
Upper level calc based physics and chemistry
And a bunch of geography classes but nobody really cares about those
I work as an environmental geologist (in a more practical sense dealing with haz waste and remedial activity).

I am a Christian, I love Christ.

1) how old is the earth?

4.56 billion years old

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

yes

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

i think what is more significant is the geology that the fossil distribution exists within. Is the geology consistent with an old earth? Yes. So, subsequently, the fossils fall into that realm.

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

no, this is a very specific question that your everyday geologist wouldnt be familiar with. It is a specialized question. I dont count reading a textbook as something that makes me familiar with a topic.

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

No, same as above. Only a higher degreed paleontologist wouldbe familiar with something like this. Or someone with a lot of time on their hands.

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

No, same as above. Anyone can read a textbook, familiarity to me, represents someone who actually works with this material. The question is just too specialized.

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

yes, its not a belief though, it is real.

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

yes, also not a belief. You might further ask, how much impact people have, or what will that impact look like 100 years from now. I think these are tougher questions than the on you asked here.

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

climate would be something like ah, regional. Larger than your household, smaller than a continent.

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Pollution (air, water, soil etc.). Its bad out here.

 

[Chesterton]

No, you're not listening. It's not "people" who say that, but the strategic analysis of the PENTAGON!

Pro Tip: Read what you typed before you click "Reply".

 

[eclipsenow]

Pro Tip: Read what you typed before you click "Reply".

I meant what I said. The official military organisation of the United States government has declared climate change to be a threat multiplier. It's not just one of those crazy things "people" say.
But again, thank you for showing how denialist's just bypass rational evidence, and attempt to dismiss clear evidence as mere personal opinion, as "people say that". I'm prepared to have a conversation with you when you cut your smug nonsense and are ready to discuss, you know, the facts. Like an adult.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc).

Just a popular-science knowledge; no formal education in this area.

1) how old is the earth?

~4.5 billion years.

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

Yes.

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

Old.

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

Aware of, not familiar with.

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

Aware of, not familiar with.

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

Aware of, not familiar with.

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

I think it occurs.

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

I think we do.

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

Climate is regional. Global climate and global climate change takes account of all regions.

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Pollution, deforestation, desertification, resource over-use, sea level rise, oceanic acidification, etc.

 

[That Guy 11200]

In general, what experience (education primarily but any other relevant experiences too) does everyone have with the earth sciences? (geology, paleontology, climate science, paleoclimatology, etc). Please indicate any high school classes or college classes as well as if you're a Christian or non-Christian (and more specifically how you identify for the latter).

I'm an atheist with a BSC in Geosciences and I'm about to finish an MSc in Taxonomy and Biodiversity. My MSc project is in palaeontology, which involves understanding proxies for past climates.

In addition to this, please answer these questions specific to earth science to the best of your ability (you can obviously look things up if you're unclear but I want to know what you believe):

1) how old is the earth?

About 4.5 billion years

2) do fossils provide reliable support for the theory of evolution?

Yep

3) are fossil distributions consistent with the earth being old (consistent with geology) or young (consistent with literal interpretations of the Bible by young earth creationists)?

Old

4) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing environmental conditions in ancient sediments and/or experienced by fossilized organisms?

Yes. Things like delta 13-carbon, delta 18-oxygen, strontium in marine sediments as a proxy for erosion/run-off, etc.

5) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes for reconstructing dietary habits of fossilized organisms?

Yes, I've encountered delta 13-carbon from birds' eggshells being used to determine their diet.

6) are you familiar with the use of stable isotopes to reconstruct climate histories and perturbations of the global carbon cycle?

Yes.

7) do you believe in climate change (not affiliated with human activities)?

It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of accepting the evidence for it. But, yes.

8) do you believe humans are contributing to climate change?

Yes

9) does the earth have a singular climate? Or is climate something specific to a limited area on earth? (How do answers to these questions relate to climate change in general?)

That's complicated. You might say there are local climates that relate to rainforests, cities, etc. But there are also global factors that affect these climates as a whole, such as Milankovitch cycles.

10) what other issues are you aware of around the globe that endanger humans and ecosystems that are associated with human activities and/or climate change?

Habitat destruction, antibiotic resistance, extinctions, overfarming, nutrient run-off from farming, pollution, invasive species, etc.

(Note: I asked these same questions on the "DebateAChristian" subreddit for anyone who may also be a member there. It was posted in the latest "weekly discussion" thread)