Global Warming

[Root of Jesse]

Do you believe in a literal global flood that covered mountain peaks and the whole thing with the ark and the pairs of animals?

Just wondering.

Yes, as Christians, we believe the Bible. But the Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say it's the other way around. The Bible says so, therefore, it is so.

This is why people don't believe creationists, because the only argument they have is "because I say so".

Global warming, on the other hand, has real evidence to back it.

Regarding AGW, the only thing we can say about mankind being the cause of GW is that there are more of us now than there were before. It has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

We can't say that carbon dioxide has gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in a short time span?

We can't say that the increase in CO2 has the same isotope signature as that found in fossil fuels (richer in 12C)?

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is mountains of evidence to back each of those.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you don't believe God could have done it? And who says there were that many land animals and flight animals? Also, your dimensions are off a bit...

God could plant DNA and fingerprints at all crime scenes. Do you go around claiming that no one should use forensic evidence?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The accusation in the opening thread is that there is no evidence for global warming. Therefore, a belief in Noah's flood and global warming are somehow on equal footing. To paraphrase the opening post, if you can believe in global warming with no evidence why can't you believe in Noah's flood.

Well, the answer to that is they are not on equal footing.

Actually, that was directly not the accusation made in the OP. I said that GW is natural, that there's no evidence, other than the sheer number of humans on the planet, that Mankind causes GW.

So no evidence for Man-caused global warming, I say. You say, global warming and the result of it will be a rise in sea level. I just wondered why, if you believe that the sea level can rise, why can't you believe in a global flood? Especially if things like the height of the mountains currently grows (indicating that they weren't as they are now), also that if that's the case, the sea level wouldn't be as deep, too. There is only so much earth, and it must be the same volume now, plus an asteroid or whatever extincted the dinosaurs. So if the sea wasn't as deep and the mountains not as high, as seems evident, why not a global flood?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The belief is the belief in an unfounded conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists in over 30 countries that has spanned decades.

Yes, you find that incredulous? Dan Brown thinks there's a conspiracy that's lasted millenia.

This is just another way of tacitly admitting that the data reported by scientists supports global warming.

I have never disputed that there is global warming. I dispute the cause of it.

That doesn't change the fact that the geologic evidence disproves the claim that there was a recent and global flood.

It doesn't disprove anything. It demonstrates a lack of proof.

 

[RickG]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally.

It is by knowing the various causes of climate change that we understand climates of the past (paleoclimates) and their causes. Yes, climate changes in the past was normal. However, of all the known causes of climate change only one is dominate over all other current contributors, which is increased atmospheric CO2. One may wonder just how do we know that the increased CO2 is due to human causes. Actually it is quite straight forward by analyzing the chemistry of the atmosphere, and in particular the chemistry of CO2. The carbon isotopes ratios of CO2 in the natural carbon cycle and those produced by fossil fuels are quite different. Over the past 800,000 years ice core analysis has shown CO2 concentrations not to exceed 280 ppmv as well as those from marine sediment cores for some 2 million years. Currently, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is 402 ppmv, with the increase of that amount showing up in 12C/13C ratios, thus from fossil fuels.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event? Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario.

Yes, there are many cultures with stories of catastrophic flood events. However, very few of them coincide in the same historical timeline. Nevertheless, there is scientific research that has documented some abrupt sea level rises due glacial lake Agassiz outbreaks at the end of the Wisconsin Stage of the last ice age 8200 years ago. The interesting thing about this is that it may have contributed to the Bosphorus breech into the Black Sea, where it increased by over one third in size, engulfing a part of the "Mountains of Ararat". Keep in mind that the Genesis flood description puts Noah's Ark in the Mountains of Ararat, not Mt. Ararat specific.

Then there's the specter of a product we find on the shelves these days "Himalayan Sea Salt". Don't we know that the Himalayan Mountains are rising as a result of the continental shelf being pushed up by another plate?

The geotectonic processes that formed and continue to form the Himalayan mountains are quite well understood.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is why people don't believe creationists, because the only argument they have is "because I say so".

This is why people don't believe alarmists in the global warming arena, because you like to label people into little buckets and diminish their beliefs. I'm not a creationist, other than my belief that God created everything. So I am not what you mean by "creationist". And I didn't say "Because I say so. I said "Because God said so."

Global warming, on the other hand, has real evidence to back it.

Because you say so?

We can't say that carbon dioxide has gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in a short time span?

We can't say that the increase in CO2 has the same isotope signature as that found in fossil fuels (richer in 12C)?

Hate to burst your bubble, but there is mountains of evidence to back each of those.

You can take all the measurements you want, and they might be right. I can do carpentry and take all the measurements I want, and the possibility remains that I either didn't measure right, or I interpreted the measurements wrong. My belief is that the scientists look at the data and come to a wrong conclusion-one that is not supportable.

 

[Root of Jesse]

God could plant DNA and fingerprints at all crime scenes. Do you go around claiming that no one should use forensic evidence?

God does plant DNA and fingerprints at all crime scenes. But men can take that forensic evidence and come to an incorrect conclusion, can they not?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is by knowing the various causes of climate change that we understand climates of the past (paleoclimates) and their causes. Yes, climate changes in the past was normal. However, of all the known causes of climate change only one is dominate over all other current contributors, which is increased atmospheric CO2. One may wonder just how do we know that the increased CO2 is due to human causes. Actually it is quite straight forward by analyzing the chemistry of the atmosphere, and in particular the chemistry of CO2. The carbon isotopes ratios of CO2 in the natural carbon cycle and those produced by fossil fuels are quite different. Over the past 800,000 years ice core analysis has shown CO2 concentrations not to exceed 280 ppmv as well as those from marine sediment cores for some 2 million years. Currently, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is 402 ppmv, with the increase of that amount showing up in 12C/13C ratios, thus from fossil fuels.

I don't think we really know the causes of the climates of the past. We've come to conclusions, but we often findout that our conclusions are wrong.

Yes, there are many cultures with stories of catastrophic flood events. However, very few of them coincide in the same historical timeline. Nevertheless, there is scientific research that has documented some abrupt sea level rises due glacial lake Agassiz outbreaks at the end of the Wisconsin Stage of the last ice age 8200 years ago. The interesting thing about this is that it may have contributed to the Bosphorus breech into the Black Sea, where it increased by over one third in size, engulfing a part of the "Mountains of Ararat". Keep in mind that the Genesis flood description puts Noah's Ark in the Mountains of Ararat, not Mt. Ararat specific.

They coincide in many major areas, as I've noted.

The geotectonic processes that formed and continue to form the Himalayan mountains are quite well understood.

Yes, so if we were to rewind the tape, so to speak, how low were the Himalayan Mountains, at their lowest point?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But not at the same time. And actually, also not everywhere.



What about it, in your opinion, can't be explained by the mainstream science of geology etc?



This sounds like you find it acceptable to simply label something "supernatural" and pretend that that is a sufficient explanation, while an actual scientific explanation is not present. Is that correct?



Eum... it is a fact that there is no global sedimentary layer. There are various different layers of sediment to be found around the globe, yes, caused by different and local floods at different times in history. But there is no SINGLE, universal sediment layer in the geological record, caused by a single flood.



How is there dispute about this?



Different floods are different floods, dude.... what is so dificult about that?
Also, the difference in dates is not assumed. It is measured. Directly from the layers themselves.

(psst: this is the part where you start arguing against atomic theory and deny radiometric dating)



What is it about a sedimentary deposit that cannot be explained by a flood in the region where the deposit exists?



Because actual data of reality always trumps the stories of humans.

Again, there is no absence of sedimentary layers. The layers can be moved or even totally removed and bedrock exposed, but then they can usually tell us where they think the sediment went - example we can read of a sediment layer in the lower US plains for example they say originated in Canada. They can point to continuous sediment layers that even cross oceans and are exposed on other continents. So no, in a very global sense the evidence of all sorts of deposited layers of sediments are everywhere, even in places of very high and uplifted bedrock creating mountains, maybe mixed with limestone layers or totally made from limestone (sediment deposit-ex: Himalayas ). The fact we can talk about erosion indicates we acknowledge sediments can be carried away and we can look for where it went.

What is absent as far as science is concerned is a layer they believe could be attributed to a single global event and because they cannot see that - no natural global flood could have ocurred. And they can say that because by observation of how sediment layers are naturally formed, actual local flooding events laying down deposits and studied, natural geological events to explain the orientation......etc., they can logically conclude nothing indicating that some natural occurring global flood (even if they assumed it could happen) has left observable evidence of such an event. And for the most part the opinion is nothing seen can not be explained by locally/regional and even occasionally global (like some eruptions or earth impacts) but all naturally occurring events. Natural meaning something we can explain through what we observe and can logically expound upon. So even if some evidence is not fully understood (as in no certainty about the exact cause or sequence) or there are competing natural theories of how something got the way it is now, they can assure themselves it all occurred naturally in some manner.

So yeah, the Christian with faith in God is not restricted to looking at everything as always following the obviously designed natural order of creation. In this case a global flood depositing sediment. A supernatural event by definition is breaking that natural order. A global flood in itself appears to break that natural order. So a belief in that event does not require us to look at the results and say, well it might have been a supernatural flood but the results of such a thing MUST follow what we know to be naturally occurring because of floods. Why would we need to limit the results of a supernatural flood to only being able to strictly adhere to what we know about floods, geology, plate movement, accepted theories.....etc.? How could we say well if God made that Supernatual event unless He let the result of it follow what we know about geology then it did not happen. There was nothing natural about this flood referenced in the Bible, so why would we think the results from it must be natural?

So science is not really objecting to there being no evidence of God flooding the earth. They are objecting to the idea that the evidence of the action of water deposits everywhere points to a what in their minds must behave/occur like a natural event, no matter what is said to have caused it. So yeah, naturally a Christian would say they agree with science that God flooding the earth is not a natural flooding event, but why then does this mean we have to agree a supernatural event must follow all the rules and order we observe from natural events?
If one believes God can cause such a flood, what would make the various deposits from such a supernatural event something beyond His ability to control in any way?

 

[Speedwell]

Again, there is no absence of sedimentary layers. The layers can be moved or even totally removed and bedrock exposed, but then they can usually tell us where they think the sediment went - example we can read of a sediment layer in the lower US plains for example they say originated in Canada. They can point to continuous sediment layers that even cross oceans and are exposed on other continents. So no, in a very global sense the evidence of all sorts of deposited layers of sediments are everywhere, even in places of very high and uplifted bedrock creating mountains, maybe mixed with limestone layers or totally made from limestone (sediment deposit-ex: Himalayas ). The fact we can talk about erosion indicates we acknowledge sediments can be carried away and we can look for where it went.

What is absent as far as science is concerned is a layer they believe could be attributed to a single global event and because they cannot see that - no natural global flood could have ocurred. And they can say that because by observation of how sediment layers are naturally formed, actual local flooding events laying down deposits and studied, natural geological events to explain the orientation......etc., they can logically conclude nothing indicating that some natural occurring global flood (even if they assumed it could happen) has left observable evidence of such an event. And for the most part the opinion is nothing seen can not be explained by locally/regional and even occasionally global (like some eruptions or earth impacts) but all naturally occurring events. Natural meaning something we can explain through what we observe and can logically expound upon. So even if some evidence is not fully understood (as in no certainty about the exact cause or sequence) or there are competing natural theories of how something got the way it is now, they can assure themselves it all occurred naturally in some manner.

So yeah, the Christian with faith in God is not restricted to looking at everything as always following the obviously designed natural order of creation. In this case a global flood depositing sediment. A supernatural event by definition is breaking that natural order. A global flood in itself appears to break that natural order. So a belief in that event does not require us to look at the results and say, well it might have been a supernatural flood but the results of such a thing MUST follow what we know to be naturally occurring because of floods. Why would we need to limit the results of a supernatural flood to only being able to strictly adhere to what we know about floods, geology, plate movement, accepted theories.....etc.? How could we say well if God made that Supernatual event unless He let the result of it follow what we know about geology then it did not happen. There was nothing natural about this flood referenced in the Bible, so why would we think the results from it must be natural?

So science is not really objecting to there being no evidence of God flooding the earth. They are objecting to the idea that the evidence of the action of water deposits everywhere points to a what in their minds must behave/occur like a natural event, no matter what is said to have caused it. So yeah, naturally a Christian would say they agree with science that God flooding the earth is not a natural flooding event, but why then does this mean we have to agree a supernatural event must follow all the rules and order we observe from natural events?
If one believes God can cause such a flood, what would make the various deposits from such a supernatural event something beyond His ability to control in any way?

We know the Flood happened because the Bible says so, but God miraculously made it look like it didn't. Welcome to the Church of Last Thursdayism.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There is no reason that a theology needs to incorporate science. What I see is the attempt to include science as a justification for believing the theology. You sure see a lot of creationists trying to make the claim that their beliefs are scientific. You also see these same people trying to discredit other areas of science by calling theories a religion. By their own actions they are saying that science is more trustworthy than theology.

Of course, there is a rather humungous middle ground where theology doesn't need to be pitted against science. If the facts of reality (i.e. science) contradict an interpretation of scripture, then it is the interpretation that is wrong. The mistake, at least in my view, is to allow science to disqualify the scriptures themselves which is the danger of creationism. It is simply unnecessary, as also shown by the number of Christians who don't interpret scripture as talking about a literal global flood.

Exactly, but then must science insist that a Supernatural event must play by natural rules?
The belief in a global flood is not a belief in a naturally occurring event. So there is no reason to assume the results from that must follow what any could accept now as evidence of natural event. So it is not a matter of Christians appealing to science to help them (or everyone) believe a Supernatural event created deposits everywhere from that flood. Science knows how naturally occurring floods deposit sediments, and sees no evidence of such deposits from what in their mind must behave like a natural occurring flood. The Christian looks at all the deposits everywhere and says, pretty much looks like evidence of water at one time long ago and accepts some of those support the belief in a supernatural flood. There is nothing restricting God in how those waters were distributed, how the sediment was moved (and so deposited), the resulting natural or supernatural dynamics or combo of both on movement of water and landmass, the movement of things in the water (bodies, plants...)...etc., none of the results of such a supernatural event need to be limited to simply natural process.
So why must the Christian be demanded to explain how the sediment was obviously NOT deposited in an apparently understandable natural manner to point to a "natural" global flood when the event itself is said to be not natural?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, the sediment would have to show the particular characters that would demonstrate being the result of a cataclysmic event. Just saying that sediment exists is not evidence in favor of any particular scenario.



Well, if miracles can fix anything, there's no point doing anything. Why do different locations have different sediments? A miracle. Why does the same location have different sediments at different depths? A miracle. How does a flood lay down some layers, then put down a blanket of lava, and then more sediment? A miracle.

But these are not explanations, they are excuses. The same excuse. And it produces no knowledge, just a confession of ignorance in the face of evidence that challenges the hypothesis.

Geologists, on the other hand, have produced knowledge by studying the evidence and following where it leads. These features have been explained, not explained away.

Yes, the sediment from a naturally (as if that was possible) occurring global flood would be expected to follow the natural observable order of things (by design). A supernatural event by same Designer would not. So no reasons to insist the results of such event must follow the natural order either. Why would He do that we could only speculate. But obviously a belief in His Ability to create a supernatural event would not limit Him to also leaving the results to His Ordering, and not the natural order.

 

[RickG]

I don't think we really know the causes of the climates of the past. We've come to conclusions, but we often findout that our conclusions are wrong.

Having an academic concentration and research at the graduate level in paleoclimatology I respectfully disagree, we know quite a bit about past climates.

how low were the Himalayan Mountains, at their lowest point?

They are a result of a collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate around 50 Ma. The summit of the Himalayas is composed of marine limestone.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, but then must science insist that a Supernatural event must play by natural rules?

Science makes no such demand. Science simply follows the evidence. It is theists who define the supernatural as being either undetectable or operating contrary to natural processes.

The belief in a global flood is not a belief in a naturally occurring event. So there is no reason to assume the results from that must follow what any could accept now as evidence of natural event. So it is not a matter of Christians appealing to science to help them (or everyone) believe a Supernatural event created deposits everywhere from that flood.

A subgroup of Christians do try to use science to make the claim that the flood happened.

The Christian looks at all the deposits everywhere and says, pretty much looks like evidence of water at one time long ago and accepts some of those support the belief in a supernatural flood.

That only begs the question of what wouldn't be evidence for a supernatural global flood? If we are talking about a supernatural flood that can do anything and can leave no evidence or evidence that looks nothing like a flood, then what exactly would disprove your belief?

It seems to me that we are talking about a dogmatic belief that is insulated from facts, not derived from facts. People are certainly free to believe what they want, but I think it is understandable that we accept the evidence for natural events which demonstrate that there was no global flood. When we wake up in the morning, go outside, and see that the ground is wet wherever we look, we don't contemplate the idea that maybe Leprechauns ran around with magic watering buckets and laid down the water. Instead, we assume it rained.

So why must the Christian be demanded to explain how the sediment was obviously NOT deposited in an apparently understandable natural manner to point to a "natural" global flood when the event itself is said to be not natural?

Creationists are free to believe irrational and unsupportable beliefs. We are also free to point out that they are irrational and unsupportable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, there is no absence of sedimentary layers. The layers can be moved or even totally removed and bedrock exposed, but then they can usually tell us where they think the sediment went - example we can read of a sediment layer in the lower US plains for example they say originated in Canada. They can point to continuous sediment layers that even cross oceans and are exposed on other continents. So no, in a very global sense the evidence of all sorts of deposited layers of sediments are everywhere, even in places of very high and uplifted bedrock creating mountains, maybe mixed with limestone layers or totally made from limestone (sediment deposit-ex: Himalayas ). The fact we can talk about erosion indicates we acknowledge sediments can be carried away and we can look for where it went.

None of that requires the Earth to be covered with water all at once, nor does it require a recent flood.

What is absent as far as science is concerned is a layer they believe could be attributed to a single global event and because they cannot see that - no natural global flood could have ocurred. And they can say that because by observation of how sediment layers are naturally formed, actual local flooding events laying down deposits and studied, natural geological events to explain the orientation......etc., they can logically conclude nothing indicating that some natural occurring global flood (even if they assumed it could happen) has left observable evidence of such an event. And for the most part the opinion is nothing seen can not be explained by locally/regional and even occasionally global (like some eruptions or earth impacts) but all naturally occurring events.

More to the point, we can date the sediments and demonstrate that they are separated by millions of years.

So yeah, the Christian with faith in God is not restricted to looking at everything as always following the obviously designed natural order of creation. In this case a global flood depositing sediment. A supernatural event by definition is breaking that natural order. A global flood in itself appears to break that natural order.

That would be the difference between global warming and Noah's flood. We don't have to evoke supernatural magic to make CO2 absorb heat. The Greenhouse Effect isn't based on the supernatural. From what you are saying, in order to believe in a global flood you have to believe in magic.

This is why people who accept global warming don't accept Noah's flood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Having an academic concentration and research at the graduate level in paleoclimatology I respectfully disagree, we know quite a bit about past climates.


They are a result of a collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate around 50 Ma. The summit of the Himalayas is composed of marine limestone.

Did any of your studies include the plant based data indicating the CO2 levels have been way off the charts at various times compared to the ice data?

How would taking data and running with a theory that requires almost the total exclusions of other observations that are at least inconvenient if not in fact contestable and example of a pure quest for knowledge?

Root of Jesse makes a valid point about the data leading people at various times to erroneous conclusions. Most naysayers are not doubting that it APPEARS since we have been reliably measuring the earth (less than 200 years) is warming by a rather constant overall rate perhaps close to .04 degrees per 100 years. In that time the industrial revolution emissions reached a peak in much of the western world and declined, human population and the feeding of it have sky rocketed, yet we see the rate of increase remaining steady overall.

So the disagreement is not that it is not getting warmer, but how much impact do we really have on that increase or conversely to even stop and reverse it. And even if we had the technology to attempt climate control, we do not really understand all the potential risks in attempting it, so it is not even clear we should try, at least not until it becomes a human survival issue which it has not and not clear it ever will.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did any of your studies include the plant based data indicating the CO2 levels have been way off the charts at various times compared to the ice data?

The ice core data includes atmosphere that has been captured in the ice. It is a directly measurement of CO2 in past atmospheres.

How would taking data and running with a theory that requires almost the total exclusions of other observations that are at least inconvenient if not in fact contestable and example of a pure quest for knowledge?

What inconvenient observations?

Root of Jesse makes a valid point about the data leading people at various times to erroneous conclusions. Most naysayers are not doubting that it APPEARS since we have been reliably measuring the earth (less than 200 years) is warming by a rather constant overall rate perhaps close to .04 degrees per 100 years. In that time the industrial revolution emissions reached a peak in much of the western world and declined, human population and the feeding of it have sky rocketed, yet we see the rate of increase remaining steady overall.

CO2 is still rising in the atmosphere, and that CO2 is rich in 12C just like fossil fuels are. That is a direct measurement.

So the disagreement is not that it is not getting warmer, but how much impact do we really have on that increase or conversely to even stop and reverse it. And even if we had the technology to attempt climate control, we do not really understand all the potential risks in attempting it, so it is not even clear we should try, at least not until it becomes a human survival issue which it has not and not clear it ever will.

I already showed you the climate models which accurately modeled historic climates. This is how we know what our impact is on the climate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, you find that incredulous?

Any sane person would.

I have never disputed that there is global warming. I dispute the cause of it.

Then you are rejecting mountains of evidence.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

None of that requires the Earth to be covered with water all at once, nor does it require a recent flood.



More to the point, we can date the sediments and demonstrate that they are separated by millions of years.



That would be the difference between global warming and Noah's flood. We don't have to evoke supernatural magic to make CO2 absorb heat. The Greenhouse Effect isn't based on the supernatural. From what you are saying, in order to believe in a global flood you have to believe in magic.

This is why people who accept global warming don't accept Noah's flood.

Correct. Science does not look for supernatural events, so they are not going to find any.
No one has said every sedimentary layer we can see has to be from a single event. And even the dating requires assumptions that may or may not always be valid for every layer to layer comparison. So the dating can be wrong.

No one is insisting science invoke magic. I would insist that science however cannot insist that supernatural event must follow the natural observable rules and order of things. What is the point of calling something supernatural if it had to occur naturally?
Am not asking and OP was not asking anyone to believe or not believe anything. The OP asked why would Christians abandoned something that at least as some physical support and is something which was almost universally believed 50 years ago and in roughly same time swallow something that has done 180s from the "data" a couple times now.

Several answers have been given for that question and for some reason non-Christians and even some Christians are unable to imagine a direct response to it and feel compelled to defend their own beliefs which were not being challenged until they first entered a defense of it or ridiculed a belief of some Christians regarding either warming or the flood.

So it appears your answer, had it been given directly, to the OP is that science along with apparently accepting that "modern" historical criticism of formerly universally held Christian beliefs, probably applied to many things in the Bible, that those are acceptable foundations for Christian faith. Good, we agree on the same cause for Christians abandoning their faith.