Global Warming

[DrBubbaLove]

Because there is no evidence of it. And an event of that magnitude would leave evidence behind.

You mean evidence like the sediment found globally. The only difference is science considers the mention of a global flooding "event" is describing a naturally driven process which would have to then deposit that sediment in a manner we could say a flood would, which is not what we see now. We can all agree with that statement within those parameters. But that does not mean a supernatural event could not deposit that sediment in a manner resulting in exactly what we see now (or any sort of manner).

 

[eclipsenow]

While I am not a believer in AGW

I don't know why you're using the language of 'belief', it's established science and I know Christian climatologists in the peer-reviewed scientific system. There simply is no worldwide scientific conspiracy, or these guys and girls would have been conscience bound to bust it open and expose it.

I believe that climate cools and warms naturally.

Climate scientists know ALL about natural warming and cooling. They can tell you dozens of natural ways the climate will change, from hyper-volcanic events to continental drift to the long term changes in the orbit and tilt of the Earth. (Milankovitch cycles).

That's not what is happening now. They've analysed all natural climate forcings, and they don't add up to what we see today. Besides, they can stick CO2 in a Fourier Device in any decent physics lab on the PLANET and PROVE what CO2 does with heat energy!

And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

This is true!

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event?

Because Genesis 1 to 11 is written thousands of years BC to counter the predominant Babylonian creation myth with a compelling counter-narrative, and in a way corrects the theology of the Enuma Elis. But the concerns are not scientific, they're theological. There are also ambiguities with the Hebrew language where hill can mean mountain, where the waters covered "the whole earth" can mean "the whole land" as seen later on when the same words mean the whole "land" of the Canaanites. (Earth in this Hebrew word does not mean planet, as we might use it!) It's complicated, but we're too used to lazily reading our KJV's or NIV's, and not reading some of the more complex commentaries on Genesis. I believe it is God's word and true, but that we're just putting modern blinkers on when we reading it and forcing it into shapes and to answer questions that the original audience just did not have!

Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario.

It took a long time for humanity to invent long-distance plumbing. In other words, all early settlements lived near rivers. Guess what happens near rivers every now and then? Australia floods terribly.

Not only that, but during the last ice age a lot of water was up on dry land as glaciers and ice sheets. When the ice age melted, aboriginals in Tasmania were cut off from the mainland. Being so flat, the water rose inland at about 30km per generation. Can you imagine your grandfather telling you he used to live over the horizon but it has all flooded? No WONDER the Victorian and Tasmanian aboriginals have flood stories! It's isolated by water by about it's own height again! IN OTHER WORDS, by referring to all the flood narratives in ancient cultures, YOU'VE ACTUALLY PROVED THE CATASTROPHIC AND TRAUMATIC NATURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE and sea-level rise, NOT anything to do with Genesis. Just look at Bass Straight down there above Tasmania. It's about as wide as the height of Tasmania itself! Aboriginals used to be able to walk from Indonesia down to Tasmania! No wonder there are flood stories in their Dreaming!

 

[Zoii]

I'm just asking why one is possible and the other is not. There is no time element in the Noah story. It doesn't say the earth flooded in 20 minutes, 20 hours, 20 days or 20 years. Noah had time to architect an Ark. So it wasn't immediate. It also doesn't say when it happened.

For me its the premise behind it - God was unhappy with the conduct of many humans.....so he slaughters every single living man, woman and child AND all land and flight animals with the exception of the 50 0000 land animals and 20 000 flight animals which Noah stuffed into a boat 100metres long and then fed the lot for 150 days. ..... now I know lots and lots accept that story - But cant you see why people struggle with the whole story?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"naturally" meaning, that climate shifts can also be caused by non-human activity. Like volcanic eruptions, solar activity, tectonic activity, etc.

Sure.

And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

Depends. Obviously, if ice caps on land melt, that's quite the volume of water that well be added to oceans.

More specifically though, weather patterns will simply get more extreme. It will disrupt agriculture and things like that. Rising sea levels, even only a little, will obviously also be problematic for certain densly populated coast lines.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event?

Because there is zero evidence that such a thing ever happened. On the contrary, actually....

Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario.

First, that's not really true. Not every culture on earth has such a myth.
Secondly, most ancient tribes settled near bodies of water for obvious reasons: fertile grounds, easy access to fish, rich fauna/flora overall,...

Fact: where there are rivers, lakes or seas... flooding is inevitable eventually. So it is not surprising that "most" cultures have legendary stories of such.

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?

Yes, the himalayan plateau is rising.
Which means that it wasn't a mountain in the distant past.

And by "distant past", I'm talking pre-cambrian era.

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

If ALL ice melts, we're talking a rise in sea levels of a few meters. Not a few miles, like your bible flood myth requires.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm just asking why one is possible and the other is not.

Because a rise of a few meters is one thing. A rise of a few miles is quite another.

There is no time element in the Noah story. It doesn't say the earth flooded in 20 minutes, 20 hours, 20 days or 20 years. Noah had time to architect an Ark. So it wasn't immediate. It also doesn't say when it happened.

Well, it mentions humans, so we know that it must have been in the last 180.000 years.
It mentions cities, so we also know it must have been in the last 10.000 years.

However, there is zero of geological evidence to support this story. Not in the last 10.000 years, not in the last 180.000 or ever in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet.

The story of a global flood as depicted in the bible is a demonstrable impossibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't the account say that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights during which time the floodgates of the deep were also opened?

After Noah and the remnant of animals were secured, the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates, or windows, of the heavens were opened, causing rain to fall on the Earth for 40 days. The waters elevated, with the summits of the highest mountains under 15 cubits (22 feet 6 inches) of water,[17] flooding the world for 150 days, and then receding in 220 days.
Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One reason for the opposition is because admission of a worldwide flood would strengthen the case for the Bible's divine inspiration and historical accuracy.

No, for me that isn't a factor at all.
For me, it's just about the evidence. And no facts / observations of reality, anywhere, are consistent with any such flood. On the contrary.

That in turn would mean gaining credence for its chronology and creation account which goes completely contrary to what popular atheistic science believes.

That isn't even true. If the flood story turns out correct, then only the flood story turns out correct. It wouldn't say anything about all the other stories in the bible.

Furthermore, it would only support the event of flooding. Establishing that there was a flood, wouldn't say anything about what caused the flood.

Just like if 10.000 years from now, an archaeologist discovers the ruins of New York, it wouldn't mean that Spiderman lived there.

[Staff edit].

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are sufficient sedimentary layers found globally to suggest the present of water everywhere we look.

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

What is lacking for science is not evidence but a satisfactory explanation of how flooding as we naturally see it occur could account for the way we observe the state/condition of those global deposits.

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

The Christian however is not limited to viewing that evidence through the lens of science because the event is believed a supernatural intervention. By definition and understanding there would be no need to assume the results of a supernatural act must follow observable natural processes.

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?

So denial here is not made on a lack of evidence of a global sedimentary layer

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.

, it is a dispute that the action of flooding adequately explains the arrangement/state of those deposits as science observes it and the actions of floods.

How is there dispute about this?

The scientist is supposing only natural processes could explain the evidence and must therefore suggest various other additional natural actions in addition to sedimentary deposits, as well as various time sequences of events to explain how it all got the way we see it is.

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)

But note the evidence of sedimentary deposits is not denied, only that flooding (even global flooding) as a natural process alone cannot explain it.

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

So it is very much a valid question the OP asks. A faith in a Creator pretty much doing whatever He wills along with the obvious global presence of sedimentary process as evidence is free to accept/reject that evidence for what God revealed in Bible as His action (not natures), and as someone pointed out there is further support by nearly global myths of an ancient deluge. So why reject that evidence as Christians and freely accept the presentation of data for Global Warming.

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mean evidence like the sediment found globally. The only difference is science considers the mention of a global flooding "event" is describing a naturally driven process which would have to then deposit that sediment in a manner we could say a flood would, which is not what we see now. We can all agree with that statement within those parameters. But that does not mean a supernatural event could not deposit that sediment in a manner resulting in exactly what we see now (or any sort of manner).

When the evidence left behind by a single supernatural global flood, can look exactly the same as the evidence that would be left behind by multiple, local and not simultanous natural floods....

Then how can you tell the difference?

Consider applying this type of "logic" in another context, to see if it still sounds acceptable....

For example: Last Thursdayism.
This model says that the universe and everything it contains was created last thursdag, with all the memories and evidence of a 13.7 billion year old evidence implanted.

That makes the evidence of Last Thursdayism indistinguishable from the evidence of an old universe.

 

[Larniavc]

You bring up some excellent points.

I like your new avatar. Sylvester looks much like the Tuxedo cat in my avi (he's called Smudge, she's called Fletcher).

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean evidence like the sediment found globally.

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.

But that does not mean a supernatural event could not deposit that sediment in a manner resulting in exactly what we see now (or any sort of manner).

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.

 

[brinny]

I like your new avatar. Sylvester looks much like the Tuxedo cat in my avi (he's called Smudge, she's called Fletcher).

Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

[Staff edit].

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

My answer is crowd theory, along with a popular modern (since 18th century) notion of applying in our theology a method of "historical criticism" which is flawed before it starts as it cannot be open to the idea of supernatural events explaining any evidence.

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.

 

[Larniavc]

it wouldn't mean that Spiderman lived there.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

The sacrifices he made for that town!!

Show some respect.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean evidence like the sediment found globally.

You don't need a recent or global flood to produce sediments all over the world. Local events spread over millions of years will produce sediments globally.

If a sediment layer with global extent did come from a local flood then those sediments should have the same carbon date globally. They don't. The ages of these sediments, both by carbon dating and radiometric dating, vary by millions and billions of years.

But that does not mean a supernatural event could not deposit that sediment in a manner resulting in exactly what we see now (or any sort of manner).

What evidence could that not explain away?

"Your honor, you should expunge all the DNA and fingerprint evidence linking my client to the crime because God could have planted it there."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Scientists have pointed to the fact that humans have driven the CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in just 150 years, well above any natural levels found in the last several interglacial periods. Scientists have pointed out that this is due to burning fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, people like to use epithets like "global alarmists" to hide these facts.



Massively increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere will trap more heat. It is just basic physics.



No, it wouldn't. The CO2 would still be here in 3 years when all the volcanic ash has settled.



That claim is made up. There is mountains of evidence demonstrating that the main driver for the increase in temperature over the last 150 years is due to man putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence



Because there is evidence for AGW, and none for a global flood.

I would say it's the other way around. The Bible says so, therefore, it is so. The only thing we don't know, from the Bible, is when it happened. 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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't know why you're using the language of 'belief', it's established science and I know Christian climatologists in the peer-reviewed scientific system. There simply is no worldwide scientific conspiracy, or these guys and girls would have been conscience bound to bust it open and expose it.

I disagree that there is no conspiracy. It helps people who want to keep their jobs to perpetuate a theory, just as Scheherezade preserved her life by telling 1001 Arabian Nights.

Climate scientists know ALL about natural warming and cooling. They can tell you dozens of natural ways the climate will change, from hyper-volcanic events to continental drift to the long term changes in the orbit and tilt of the Earth. (Milankovitch cycles).

That's not what is happening now. They've analysed all natural climate forcings, and they don't add up to what we see today. Besides, they can stick CO2 in a Fourier Device in any decent physics lab on the PLANET and PROVE what CO2 does with heat energy!


This is true!


Because Genesis 1 to 11 is written thousands of years BC to counter the predominant Babylonian creation myth with a compelling counter-narrative, and in a way corrects the theology of the Enuma Elis. But the concerns are not scientific, they're theological. There are also ambiguities with the Hebrew language where hill can mean mountain, where the waters covered "the whole earth" can mean "the whole land" as seen later on when the same words mean the whole "land" of the Canaanites. (Earth in this Hebrew word does not mean planet, as we might use it!) It's complicated, but we're too used to lazily reading our KJV's or NIV's, and not reading some of the more complex commentaries on Genesis. I believe it is God's word and true, but that we're just putting modern blinkers on when we reading it and forcing it into shapes and to answer questions that the original audience just did not have!

So that's your belief. I believe otherwise.

It took a long time for humanity to invent long-distance plumbing. In other words, all early settlements lived near rivers. Guess what happens near rivers every now and then? Australia floods terribly.

Not only that, but during the last ice age a lot of water was up on dry land as glaciers and ice sheets. When the ice age melted, aboriginals in Tasmania were cut off from the mainland. Being so flat, the water rose inland at about 30km per generation. Can you imagine your grandfather telling you he used to live over the horizon but it has all flooded? No WONDER the Victorian and Tasmanian aboriginals have flood stories! It's isolated by water by about it's own height again! IN OTHER WORDS, by referring to all the flood narratives in ancient cultures, YOU'VE ACTUALLY PROVED THE CATASTROPHIC AND TRAUMATIC NATURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE and sea-level rise, NOT anything to do with Genesis. Just look at Bass Straight down there above Tasmania. It's about as wide as the height of Tasmania itself! Aboriginals used to be able to walk from Indonesia down to Tasmania! No wonder there are flood stories in their Dreaming!

Did you happen to see the post about the areas of convergence of the flood stories? Also, we KNOW that rivers flood. The Egyptians used the mud from the flooding of the Nile to fertilize their crops. The flood stories of the various indigenous people are talking of a worldwide flood.

 

[Root of Jesse]

For me its the premise behind it - God was unhappy with the conduct of many humans.....so he slaughters every single living man, woman and child AND all land and flight animals with the exception of the 50 0000 land animals and 20 000 flight animals which Noah stuffed into a boat 100metres long and then fed the lot for 150 days. ..... now I know lots and lots accept that story - But cant you see why people struggle with the whole story?

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...

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree that there is no conspiracy. It helps people who want to keep their jobs to perpetuate a theory, just as Scheherezade preserved her life by telling 1001 Arabian Nights.So that's your belief.

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

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

I believe otherwise.Did you happen to see the post about the areas of convergence of the flood stories? Also, we KNOW that rivers flood. The Egyptians used the mud from the flooding of the Nile to fertilize their crops. The flood stories of the various indigenous people are talking of a worldwide flood.

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