Global Warming

[USincognito]

The comment about sedimentary rock on Mount Everest was not a denial other types of rocks cannot be found there. Neither was the statement an insistence that any particular sedimentary rock anywhere, including the highest above water mountain, could be pointed to as the "missing" evidence science requires for a global flood that they could understand anyway, which even I agree rather effectively rules out a naturally occurring global flood very well. That such agreement with science says nothing about what a Supernatural event can or cannot do I would think even an educated atheist would have to agree.

As the thread was suppose to be asking Christians why (with a relatively short time within my life) they would abandon a once pretty much universally held belief but flock behind Global Warming, I can accept herd theory explains it even from an atheist view.

As has been noted, unless you are 230 years old there was never a point in your life where the Flood was universally accepted.

Are you familiar with Seventh Day Adventist theology and George McCready Price?

 

[USincognito]

We have moved past the point of painting all those in disagreement as people that deny it is getting warmer. Same post the "Oh wow" was made to gives nod to the observation that glaciers have been and remain in retreat before there was an industrial revolution to supposedly "start" that.

None of which is germane to my observation that you cited a long debunked, patently dishonest opinion piece [staff edit].

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Don't be so coy. What was the "herd" doing then?

According to you or me. According to you following the "facts". According to me just a bunch of folks going along with some idea because it is popular and don't wish to stand out and feel empowered by it to shame anyone who says the emperor has no clothes.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

As has been noted, unless you are 230 years old there was never a point in your life where the Flood was universally accepted.

Are you familiar with Seventh Day Adventist theology and George McCready Price?

Yes. Also familiar with what phrases like "pretty much" and "almost" mean. Which would among most Christians rather excludes fringe elements of Christianity started by the likes of Ellen White.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

None of which is germane to my observation that you cited a long debunked, patently dishonest opinion piece [staff edit].

So the opinion is restated because the point of citing that article is stilled missed. But that is OK.

 

[USincognito]

So the opinion is restated because the point of citing that article is stilled missed. But that is OK.

Huh?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Huh?

Yep

 

[Loudmouth]

What part of was not understood?

The part where you first claim that we can't know what a supernatural flood would do. That would include producing sediments. As soon as you say we are ignorant of what a supernatural flood would do, you can't then turn around and make claims about what a supernatural flood would do.

Nothing in my posts limits God, so why ask me if He couldn't act through nature?

Then why reject the idea that these sediments were laid down by local events over millions of years?

I could suppose some grand design (not my idea as it has been done) whereby a meteor breaks an ice shield formerly encasing a very pleasantly warm globally earth raining radioactive waters down on the earth causing the the deluge, even propose the radioactivity addressing problems with dating sediment layers. Am not sure that actually works in any effective sense as a natural event that would adequately explain a single layer science could point to and say gee look there was global thread. But there have been Christians proposing something along those lines. Am not a fan, as it presumes a lot about how such a flood could be done more "naturally" without actually fulling making the evidence naturally understandable.

The evidence is understandable. That's the whole point.

No one is invoking magic, there was no slight hand involved in my posting.

Then how would you describe a supernatural force that disobeys natural laws?

The evidence is consistent with not just floods but also oceans covering areas that are now high and dry. That science suggests there are natural events which COULD explain all of it has not been disputed - that is claim.

We currently observe that nature can produce sediments through many mechanisms. It isn't a matter of COULD. We can watch it happen right before our eyes. We can watch chalk layers being deposited right now. We can see that that chalk layers accumulate slowly as microorganisms settle to the bottom of the ocean. We can watch volcanoes erupt and create layers of igneous rocks. We can measure the slow uplift of tectonic plates.

This isn't a matter of COULD. This is a matter of IS.

When you have evidence consistent with a natural process it seems a bit misguided to believe that a supernatural process was actually the cause, and that the supernatural process would produce evidence that is indistinguishable from the natural process.

Claiming they have explained it all adequately is another matter, and competing theories on various points suggests as much.

Vague allusions to competing theories just isn't going to cut it.

Am aware of no reputable Church, in fact no Church until very modern times, that made earth orbits and rotations matters of faith.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

For a bit of historical context, Cardinal Bellarmine was head of the Holy See (i.e. the Inquisition) and oversaw Galileo's trial for heresy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Am confused. We are asked to believe the current popular atmospheric models produce "facts" about climate change.

You are asked to believe that the current models are accurate because they match the facts.

Now it is suggested the models from the 70s were also considered to produce "facts" about climate change.

No one suggested any such thing.

Yet we both know those models in the 60-70s were wrong.

What models were those?

The problem is that factor alone does not change temperature very much at all, even over long periods.

The problem is that you make these bare assertions with nothing to back them up.

Because of the complexity of those factors, both in variability, predictability, and observability, we can in no way be certain of the accuracy of those factors like we can with the reflections of energy cause by CO2 levels.

We can determine if these models are accurate by comparing their predictions with the actual temperature data. If the two match, then the model is accurate.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The part where you first claim that we can't know what a supernatural flood would do. That would include producing sediments. As soon as you say we are ignorant of what a supernatural flood would do, you can't then turn around and make claims about what a supernatural flood would do.



Then why reject the idea that these sediments were laid down by local events over millions of years?



The evidence is understandable. That's the whole point.



Then how would you describe a supernatural force that disobeys natural laws?



We currently observe that nature can produce sediments through many mechanisms. It isn't a matter of COULD. We can watch it happen right before our eyes. We can watch chalk layers being deposited right now. We can see that that chalk layers accumulate slowly as microorganisms settle to the bottom of the ocean. We can watch volcanoes erupt and create layers of igneous rocks. We can measure the slow uplift of tectonic plates.

This isn't a matter of COULD. This is a matter of IS.

When you have evidence consistent with a natural process it seems a bit misguided to believe that a supernatural process was actually the cause, and that the supernatural process would produce evidence that is indistinguishable from the natural process.



Vague allusions to competing theories just isn't going to cut it.



"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

For a bit of historical context, Cardinal Bellarmine was head of the Holy See (i.e. the Inquisition) and oversaw Galileo's trial for heresy.

My speculation about no sediments could be possible in a supernatural event, which was then imposed upon in rather crude jest, was only necessary because it has been repeatedly asserted here that there are no sediments indicating a natural global flood occurred and demanding believers in a supernatural global flood point those out. I was simply pointing out the possibilities of "no sediments" points to there being no limits to what a Supernatural being could be said to do.
Personally I do not presume to know what God can or cannot do, so all I need is evidence of global action of water, which we have plenty of. The fact science cannot see the various deposits being created in any understandable way other than a natural event is excluding only just that, a natural event. It does not preclude a supernatural event depositing sediments in a manner that confounds our ability to declare it. So my admission we don't really even need sediment deposits is simply that, God would not be bound to play by the rules and order He gave Creation, order and laws we clearly observe and at least Christians point to an intelligence behind that design.

That an atheist would want to argue in a thread presented to Christians asking why they believe something or not we can only fathom. I get that anything supernatural should appear to an atheist as slight of hand, "magic" but what is the point in this thread of making that argument. It is simply stating what is fundamentally obvious to everyone from a faith icon which says God does not exist. Naturally if that was true there is no God, we could have no supernatural events. Wow, imagine that profound statement, why didn't we Christians think of that. Gee, lets take a survey of atheists to see if they all agree.

A supernatural force by definition is one that does not have to obey natural laws, otherwise what would be the point of calling it anything but a natural force. God, by definition is the Supernatural force. And no, an Omnipotent force would not have to play by all the natural laws He gave His Creation. So I cannot limit His abilities to mask His doings from direct observation using what we have learned from nature and reason. Otherwise at best, like some Christians try to help Him out with, am forced to imagine something occurring naturally that God either flicked a rock to start or some such thing and ever thing else just unfolded naturally. With the resulting issues in then not being able to point to a naturally occurring global flood - so am not sure what the gain or the value of such efforts are. To me it is enough to say God could do it, could do it in any number of ways, could do it and obviously did to it in a manner where the evidence of it is presented to us now in manner we could not attribute to a naturally occurring event. Why? Because He is God. But why not reveal His Action? Because he wants us to freely choose to love Him not force us by shear demonstration of Power.

I thought I might get a bite on the ego feud between two friends and the quote granted makes my point. The Church's principle concern was the ability to prevent an idea, (whether true or not is not really the point of the objection in how the idea is presented), from creating the impression among the faithful that Holy Scripture and what the Church teaches about it, which could also make it's leaders complicit (in teaching error about the Bible), are ALL in serious error and to no longer be trusted. The Pope even begged his friend to publish his findings in a way to present it as not opposed to those points of faith. The result of his request when he published deeply offended the Pope as the bruised ego of the scientist led to portray the Pope as a simpleton, which seen as blow on the Pope's ego and integrity as well as against the Magisterium. Anyway, it is not like Galileo lost his head over it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Personally I do not presume to know what God can or cannot do, so all I need is evidence of global action of water, which we have plenty of.

"Global action of water" is not the same as "the entire globe was covered in water a few thousand years ago". Local events spread out over millions of years can produce evidence of the global action of water that you are pointing to.

The fact science cannot see the various deposits being created in any understandable way other than a natural event is excluding only just that, a natural event. It does not preclude a supernatural event depositing sediments in a manner that confounds our ability to declare it.

What wouldn't that apply to? Couldn't we dismiss any and all evidence for anything by simply stating that a supernatural event could have produced evidence consistent with a natural event?

Could a defense attorney argue that mischevious leprechauns plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes in a way that is indistinguishable from the natural process of leaving DNA and fingerprints? According to you, he could argue that, and it would be a valid argument.

So my admission we don't really even need sediment deposits is simply that, God would not be bound to play by the rules and order He gave Creation, order and laws we clearly observe and at least Christians point to an intelligence behind that design.

But would God try to deceive us by making it look like separate events spread over millions of years?

I get that anything supernatural should appear to an atheist as slight of hand, "magic" but what is the point in this thread of making that argument.

I am trying to show you how evoking the supernatural to counter evidence just doesn't work. If I were to hazard a guess, you probably wouldn't accept it for any other explanation. If you walked out in the morning and saw that the ground was wet wherever you looked, you would probably think that it rained, a completely natural process. If someone came along and said that leprechauns made the ground wet in a way that is indistinguishable from the natural process of rain, you would probably think they were crazy.

So why should we treat geology any differently? We can directly observe geologic processes at work. We can see clear evidence for those same processes working in the past. Why should we instead conclude that a supernatural force was at work instead, and that the evidence the supernatural force produces is indistinguishable to the natural processes we can observe with our own eyes?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yet another lie that science deniers tell.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The link you posted says nothing to refute what I said.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You are asked to believe that the current models are accurate because they match the facts.



No one suggested any such thing.



What models were those?



The problem is that you make these bare assertions with nothing to back them up.



We can determine if these models are accurate by comparing their predictions with the actual temperature data. If the two match, then the model is accurate.

Correct. It does appear to us that everything we currently see, even if not fully understood or agreed upon in every detail of process, can be explained by natural causes. Understanding the natural causes of what we can see is actually a goal of science. Again, that level of understanding says nothing about excluding a supernatural cause or what such a Force could do (or not do).

I rather recall a statement made in reply to my reference to herd mentality, that the "herd" was following the facts in the 70s and is now following the "facts", albeit in the opposite direction. That statement was made opposing my expression that most of the herd is just following where the popular wind blows the herd, it is safer for individuals to do so. My pointing out the "facts" you claimed to be leading the herd were wrong in the 70s was never my aim in mentioning herd mentality, but you brought up the notion "facts" were driving the herd. The truth of the herd being wrong in the 70s does not help your case for what the herd is doing now. IOW in my view the herd direction is totally independent of facts until one member decides otherwise (no clothes moment) but even then probably only a few may follow that person. Harder to change the direction of a whole herd. That is the herd mentality theory anyway as I understand it. But even if one claims that is not true, that the herd is actually following "facts" the endorsement by the herd of the "facts" is obviously not a reliable indicator of the validity of those "facts", which was demonstrated in the doom peddled by climate change alarmists in the late 60s and 70s of a pending ice age.

What models from the 70s?, the ones they used to predict decreasing temperatures were leading to an ice age and NYC would looking like it was made to in the "Day after Tomorrow". An interesting analogy as that freeze appears to be allegedly somewhat based on a natural feedback to the alleged human impact in raising temperature. Am not sure global warming was said to be the driving cause imagined in the 70s for predicting a coming ice age.

Not backing stuff up. Would that apply to someone claiming to know what Supernatural Being they do not believe in could or could not do?
How is a refusal to constrain a Supernatural force to acting only in a natural manner an example of not backing up that such a Force could pretty much do as He Wills and whether we could recognize later how it was done flies out the window? The only thing not backed up in my posts, which is not necessary at all according the purpose of this section of the forums and a given in the OP statement, is that there is such a Supernatural Being.

 

[Loudmouth]

The link you posted says nothing to refute what I said.

Then you need to reread it. It is a myth that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1970's.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct. It does appear to us that everything we currently see, even if not fully understood or agreed upon in every detail of process, can be explained by natural causes. Understanding the natural causes of what we can see is actually a goal of science. Again, that level of understanding says nothing about excluding a supernatural cause or what such a Force could do (or not do).

You have it backwards. You need a reason to INCLUDE something in a model. Scientific models and theories INCLUDE mechanisms that we have evidence for. It doesn't exclude a lot of mechanisms, and then use what is left with no evidence to back them.

From what I can see, the only reason you have for including a supernatural flood is because of your faith based religious beliefs.

I rather recall a statement made in reply to my reference to herd mentality, that the "herd" was following the facts in the 70s and is now following the "facts", albeit in the opposite direction.

It is a myth that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1970's. If there was any consensus, it was towards warming.

"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

What models from the 70s?, the ones they used to predict decreasing temperatures were leading to an ice age and NYC would looking like it was made to in the "Day after Tomorrow". An interesting analogy as that freeze appears to be allegedly somewhat based on a natural feedback to the alleged human impact in raising temperature. Am not sure global warming was said to be the driving cause imagined in the 70s for predicting a coming ice age.

I see that you have bought into the myth.

How is a refusal to constrain a Supernatural force to acting only in a natural manner an example of not backing up that such a Force could pretty much do as He Wills and whether we could recognize later how it was done flies out the window? The only thing not backed up in my posts, which is not necessary at all according the purpose of this section of the forums and a given in the OP statement, is that there is such a Supernatural Being.

Why even suggest that there was a supernatural flood in the first place? What evidence led you to suspect that there was a recent supernatural global flood?

 

[Aldebaran]

Then you need to reread it. It is a myth that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1970's.

I guess I need to remind you of what was said:

You guys think you can just jump from one contradictory claim to the next. It's not going to work. You can't claim one minute that man isn't causing global warming, then the next minute claim that humans are causing warming but it's no big deal, and then finally jumping back to claiming humans aren't causing any warming.

Some of us guys realize after 11 pages of this thread along with countless other threads that there's no point in arguing with the global warming/global cooling/climate change alarmists. You've got your theories and nothing will change them, no matter what evidence is presented, or no matter how faulty your own evidence is shown to be.

Yet another lie that science deniers tell.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The link you posted says nothing to refute what I said.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess I need to remind you of what was said:

Perhaps you should go back a few more posts.

What I was pointing to is the fact that science deniers jump back and forth between these positions:

1. There is no warming.
2. There is warming, but humans aren't causing it.
3. Humans are causing the warming, but it won't cause any problems.

When we try to pin you on one of those positions, you jump to the other.

In response, you tried to use the myth that scientists have jumped back and forth between cooling and warming. I was pointing out that this wasn't the case.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Then you need to reread it. It is a myth that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1970's.

As many would say it a myth now, or at least overstated, that the warming trend everyone can "see" can be appreciably accounted to human activity. That our activity to is presently most likely a negative to some degree is pretty much a given.

 

[Loudmouth]

As many would say it a myth now, or at least overstated, that the warming trend everyone can "see" can be appreciably accounted to human activity. That our activity to is presently most likely a negative to some degree is pretty much a given.

"What models from the 70s?, the ones they used to predict decreasing temperatures were leading to an ice age and NYC would looking like it was made to in the "Day after Tomorrow"."

Can we both agree that there was not a scientific consensus supporting global cooling in the 1970's?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You have it backwards. You need a reason to INCLUDE something in a model. Scientific models and theories INCLUDE mechanisms that we have evidence for. It doesn't exclude a lot of mechanisms, and then use what is left with no evidence to back them.

From what I can see, the only reason you have for including a supernatural flood is because of your faith based religious beliefs.



It is a myth that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1970's. If there was any consensus, it was towards warming.

"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

I see that you have bought into the myth.



Why even suggest that there was a supernatural flood in the first place? What evidence led you to suspect that there was a recent supernatural global flood?

Not backwards at all, which is why I can say science attempts at modeling of natural causes for the presence of multiple sedimentary layers everywhere cannot exclude supernatural causes. The person in this thread claiming those models prove there are no supernatural causes for what we see is the one who has it all wrong. That's not me BTW.

So we have given up the rather unsupported allegation (that wasn't me either BTW) that the herd follows facts or that the direction of the herd indicates anything about validity of any facts. Good, we agree on something.

No. What I never bought into was the myth that herd mentality is about following facts. Again, am not the one who made that claim in this thread.

What evidence do I need to document a Supernatural event over 7000 -8000 years or more ago to an atheist? (this should be interesting).