Global Warming

[Aldebaran]

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.

Ok, then let's take a look at some of the jumping back and forth done by the proponents of the global warming idea. No matter what is happening, they want to blame global warming for it. The California drought was said to be made worse by global warming: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/...sifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html

Now that the earth is the hottest it's ever been, according to what we've been told: Earth is hotter than ever -- prosecute inaction on climate change?

The drought in California should only get worse. But if you've been watching the news lately, you may have noticed that they've been getting hit with quite a bit of rain, ending the drought. Well, guess what they're now blaming the rain on: Global Warming Means California Will See a Lot More ‘Pineapple Express’ Storms

So whether they get drought or a deluge of wet weather, it's global warming, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

So whether they get drought or a deluge of wet weather, it's global warming, right?

You are confusing weather with climate. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

There is no evidence to include a recent global flood. That's the point.

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.

What supernatural causes? You need to show that supernatural causes actually exist before you can claim that science excludes them.

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

It shouldn't matter what ones beliefs are towards God. Either a flood happened or it didn't. You shouldn't have to believe in one deity over another in order to reach a conclusion that there was a recent global flood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

"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?

We cannot agree there is consensus now in any sense that matters as the consensus is being overstated, probably by both sides depending on which way the political winds and money blows. Even with change in power, the money is still behind the alarmist at the moment.

So why would agree on consensus back then. I rather suspect without even researching that the models used then were less sophisticated and the theory was based on a reversal in the warming trend. Am not sure if that helps. Interesting though, that "Day after Tomorrow" sort of depicts all the unknowns in feedback processes and is exactly the idea that would support and so drive some built in cataclysmic correction of the global warming said to be "caused" by humans. Ironic that such variability of the feedbact factors in popular climate models, as far as being wrong/right about the far greater impact from feedback processes as compared to C02 levels direct contributions doesn't seem to bother the alarmist. It rather goes to the point I made about weather guessing, and from the courses I was required to take over 30 years ago, we have not progressed much in accuracy of models.

The pilot's best friend is still local weather radar, actual current readings and observations upstream (as in time) of where they are starting, along the path and where they are going. Sticking their head outside and listening to others that do is still more reliable. The weather guessers do good to often get that right. In two years of classes and multi-level competitions at picking weather over just 72 hours, on a good week the computer models were still only around 50% accurate as far as predicting actual temperatures and yet often faired better than most of the winning teams, in fact some weeks winning teams went with the model.

If we so frequently cannot get tomorrow right, fail repeatedly at predicting all categories of expected storm activities for the next year, and none of that appears to have improved at all in my life time, then why in the world would I think these people can accurately tell me what NYC will look like 30 or more years from now because of climate change?

What has changed significantly in meteorology and climate studies since Al Gore first said(screaming actually) in 2007 (and gets a peace prize and lots of money for) what would be in 2014(fail). Last I heard that has slid to 2029 or even later now. So if climatologist were all so sure in 2007, what changed?

Most of what I hear that sounds plausible at all (from both sides) is we do not fully understand the feedback processes. HELLO!!! So now we do??? Since when???
And this is what the scientist I hear denying there is reason for alarm at any level the alarmist insist on. We don't even know what we don't know about those processes and the models assume a constant for things that are actually very major factors in the predictions, constants we know are variable both in size and and even in some case apparently reversible in direction. Sure the relatively minor contribution to temperatures predicted directly from CO2 levels we can cut down our contribution to, but that change is a just a single drop into a large bucket compared to the feedback processes.

And both sides support admit this so. One side may use feedback to attempt to explain why for periods the warming trend may reverse and the other side pokes fun at calling freezing weather global warming while pointing out that we do not fully understand all the feedback processes or the complexity of the inter-relationships between various processes are....etc.. All of those issues are next to impossible for us to meaningfully observe or test in a lab. CO2 levels are easy by comparison, so they stick with that. But it is small part of a much more complex dynamic system we are only beginning to appreciate or recognize.

Clean air and water. Everybody wants that and this country has done a lot toward that. Spend more money to try to force it to be cooler globally when we aren't even sure if our efforts matter that much at all - that is very questionable.

 

[Loudmouth]

We cannot agree there is consensus now in any sense that matters as the consensus is being overstated, probably by both sides depending on which way the political winds and money blows.

I am not talking about the consensus now. I am talking about the 1970's. Can we agree that global cooling was the minority position in the 1970's, by about 6 to 1?

Even with change in power, the money is still behind the alarmist at the moment.

Calling them alarmists does not make the evidence for global warming go away. This is all part of the science denial schtick. You can't argue against the science, so you try to denigrate the scientists.

So why would agree on consensus back then. I rather suspect without even researching that the models used then were less sophisticated and the theory was based on a reversal in the warming trend. Am not sure if that helps. Interesting though, that "Day after Tomorrow" sort of depicts all the unknowns in feedback processes and is exactly the idea that would support and so drive some built in cataclysmic correction of the global warming said to be "caused" by humans. Ironic that such variability of the feedbact factors in popular climate models, as far as being wrong/right about the far greater impact from feedback processes as compared to C02 levels direct contributions doesn't seem to bother the alarmist. It rather goes to the point I made about weather guessing, and from the courses I was required to take over 30 years ago, we have not progressed much in accuracy of models.

The pilot's best friend is still local weather radar, actual current readings and observations upstream (as in time) of where they are starting, along the path and where they are going. Sticking their head outside and listening to others that do is still more reliable. The weather guessers do good to often get that right. In two years of classes and multi-level competitions at picking weather over just 72 hours, on a good week the computer models were still only around 50% accurate as far as predicting actual temperatures and yet often faired better than most of the winning teams, in fact some weeks winning teams went with the model.

If we so frequently cannot get tomorrow right, fail repeatedly at predicting all categories of expected storm activities for the next year, and none of that appears to have improved at all in my life time, then why in the world would I think these people can accurately tell me what NYC will look like 30 or more years from now because of climate change?

What has changed significantly in meteorology and climate studies since Al Gore first said(screaming actually) in 2007 (and gets a peace prize and lots of money for) what would be in 2014(fail). Last I heard that has slid to 2029 or even later now. So if climatologist were all so sure in 2007, what changed?

Most of what I hear that sounds plausible at all (from both sides) is we do not fully understand the feedback processes. HELLO!!! So now we do??? Since when???
And this is what the scientist I hear denying there is reason for alarm at any level the alarmist insist on. We don't even know what we don't know about those processes and the models assume a constant for things that are actually very major factors in the predictions, constants we know are variable both in size and and even in some case apparently reversible in direction. Sure the relatively minor contribution to temperatures predicted directly from CO2 levels we can cut down our contribution to, but that change is a just a single drop into a large bucket compared to the feedback processes.

And both sides support admit this so. One side may use feedback to attempt to explain why for periods the warming trend may reverse and the other side pokes fun at calling freezing weather global warming while pointing out that we do not fully understand all the feedback processes or the complexity of the inter-relationships between various processes are....etc.. All of those issues are next to impossible for us to meaningfully observe or test in a lab. CO2 levels are easy by comparison, so they stick with that. But it is small part of a much more complex dynamic system we are only beginning to appreciate or recognize.

Clean air and water. Everybody wants that and this country has done a lot toward that. Spend more money to try to force it to be cooler globally when we aren't even sure if our efforts matter that much at all - that is very questionable.

When you get done with fictions and want to discuss what actual scientists say and what the actual science is, let me know. When you reject actual science but believe in science fiction, it gets a little tough to approach the subject.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

"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.



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.



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



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?

A Supernatural global flood nearly 10 millennium ago would in rock layers look now like......<queue crickets sound>................?

We could suppose all sorts of things about a Supernatural events as we are not limited to natural processes. So sure, what if God allowed a giant frozen asteroid of water to somehow approach earth orbit perfectly so it melted slowly over 40 days resulting in every mountain then existing on dry land, followed by a comet perfectly sized that crashes into the water near the end of the ice melt sending much of it jettisoning back out of the atmosphere....................tell me when to stop ------ and then whatever else is necessary to account for water levels, amount of water, changes/shifts in plates for extra weight altering ocean floors - all so water slowly and comely recedes by natural process (erosion and all). So in that sense a "natural" flood, however we still end up with no single global layer to point to and with our current understanding be able to say - look a layer from a global flood.

My point being whatever we want to assume a Supernatural event entails - if it left any traces at all (absent knowledge to the contrary I too would assume it would leave some evidence) then ONLY if I understood what those traces are now and how it was deposited to appear as it does now, could I possibly explain in what manner it was all done. I do not have that knowledge. However, my inability to explain what or how it happened no more proves a Supernatural event has not happened than saying science is certain everything appears explainable in a natural way.

Saying it "appears" is not the same as actually witnessing it occur as it was being layered down. It is an assumption. One that does not require Supernatural intervention, but neither can it exclude it. So essentially I can assume nothing about a supernatural global flood. And if I assumed there would be sediments from it, as I do, then I need not assume anything about how those sediments were layered down - as that could be as easily manipulated by a Supernatural force as the waters of the flood were.

Why would I need to prove something I did not claim. I never said science excludes God. I said that science can postulate that everything we can see in rock layer appears to be explainable by natural means - even if we cannot fully explain or comprehend all the various and integrated processes involved to arrive at what we see now. And that is what is, based on naturally observable processes and assumptions about all of those and how they all work together. Fine.

What I said was none of that excludes a supernatural explanation for some one or more parts of that puzzle. It can't be excluded because no one can currently say they know what all was involved in a Supernatural Force flooding the earth (what does wipe or erase entail???? which is part of that story). If they do not know what that event entailed, how could they predict what the resulting action from it would eventually look like now?
So there is no need for me to PROVE the Supernatural force exists before I can say the flood happened.

Am not the atheist attempting to claim a supernatural event could not have happened from a God he does not believe exists . From such a view that concept seems rather obvious and redundant. It does beg the question of why insert oneself in such discussions unless there is some doubt about the stand God does not exist.

So it matters a great deal whether God exists as without Him, there appears to be no observable reason to believe there has ever been a global flood. We could say that might change one day, but all we have accomplished is suggesting God does not exist because there is evidence a naturally occurring global flood occurred. His existence and that the global flood was supernatural would be assumptions in the OP questions. Throw either or both assumptions out and it seems rather pointless to ask show me evidence of a global flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

A Supernatural global flood nearly 10 millennium ago would in rock layers look now like......<queue crickets sound>................?

It wouldn't look like natural processes spanning millions of years, which is what we do see. That is, unless, you want to argue that God changed the evidence to deceive us.

However, my inability to explain what or how it happened no more proves a Supernatural event has not happened than saying science is certain everything appears explainable in a natural way.

What you need is evidence that a supernatural flood did happen.

So there is no need for me to PROVE the Supernatural force exists before I can say the flood happened.

Yeah, there is. If you want this supernatural force to be included in an explanation of the geologic record then you need to demonstrate that it exists.

Am not the atheist attempting to claim a supernatural event could not have happened from a God he does not believe exists . From such a view that concept seems rather obvious and redundant. It does beg the question of why insert oneself in such discussions unless there is some doubt about the stand God does not exist.

So it matters a great deal whether God exists as without Him, there appears to be no observable reason to believe there has ever been a global flood. We could say that might change one day, but all we have accomplished is suggesting God does not exist because there is evidence a naturally occurring global flood occurred. His existence and that the global flood was supernatural would be assumptions in the OP questions. Throw either or both assumptions out and it seems rather pointless to ask show me evidence of a global flood.

If the only reason you believe a flood exists is because of the Bible, then that is a tacit admission that there is no evidence for a recent global flood in the real world.

 

[RickG]

Proving my point. We don't deny the data, we do question the interpretation, or the thought that mankind is the major cause.

Interesting. May I ask just what specific interpretation is in question and what science journal it is published in?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It wouldn't look like natural processes spanning millions of years, which is what we do see. That is, unless, you want to argue that God changed the evidence to deceive us.

Why do you care what a Force you do not believe in can or cannot do?
Could God shuffle the deck of layers and lay it back down however He wished? Why not. Could He have messed with decay rates to obscure or confuse our ability to accurately date? why not.
Am certain God could make it look a rainbow layered cake that is billions of years old if He wished. Given what Christians believe concerning God, am not sure why we should think Him incapable of covering His tracks if He wanted to or even at same time tossing the salad and fixing the isotopes to make everything appear far older than it others would have (not saying He did all that but that He certainly could - and the idea works with expounding on what "erase" or "wipe away" could mean). Have already addressed possible motives for doing so.

What you need is evidence that a supernatural flood did happen.

That's the rub here. Am not the one here who is in need of anything.

Yeah, there is. If you want this supernatural force to be included in an explanation of the geologic record then you need to demonstrate that it exists.

Happy to do so elsewhere, but not in this thread as technically it is not even allowed to question His existence here. Besides the OP clearly asks Christians, which sort of further ties our hands if we want to be curtious and also play by the rules. There are areas in CF where one could go and challenge Christians to defend God existence, but this section is not that one.

If the only reason you believe a flood exists is because of the Bible, then that is a tacit admission that there is no evidence for a recent global flood in the real world.

Wouldn't call that tacit anything. Again, see page two for no evidence of naturally occurring flood, followed by repeatedly pointing out the event in question was not a natural one.

I stated two pages into this thread and repeated several times now, it is not possible to state there is no evidence of a Supernatural event because we have no guidebook for what that evidence might look like today, we have no clue what else besides covering with water was done to the earth. The idea a supernatural Force, God, could cover the earth with water yet be unable to arrange matter in bulk at will has no support at all.

Lacking that guidance of what or how anything else may have been doe, the best we can do is say we see no evidence of a naturally occurring global flood. The truth of that statement was clearly stated by me on second page of this thread and also repeated several times since. That truth cannot exclude the possibility of one, some, most or even all the older rocks layers could have origin in and the result of a single supernatural event. Which means, because we lack any guide on how that was done, we would not be able to understand what we are looking at now. And yes we should think He could arrange it took look like multiple events spanning billions of years if He wanted to.

The Young earth (YEC) Creationist still believing in a Noah flood would want to argue God did the extreme mentioned above, jumbling all the layers in way that makes the earth look much older to us now. And as Christians do accept more and more older earth from that YEC view, starting with over 10K years ago, God producing a global flood would need to do less and less to obscure the age of the earth while also obscuring the evidence of a single global catastrophic supernatural event. I have always favored a view that says the earth is far older than the YE crowd would have it. But even in my view, the evidence from this global event has been obviously obscured in some manner so it is not evident at all to us right now except to say we know at one time or another it appears every part of the planet had water over it.

So it is not a matter of lack of evidence for a Supernatural event, it is a matter of not being able to see it if it was staring us in the face and waving its arms at us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The simulations match observations, which means that the simulations are accurate.

Riiiight.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you care what a Force you do not believe in can or cannot do?
Could God shuffle the deck of layers and lay it back down however He wished? Why not. Could He have messed with decay rates to obscure or confuse our ability to accurately date? why not.
Am certain God could make it look a rainbow layered cake that is billions of years old if He wished. Given what Christians believe concerning God, am not sure why we should think Him incapable of covering His tracks if He wanted to or even at same time tossing the salad and fixing the isotopes to make everything appear far older than it others would have (not saying He did all that but that He certainly could - and the idea works with expounding on what "erase" or "wipe away" could mean). Have already addressed possible motives for doing so.

I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a supernatural flood would produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.

That's the rub here. Am not the one here who is in need of anything.

If you want your claims to be taken seriously, then you do need evidence.

This whole post started with the question of why people could accept global warming but not Noah's flood. Well, they have their answer now. Those who say that Noah's flood did happen can't come up with a stitch of evidence to back it, and they have no interest in even finding evidence. That's why they aren't taken seriously.

Global warming, on the other hand, is supported by mountains of evidence, some of which we have posted here. That's why people accept it, because it is supported by evidence.

I stated two pages into this thread and repeated several times now, it is not possible to state there is no evidence of a Supernatural event because we have no guidebook for what that evidence might look like today, we have no clue what else besides covering with water was done to the earth.

Why would a supernatural flood be indistinguishable from natural processes?

Lacking that guidance of what or how anything else may have been doe, the best we can do is say we see no evidence of a naturally occurring global flood.

We can do one better. We can say that the evidence is consistent with no flood occurring. We have things like ice layers and lake varves that show no interruption whatsoever during the time period that this supposed global flood took place. When we see natural processes that were uninterrupted by a flood, that is evidence against a flood.

That truth cannot exclude the possibility of one, some, most or even all the older rocks layers could have origin in and the result of a single supernatural event.

You could say that about every single object in the universe. The computer in front of me could have been created just 5 minutes ago, and fake memories were supernaturally put into my head to make me think it had been on my desk for years.

That's the problem. With the supernatural you can make up anything you want and it "could be" true. That's why the supernatural is useless as an explanation for anything.

The Young earth (YEC) Creationist still believing in a Noah flood would want to argue God did the extreme mentioned above, jumbling all the layers in way that makes the earth look much older to us now.

Then you have the disproof of a recent global flood that you have been looking for. The layers are consistent with millions of years of geology.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a supernatural flood would produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.

Explanations were given. If the position were truly agnostic which is unclear from such statements, believe what was meant to be said is that because one's belief that there is insufficient evidence for God existence then it must follow such a Being could NOT hide evidence of His Actions. Am not sure being an agnostic qualifies someone to declare what God could or could not do.

If you want your claims to be taken seriously, then you do need evidence.

My claims include evidence I take seriously because of my faith. Am not sure why someone who feels no evidence declares God would feel entitled by that position much less qualified to make authoritative opinion in what should or should not be taken seriously regarding God's actions.

This whole post started with the question of why people could accept global warming but not Noah's flood. Well, they have their answer now. Those who say that Noah's flood did happen can't come up with a stitch of evidence to back it, and they have no interest in even finding evidence. That's why they aren't taken seriously.

Actually not even the premise of this statement is true as clearly the OP wasn't address to people in general, but Christians (and in case that was missed it rather excludes agnostics and atheist). An invalid premise makes the conclusion from it suspect. One more time, claiming there is no evidence would require someone proving they know how God would or would not do something. That has not been done and can never be done by "science". So the conclusion is false even without the fatally flawed premised.

Global warming, on the other hand, is supported by mountains of evidence, some of which we have posted here. That's why people accept it, because it is supported by evidence.

Again, the OP was actually not looking for a debate on either, but rather Christians offering an opinion why a long held belief is tossed and something relatively modern is widely accepted.

The idea this was done because of "evidence" is unsupportable in both cases. The alleged "lack" of evidence for a naturally occurring global flood was known long before the 60s-70s and relatively nothing significant occurred between (or even shortly before) that era which should sway opinion on the matter. The shift away from the belief in a Supernatural global flood cannot therefore be based on people suddenly being forced to "give up" trying to find natural evidence of it. The double reversal of the entire herd(not just Christians) direction believing in warming, freezing, warming again illustrates that movement of the herd was also NOT based on any real evidence.

Why would a supernatural flood be indistinguishable from natural processes?

Am not saying it has to be indistinguishable, in fact being unlimited in what God could or could not do is rather my point. Am not the one here claiming special knowledge about God's abilities to suggest a supernatural event CANNOT produce results that mask what it was.

We can do one better. We can say that the evidence is consistent with no flood occurring. We have things like ice layers and lake varves that show no interruption whatsoever during the time period that this supposed global flood took place. When we see natural processes that were uninterrupted by a flood, that is evidence against a flood.

naturally, yes. None of that excludes a supernatural event.

You could say that about every single object in the universe. The computer in front of me could have been created just 5 minutes ago, and fake memories were supernaturally put into my head to make me think it had been on my desk for years.

We could, but I see no reason to. What we cannot do is assume to know what a supernatural global flood could or could not do to then form an opinion that categorically could state there is no evidence to support a belief in it. We could only make such a claim if we said we know what God can or cannot do - to then claim He could not flood the earth without making the result of it look like a naturally occurring event.

That's the problem. With the supernatural you can make up anything you want and it "could be" true. That's why the supernatural is useless as an explanation for anything.

Again, the problem would be making up notions about what Omnipotence could or could do in order to then proclaim there is no evidence it was done. Am not the one making up such notions here.
"Supernatural is useless" does not sound like an agnostic opinion. Distorting a view of God in order to suggest it is useless for explaining anything is rather self asserting and circular reasoning. God cannot do that without making the result from it appear the same as a natural flood, therefore it did not happen because we see no evidence of such a natural flood.

Then you have the disproof of a recent global flood that you have been looking for. The layers are consistent with millions of years of geology.

Based on observations of the results of naturally occurring events and assuming such natural events not only can explain everything seen but must therefore EXCLUDE any other possible explanation. Which is rather my point - those observations being said to be "consistent" cannot exclude other possible explanations - like a Supernatural one.

 

[Loudmouth]

My claims include evidence I take seriously because of my faith.

You exclude evidence because of your faith. You exclude the evidence demonstrating millions of years of deposition because it contradicts your faith.

Am not sure why someone who feels no evidence declares God would feel entitled by that position much less qualified to make authoritative opinion in what should or should not be taken seriously regarding God's actions.

One more time, claiming there is no evidence would require someone proving they know how God would or would not do something.

That's baloney. In no other arena would you make such a claim.

For example, would you say that DNA and fingerprint evidence are inadmissible in court because no one can say what God can do with DNA and fingerprints?

If you or your partner were using a pregnancy test, would you refuse to accept the results because God can do whatever he wants with the chemical reactions in those tests?

Do you see the problem here? You are making special rules for geology that you would not use elsewhere. The only reason you are invoking the supernatural in the case of geology is that it conflicts with your religious views.

Again, the OP was actually not looking for a debate on either, but rather Christians offering an opinion why a long held belief is tossed and something relatively modern is widely accepted.

The answer is that the old idea was shown to be false by science, and the relatively modern idea was shown to be true by modern science.

The idea this was done because of "evidence" is unsupportable in both cases.

I already disproved this claim. We have the evidence for global warming.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You exclude evidence because of your faith. You exclude the evidence demonstrating millions of years of deposition because it contradicts your faith.





That's baloney. In no other arena would you make such a claim.

For example, would you say that DNA and fingerprint evidence are inadmissible in court because no one can say what God can do with DNA and fingerprints?

If you or your partner were using a pregnancy test, would you refuse to accept the results because God can do whatever he wants with the chemical reactions in those tests?

Do you see the problem here? You are making special rules for geology that you would not use elsewhere. The only reason you are invoking the supernatural in the case of geology is that it conflicts with your religious views.

Regarding the pregnancy test, most of us Catholics use one...when the belly begins to bulge...The truth is that God is responsible for DNA and fingerprints as well as the chemical reaction of a pregnancy test.
But what you're saying is akin to denying the miracles of Christ because there's no physical evidence.

The answer is that the old idea was shown to be false by science, and the relatively modern idea was shown to be true by modern science.

No, it's not that the old idea was shown to be false. It may not be proven by science, but you cannot prove it's false.

I already disproved this claim. We have the evidence for global warming.

But not that it's caused by man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Regarding the pregnancy test, most of us Catholics use one...when the belly begins to bulge...The truth is that God is responsible for DNA and fingerprints as well as the chemical reaction of a pregnancy test.

Are you saying that DNA and fingerprints can't be used in a court of law because God could have planted them at the crime scene?

But what you're saying is akin to denying the miracles of Christ because there's no physical evidence.

Just like you deny the miracles of every other deity and holy man.

No, it's not that the old idea was shown to be false. It may not be proven by science, but you cannot prove it's false.

We have uninterrupted annual ice layers and lake varves that were uninterrupted by a flood. That disproves a recent global flood.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Are you saying that DNA and fingerprints can't be used in a court of law because God could have planted them at the crime scene?

No, don't you know how to read?

Just like you deny the miracles of every other deity and holy man.

Where did I say I deny them? I may attribute them to another entity, but I never deny them.

We have uninterrupted annual ice layers and lake varves that were uninterrupted by a flood. That disproves a recent global flood.

Again, who says it had to be 'recent', and what does that mean?

 

[Aldebaran]

The simulations match observations, which means that the simulations are accurate.

Circular reasoning. You may as well say, "Someone formed a theory, and the simulation someone made based on the theory matched their theory, therefore the theory must be correct."

 

[RickG]

Circular reasoning. You may as well say, "Someone formed a theory, and the simulation someone made based on the theory matched their theory, therefore the theory must be correct."

Please take a look at the three graphs below and explain what is circular reasoning with them.

The gray in the graphs is the model, the red are actual measurements. When the model (a) relies only of natural climate forcings it does not match the actual data. The second model (b) uses only anthropogenic climate forcings. It is a better match but still a bit off. Now look at the third graph, it includes both natural and anthropogenic forcings. It is well within statistical reliability limits. There is nothing circular about climate models.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You exclude evidence because of your faith. You exclude the evidence demonstrating millions of years of deposition because it contradicts your faith.





That's baloney. In no other arena would you make such a claim.

For example, would you say that DNA and fingerprint evidence are inadmissible in court because no one can say what God can do with DNA and fingerprints?

If you or your partner were using a pregnancy test, would you refuse to accept the results because God can do whatever he wants with the chemical reactions in those tests?

Do you see the problem here? You are making special rules for geology that you would not use elsewhere. The only reason you are invoking the supernatural in the case of geology is that it conflicts with your religious views.



The answer is that the old idea was shown to be false by science, and the relatively modern idea was shown to be true by modern science.



I already disproved this claim. We have the evidence for global warming.

What special rules of geology or courts or science rule out what God can or can not do?
Answer none. That some want to claim the answers science gives are the ONLY possible explanations is understood, but it is still not true those possibilities are ruled out simply because one wishes they were.

 

[RickG]

What special rules of geology or courts or science rule out what God can or can not do?
Answer none. That some want to claim the answers science gives are the ONLY possible explanations is understood, but it is still not true those possibilities are ruled out simply because one wishes they were.

But the question still remains. Why do all the physical geology processes contradict a global flood? Perhaps it is a translation where context of the time for the word "world" does not mean the physical global world as we understand it today. Perhaps maybe Noah's world, a regional flood?