Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

What special rules of geology or courts or science rule out what God can or can not do?

In a court of law, can you have DNA or fingerprint evidence excluded because you claim God planted the evidence at the crime scene? Last I checked, you can't.

The same applies to all of science. You can't have evidence excluded simply because you assert a supernatural mechanism can produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.

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.

By arguing against the science, you are tacitly admitting that the science points to a lack of a global flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

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."

Your claims are false. The simulations match observed data. It isn't a matter of the theory matching the theory. The theory matches THE FACTS.

To use an analogy, it's like writing a program that predicts the flight of a bullet through the air. You run the simulation, and then you compare it to the real flight of a real bullet. If the simulation and the real data from real bullets match, then you know the simulation is accurate.

The same applies to climate models. When they plug the climate forcings from past climates into the simulation it kicks out a predicted temperature. They compare that predicted temperature to the actual temperature from those previous climates. When the two match up, you know that the climate model is accurate.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Also, by comparing (a) and (c) you can determine the contribution from human activity, which is the difference between the grey and red line in (a).

 

[Loudmouth]

No, don't you know how to read?

This is an important question.

Can I stand in a court of law and argue that DNA and fingerprint evidence can be excluded because God could have planted that evidence at the crime scene?

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

You accept all of the occurrences that happened in the Roman and Greek legends?

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

It is claimed that the flood occurred when humans were around on Earth, so that limits the flood to at least the last 200,000 years which is recent in geologic terms.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is an important question.

Can I stand in a court of law and argue that DNA and fingerprint evidence can be excluded because God could have planted that evidence at the crime scene?

You can argue anything you want, as proven by your AGW argument.

You accept all of the occurrences that happened in the Roman and Greek legends?

For what they're worth, yes.

It is claimed that the flood occurred when humans were around on Earth, so that limits the flood to at least the last 200,000 years which is recent in geologic terms.

Claimed by whom? And who's to say how long humans were around before the flood???

 

[Loudmouth]

You can argue anything you want, as proven by your AGW

Would you accept the argument that DNA and fingerprint evidence should be thrown out of court because God could have planted the evidence?

.Claimed by whom? And who's to say how long humans were around before the flood???

Aren't you claiming that the global flood is recounted in human myths?

Also, the first H. sapiens fossils appear in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago as determined by radiometric dating.

 

[RickG]

Also, by comparing (a) and (c) you can determine the contribution from human activity, which is the difference between the grey and red line in (a).

We also know the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution (280 ppmv) is due to fossil fuels (402 ppmv) because of the carbon isotope (13C/12C) ratios.

 

[Loudmouth]

We also know the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution (280 ppmv) is due to fossil fuels (402 ppmv) because of the carbon isotope (13C/12C) ratios.

The 13C/12C ratios are just the icing on the cake. As much as the global warming deniers crow about natural cycles, they sure like to ignore them.

The recent and massive increase in CO2 does not follow natural cycles or levels. In that data spanning over 400,000 years we have 3 ice ages and are on the 4th interglacial. That's 3.5 cycles, and never has the natural levels of CO2 gone much over 300 ppm. We are over 400 ppm now (the graph is a bit outdated).

It isn't just a coincidence that we have seen a >30% increase in CO2 during a period where we are pumping gigatons of CO2 into the air. The two are obviously linked. The natural cycles that deniers crow about are the best proof we have that humans are increasing global temps.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Would you accept the argument that DNA and fingerprint evidence should be thrown out of court because God could have planted the evidence?

Off topic.

Aren't you claiming that the global flood is recounted in human myths?

Are you claiming that because something is a myth that there's no truth to it?

Also, the first H. sapiens fossils appear in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago as determined by radiometric dating.

How do you know that there arent H. sapiens fossils below that? Have you journeyed to the center of the earth?

 

[Loudmouth]

Off topic.

Directly on topic.

I am being told that all of the geologic evidence should be ignored because there was a magical flood. I am calling hogwash.

Are you claiming that because something is a myth that there's no truth to it?

I am saying that a myth is not a historical account of a real occurrence.

How do you know that there arent H. sapiens fossils below that? Have you journeyed to the center of the earth?

We have a clear evolutionary trend starting 3 million years ago. The evidence is pretty clear.

 

[RickG]

If the flood Noah experienced was natural, what would be the point of saying God did it?

God created the natural processes, why would he not use them?

 

[USincognito]

We could suppose all sorts of things about a Supernatural events as we are not limited to natural processes.

A. Then you're not doing science.
B. You're proposing a trickster god and sower of confusion who is not the God of the Bible.

 

[USincognito]

I think it's funny that someone questions the existence of God, but not the existence of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. There's more proof of the existence of God than there ever will be about AGW.

 

[USincognito]

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.

I admire your optimism.

 

[USincognito]

What special rules of geology or courts or science rule out what God can or can not do?
Answer none.

No, the answer is potential falsification. If you propose that anything you observe can be explained by God "just doing it that way" then there is no potential for falsification and thus your proposition is not scientific.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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?

It is only a question in the minds of those Christians suggesting God could only have the earth flooded naturally such that it would have to leave what would be evident to us today as a single global flood. Am not sure why Christians would want to limit God to acting in manner that would appear to us now the same as a natural flood would.

So science cannot disprove supernatural event or say the evidence proves it did not happen. They can only suggest they see nothing indicating a global flood based on what a natural flood can be seen to produce. Such statements suggest nothing about what a supernatural event could or could not do.

The Bible has a pretty specific description of water depth over the top of the highest locally known mountains. To generate flood waters that high without flooding the whole world, there would need be a wall of water of supernaturally held in place for forty days that is over 14K feet tall or so and of sufficient breadth all around that the ark never approaches or can see an edge. I suppose one could imagine God creating a giant fishbowl, but am not sure how such a belief is easier than a global flood.

How that drowns all animals, all creeping things and all birds on the whole earth besides those on the ark would be most unclear, but God said He was doing that too. Am not sure why such a local flood becomes easier for the Christians to believe in.

 

[RickG]

It is only a question in the minds of those Christians suggesting God could only have the earth flooded naturally such that it would have to leave what would be evident to us today as a single global flood. Am not sure why Christians would want to limit God to acting in manner that would appear to us now the same as a natural flood would.

My point of view concerning the flood is from a non-literal interpretation of the event, as well as what the context of the word "world" would mean to the people of that time. I am looking at it as a description of Noah's "world", not the entire earth. And as I mentioned earlier, the 8200 event rising global sea level by about 2 meters due to the Lake Agassiz outbreak breaching the St. of Bosphorus increasing the size of the Black Sea by more than a third and encroaching a portion of the mountains of Ararat satisfies both the biblical and scientific descriptions.

So science cannot disprove supernatural event or say the evidence proves it did not happen. They can only suggest they see nothing indicating a global flood based on what a natural flood can be seen to produce. Such statements suggest nothing about what a supernatural event could or could not do.

A supernatural event does not have to be sudden.

The Bible has a pretty specific description of water depth over the top of the highest locally known mountains. To generate flood waters that high without flooding the whole world, there would need be a wall of water of supernaturally held in place for forty days that is over 14K feet tall or so and of sufficient breadth all around that the ark never approaches or can see an edge. I suppose one could imagine God creating a giant fishbowl, but am not sure how such a belief is easier than a global flood.

Again, there are both literal and non-literal views of the flood event by Christians.

How that drowns all animals, all creeping things and all birds on the whole earth besides those on the ark would be most unclear, but God said He was doing that too. Am not sure why such a local flood becomes easier for the Christians to believe in.

Again, literal vs. non-literal.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In a court of law, can you have DNA or fingerprint evidence excluded because you claim God planted the evidence at the crime scene? Last I checked, you can't.

The same applies to all of science. You can't have evidence excluded simply because you assert a supernatural mechanism can produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.




By arguing against the science, you are tacitly admitting that the science points to a lack of a global flood.

I fail to see how someone's fallacious appeal to a supernatural frame job in court done to be free of responsibility compares to a belief in an actual supernatural event.

No one has said evidence gets excluded. In science evidence builds a case and nothing near certitude is a requirement to accept a theory. A myth exists in nearly every ancient culture in some form or another, is also passed down to Christianity through the traditions of the Jews. Positive evidence for a supernatural event. In that version a flood caused by God, which is said to cover the highest mountains, effects the whole earth and able to drown every thing living on the earth (including birds) that is not in the boat (wipe or blot from memory it says in some translations). Does that sound like any kind of naturally occurring flood?
Such a global flood could be imagined to lay down some evidence - which be easiest found today in sedimentary rock. Any such rock at all is in plus column - not proof - a plus as in maybe. What can logically and reasonably be excluded by Christians, agnostics and atheist alike is that science knows what such an event by God could or could not do - and therefore give us the ability to say with any confidence what the evidence from it should even look like now.
Science can only make sense out of what we see based on what we know can occur naturally. It assumes everything we see was laid down the way we see floods and bodies of water transporting and laying down sediments, then geological processes acting to end up with what we have now. That is assuming a lot of things over time have occurred exactly in the natural order that we claim to know such things as they are observable to us should occur (naturally).

Saying something occurred supernaturally, is a whole other ball game. By definition, such an event does not have to play by any of the rules we know (from studying nature). So if it happens it puts all those assumptions from all our "natural" observations up for grabs again.

Which means we cannot assume anything. We might suggest it is possible there would be some evidence of such an event, but even that is not required. We cannot even exclude the possibility many eons of layers were intentionally disturbed in any number of ways to purposefully cloud our ability to see it.

Omnipotence and omniscience rather suggest He could do such and more if desired, as well as His knowing if He didn't His Presence would eventually be declared (and so feared by many) forever more to all mankind. Assuming a desire to allow us to freely choose to love Him or not, such a declaration of His Power and Might would be counterproductive and counter-intuitive, to even us, with a true desire to want a love freely given from us all. So we should imagine that would occur to Him as well, especially since it does occur to me.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob the same One that became one of us, does not appear to me to be the sort that wants to force all of mankind to love Him, which would be easy enough for Him to do apparently, and that becomes a reality if we claim He has to reveal to us now what He did in a global flood.

So I have no problem believing He could leave no evidence at all, or evidence in a manner that makes it appear to today like something it was not - which means everything would appear as if it had various natural causes - or anything in between. So this view ranges from maybe not even a drop of water remains from that flood to full blown Supernatural cover up, because do not know what or how He did it. Absent that knowledge of both how and what He did, it is impossible to claim to know it did not happen. So even science assurance that it appears to us now that no such natural flood has ever occurred, is in fact not a statement excluding the possibility of a supernatural flood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

God created the natural processes, why would he not use them?

The proper question would be why should we think He has too?
Even if He did caused it alla naturale, why should we think He could not and would not want to cover His tracks?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

A. Then you're not doing science.
B. You're proposing a trickster god and sower of confusion who is not the God of the Bible.

A. Am certainly no scientist, but that does not mean I cannot recognize the limitations of observation of natural events.
B. Have not proposed anything except a Christian concept of God as opposed to a Zeus or Jupiter or Ra. That type of god would happily demonstrate their power if they were challenged. Again, if God wanted people inclined not to love Him to be forced to act as if they did, am very certain He could do that. Since a Christian does not believe in that sort of pagan sounding god, then He would have good reason to NOT reveal Himself fully until He is ready to judge us all.

Not that I actually think finding good evidence of a global flood or even finding an ark would actually change many people's minds about this. Rather think it wouldn't matter at all to many agnostics or atheist. Last I checked Jesus has not returned yet. So if someone wants to wait until His Power is fully demonstrated that is their choice. Not certain that ends well for everyone doing so, but will never have any proof of that either.