Question For The YECers.

[RickG]

And what is the purpose of these stories you write?

I'm not writing any stories, I am performing original research to gain a better understanding of past climates and environments. When completed it will be submitted for publication through the peer review process.

 

[RickG]

Being critical is the first step in any analysis. So, no.

Nevertheless, your criticism comes from a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of past climates and environments, and especially those techniques and methods involved in determining that information.

Your criticism contains no credible substance, rather only a personal bias with no desire to learn anything, for what ever reason.

 

[sfs]

Being critical is the first step in any analysis. So, no.

No, being critical is absolutely not the first step in any analysis. It's the first -- and usually final -- step in wittering about a subject on an internet forum. If you really want to analyze something, or even just criticize it meaningfully, first you have to study it.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, being critical is absolutely not the first step in any analysis. It's the first -- and usually final -- step in wittering about a subject on an internet forum. If you really want to analyze something, or even just criticize it meaningfully, first you have to study it.

Not critically?

 

[SkyWriting]

Nevertheless, your criticism comes from a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of past climates and environments, and especially those techniques and methods involved in determining that information.

Your criticism contains no credible substance, rather only a personal bias with no desire to learn anything, for what ever reason.

Your just miffed because I have no interest in your specialty.
Your sourness is petty.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not writing any stories, I am performing original research to gain a better understanding of past climates and environments. When completed it will be submitted for publication through the peer review process.

You are mistaken. It's all science fiction, through and through.
If your story sucks, you will be chastised.
If it is romantic, you will be published and praised.
If it goes against other research, you may suffer great harm to your reputation.
This has all been proven by history, that you wish to ignore.


Why do you want a better understanding of past climates?

 

[RickG]

My first job out of college landed me at Amoco Research in Naperville, Il.
were I had taken some classes for my degree in polymer science.
Lucky for humanity building 503 is gone.

Happily I was only there 2 years. But I spent 15 more years in R&D specialty
chemicals formulating adhesives. I completed 1 year in Library & Information
Science but never finished that degree. I do remember one earth science class.

I picked up a few things about information gathering.

Well then, you should be more than aware that the same chemistry in polymer science is applicable to all disciplines of science. Of all the research ever performed in the earth sciences, no period in geologic history has been studied more than that of the last glacial maximum (LGM). Do you seriously believe that that much effort is put into something that is as you insist, is conjecture? What in particular do you believe prevents us from determining past climates?

 

[RickG]

You are mistaken. It's all science fiction, through and through.
If your story sucks, you will be chastised.
If it is romantic, you will be published and praised.
If it goes against other research, you may suffer great harm to your reputation.
This has all been proven by history, that you wish to ignore.

More criticism based on complete ignorance of the subject.

Why do you want a better understanding of past climates?

From understanding the past we can understand the present and see into the future as well. As early as the 1890's Svante Arrhenius calculated temperature increase based on atmospheric CO2 doubling to be 4-6 deg C. Current observations show that to on average to be 3.5 deg C now. Not bad for the extremely sparse data he had to go on at that time. In the 1970's Wally Broecker constructed a climate model that predicted with a specific increase in atmospheric CO2 from then to 2010 would have a specific trend of global temperature. His prediction was extremely close to actual observed trend.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You don't get it, then you don't get it.

My explanation is a speculation based on my limited understanding of modern physics (not a random imagination). It is inspirational.

So God told you? He's a rather cryptic guy, isn't he?

So, I am not ready to "explain" it to you. If you do not get what I said and want to question its validity, then you can simply skip it. You lose nothing.

If I 'simply skip it', then it would appear that your comment not only made some sort of sense, but it was also a cogent rebuttal to what I said.

Random statements unrelated to the comments to which they were a rebuttal do not garner you points in a debate forum.

Since you cannot explain this statement that God told you to post, I will assume you really don't have a horse in this race.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Being critical is the first step in any analysis. So, no.

Do you typically reply to your doctor's diagnoses with, "What is the purpose of these stories you write?"

 

[Loudmouth]

You are mistaken. It's all science fiction, through and through.

You can take a horse to water . . .

The real question you have to ask yourself is why, if you are holding to the truth, do you have to ignore the evidence?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well then, you should be more than aware that the same chemistry in polymer science is applicable to all disciplines of science. Of all the research ever performed in the earth sciences, no period in geologic history has been studied more than that of the last glacial maximum (LGM). Do you seriously believe that that much effort is put into something that is as you insist, is conjecture? What in particular do you believe prevents us from determining past climates?

Would understanding the climate today be important when writing fictional stories about the past?

"That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred."

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you typically reply to your doctor's diagnoses with, "What is the purpose of these stories you write?"

You must have an unhealthy, high opinion of doctors. Good fortune has smiled upon you.

Woe unto you if your problems are ever out of the ordinary.

If you are referring to the fictional stories doctors dream up about what is ailing me,
then I know they use these imaginations to legally cover for the drugs they use to get
you out of their hair. Often they will hand out samples of drugs to get you addicted
to the latest scam promoted by drug pushers who visit them often.

One I used ended up increasing suicide rates. My doctor poo poo'd my complaint
of withdrawal symptoms claiming it had none. Odd that my sister complained
of the exact same withdrawal symptom. Years later the drug was pulled.

I didn't understand that most people breath through their nose.
The doctors said "I was a mouth breather."
A couple years ago my doctor said I had a "growth in my nose'"

The specialist just shook his head not wanting to bad mouth a peer, of course.
He asked if I always slept on my right side? Yes. Well, you were born with a
deviated septum cutting off airflow mostly on the right, but affecting both sides.

It only took 40 years for the doctors to figure out why I didn't breath normally.

 

[SkyWriting]

More criticism based on complete ignorance of the subject.

From understanding the past we can understand the present and see into the future as well. As early as the 1890's Svante Arrhenius calculated temperature increase based on atmospheric CO2 doubling to be 4-6 deg C. Current observations show that to on average to be 3.5 deg C now. Not bad for the extremely sparse data he had to go on at that time. In the 1970's Wally Broecker constructed a climate model that predicted with a specific increase in atmospheric CO2 from then to 2010 would have a specific trend of global temperature. His prediction was extremely close to actual observed trend.

Three reasonably close predictions out of 117?

You are cherry picking your facts or ignorant of the field of study.
I'll give you credit for your continued intelligent demeanor and go
with the limited vision idea.

 

[RickG]

Would understanding the climate today be important when writing fictional stories about the past?

"That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred."

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/over estimate.pdf

I see, an opinion article that misrepresents climate. The article reviews only those models that did not fit actual conditions that occurred. Furthermore, what is presented in actually climate. Climate is defined as a trend over a period of 30 or more years of average weather. One cannot cherry pick just a few years and call that climate. The OPINION article ignores trends which is what climate is, not individual data points.

Secondly, that has nothing to do with paleoclimatology of the ice ages.

 

[Doveaman]

according to a literal reading of Genesis, the universe was 930 years old when Adam died.

False.

What Genesis are you reading?

The Genesis in the Bible does not tell us how old the universe is no matter how you read it.

At best, it tells us how old life on earth is but not how old the universe is.

 

[justlookinla]

False.

What Genesis are you reading?

The Genesis in the Bible does not tell us how old the universe is no matter how you read it.

At best, it tells us how old life on earth is but not how old the universe is.

True.

 

[pgp_protector]

False.

What Genesis are you reading?

The Genesis in the Bible does not tell us how old the universe is no matter how you read it.

At best, it tells us how old life on earth is but not how old the universe is.

Well that and all the stars, sun & moon.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[Doveaman]

Well that and all the stars, sun & moon.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

"He made the stars" is not in the early manuscripts, but was later added by some translators. Probably YECs.

The verses below are more accurate translations:

"And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, — and the stars." -- (Gen 1:16 Darby)

"And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary — and the stars — for the rule of the night" -- (Gen 1:16 YLT).

According to Genesis, only two great light were made. The stars were not made. The stars were already there to rule the night with the moon. The two great lights were great in relation to the tiny stars that were already there.