Why worry about global warming?

[Chalnoth]

Anyone familiar with YEC Michael Oard? He has written extensively in the creationist literature associating the ice ages with Noah's flood.

Is he the guy that claims that Pangaea was before the flood, and the tectonic plates moved during the flood?

 

[Chalnoth]

Imagine that, no scientific evidence that there is not God. No peer review scientific evidence that the Bible is not true. People like to throw their opinions around like it is peer reviewed scientific fact.

Um, you do realize that it is a fundamental impossibility to prove the non-existence of something in the way you suggest, right?

And given the complete and utter lack of any evidence for any deity, whether or not a god exists is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[Jazer]

They're probably too busy sunning themselves by a Caribbean beach-house bought with donations

bought with donations to the march of dimes.

 

[Jazer]

Um, you do realize that it is a fundamental impossibility to prove the non-existence of something in the way you suggest, right?

Then why do people come on here every day trying to do just that?

 

[Chalnoth]

Then why do people come on here every day trying to do just that?

If you ever bothered to pay the least bit of attention, you'd realize that the primary argument isn't any sort of proof of the nonexistence of any god, but rather a demonstration that there is no good reason to believe any god actually exists. Those two are not the same thing.

 

[Nostromo]

bought with donations to the march of dimes.

If you're going to quote me, don't change what I said.

 

[RickG]

Imagine that, zero scientific evidence that God does not exist. No peer review scientific evidence that the Bible is not true. People like to throw their opinions around like it is peer reviewed scientific fact.

Science does not investigate the bible but it does investigate the physical past where evidence is available. There is quite a bit of peer reviewed science that shows a global flood has never occurred as well as much evidence that the earth was not created before the stars, or land plants before the sun, or day and night before the sun, or land animals before sea animals.

Is any of that science directed toward disproving anything in the bible? No, none at all. It just happens that science discovers things that conflict with a literal interpretation of some of the events in the bible. That doesn't make the bible not true.

The bible recognizes the earth as the center of the solar system, the earth being flat, the earth being stable and not able to be moved. Do you believe that. If not, then why should Genesis be literal? Why can't it be a story about creation rather that the literal creation?

There is a lot of scripture not included in the bible that perhaps should be, as well as some that perhaps that shouldn't be. This was decided by "men" who debated heavily (Nicene Council) what should and should not be included as scripture and how to interpret it. There is not one interpretation of the bible. There are over one hundred versions of the Christian bible and more that 30,000 recognized Christian dominations around the world. Think about it some time Jazer.

 

[mzungu]

Imagine that, zero scientific evidence that God does not exist. No peer review scientific evidence that the Bible is not true. People like to throw their opinions around like it is peer reviewed scientific fact.

WOW what a coincidence; There is also zero evidence that pink unicorns, FSM, Leprechauns, fairies, Ganesh, Apollo, etc ad infinitum do not exist! No peer review scientific evidence that they are not true!

You should know that the onus to provide evidence is on the claimer. Show me evidence that FSM does not exist and that he is not the true creator? See what I mean!

 

[mzungu]

Then why do people come on here every day trying to do just that?

Actually, History has shown that it is not science that trespasses into religion but the other way round! We (including Christians) have no problems with religion whatsoever. It is only when the religious zealots try to impose on society that problems arise.

Teaching children that creationism is the truth and science is evil is basically robbing your children of their future. Such things as the creation museum only go to spread ignorance and ignorance can be deadly to a society.

Creationists warp science and portray a very wrong view of the physical world eg: Dinosaurs lived amongst people and the universe was created 6,000 years ago!

 

[Greatcloud]

But dinosaures did live with people what about the Celocanth they keep catching off the coast of Madagasscar. What about the cave man drawings. There is definately evedince of wooley mamaoths in cave drawings and frozen in the ice in the artic circle.

 

[Chalnoth]

But dinosaures did live with people

Of course! We call them birds. Lots of dinosaurs still alive.

But no non-avian dinosaurs survived the extinction some 65 million years ago.

what about the Celocanth they keep catching off the coast of Madagasscar.

You appear to be extremely confused. The Coelacanth is not a dinosaur. It's a type of fish.

What about the cave man drawings. There is definately evedince of wooley mamaoths in cave drawings and frozen in the ice in the artic circle.

Wooly mammoths are also not dinosaurs. Most died out a mere 10,000 years ago or so. You know, back when humans were making cave drawings. Though there was a dwarfed variant that lived on Wrangel Island as recently as 4000 years ago.

 

[RickG]

Is he the guy that claims that Pangaea was before the flood, and the tectonic plates moved during the flood?

I'm not sure he did that one, but no doubt he believes that. He's one of the few creationists who actually has scientific credentials, which are in meteorology. He goes way out of his field in trying to prove that the ice ages were a result of Noah's flood and that ice core chronology is heavily flawed.

Like most of these people he references the actual scientific literature but completely misrepresents it. He describes how annual ice layers are measured by the oxygen isotope method and then moves on to visually counting layers. All is ok there so far, but then the deception begins by suggesting that scientists count 100,000 annual layers in Greenland ice cores using the visual method. He also ignores other methods for counting annual layers such as conductivity, acidity, and cosmogenic nuclides.

In another claim, he cites three peer reviewed studies claiming that sub-annual cycles don't exist. All three of those papers discuss those very sub-annual cycles, how to detect them and avoid counting them as annual cycles. Is that bearing false witness or what?

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm not sure he did that one, but no doubt he believes that. He's one of the few creationists who actually has scientific credentials, which are in meteorology. He goes way out of his field in trying to prove that the ice ages were a result of Noah's flood and that ice core chronology is heavily flawed.

If so, that is so unbelievably sad. I mean, a simple calculation shows that the energy required to start and stop the tectonic plates over that short a time would boil the oceans.

In another claim, he cites three peer reviewed studies claiming that sub-annual cycles don't exist. All three of those papers discuss those very sub-annual cycles, how to detect them and avoid counting them as annual cycles. Is that bearing false witness or what?

Well, when you're trying to promote something that is so clearly and blatantly against the evidence, lies are the only way to promote it.

 

[RickG]

Well, when you're trying to promote something that is so clearly and blatantly against the evidence, lies are the only way to promote it.

That's why I cite the 9th commandment in some of my posts. That kind of deception is totally against Christian teachings and principles.

 

[mzungu]

If so, that is so unbelievably sad. I mean, a simple calculation shows that the energy required to start and stop the tectonic plates over that short a time would boil the oceans.

Not to mention the totally off scale earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism that would have been unleashed as a result of the energy used! Seriously; Don't these people think ahead before they claim such outrageous things? They claim a world wide flood yet don't even pause to think where all that water would come from and go to?

This mentality is very similar to the make believe world children play in!

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't these people think ahead before they claim such outrageous things?

We don't need to.

They claim a world wide flood yet don't even pause to think where all that water would come from and go to?

Really? you've never heard of the Water Canopy Theory?

This mentality is very similar to the make believe world children play in!

Actually, you're the one in the wrong, but that doesn't matter, does it?

We still have a 'make believe mentality', don't we?

I wish you guys, when you accuse us of something like this, wouldn't bother to use any examples -- it just makes you guys look bad.

Just accuse us and don't worry about the details.

 

[RickG]

We don't need to.

Really? you've never heard of the Water Canopy Theory?

Yes, and it is filled with flaws.

If such a canopy existed it would create such high pressure that no life would be able to exist.

Any such canopy would have blocked all sun light causing the earth to freeze.

The atmosphere is not capable of holding that much water vapor. If all the water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere were to suddenly condense and fall out all at once it would cover the Earth in "one" inch of water.

Can you cite any "real" science that supports the water canopy theory of Whitcomb and Morris?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you cite any "real" science that supports the water canopy theory of Whitcomb and Morris?

I don't need to; since I was addressing this point:

They claim a world wide flood yet don't even pause to think where all that water would come from...

You may not agree with the water canopy on scientific grounds, but that's not the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and it is filled with flaws.

No, it's not.

If such a canopy existed it would create such high pressure that no life would be able to exist.

How so?

If the canopy was a 1cm-thin layer of ice between the sun and the moon, then I don't see a problem here.*

Any such canopy would have blocked all sun light causing the earth to freeze.

Your version of it might -- not mine.

The atmosphere is not capable of holding that much water vapor.

It is a canopy in space.

If all the water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere were to suddenly condense and fall out all at once it would cover the Earth in "one" inch of water.

You've never heard of the Water Canopy Theory, have you?

Can you cite any "real" science that supports the water canopy theory of Whitcomb and Morris?

No -- thank heavens.

* From a thread of mine from some time ago:

I'm trying to ascertain the radius of a five-mile thickness of water, if it was sheared off at the earth's surface and ballooned out until it had a thickness of 1cm.

Can anyone help me with this?

 

[Jazer]

They claim a world wide flood yet don't even pause to think where all that water would come from and go to?

We do not have to think about it. The Bible says the water came from under the ground and the sky. That could mean the water came into contact with the hot core of the earth and turned to vaper. Then at first the atmosphere turned the vaper into rain. Later on the atmosphere would not be able to hold the water and the water would just drift off into space. This is really no problem. I do not even believe in a world wide flood, but it is easy to see where the water would have come from and where the water went. One thing science can tell us for sure from their study of the Greenland ice cores: The earth maintains a consistent amount of water.

We know now that Noah's flood was a local flood. The area between the Tigris and Euphrates river floods often and there could be a flood there right now.