Why Global Warming DOES NOT WORK
You probably drive an environmentally friendly car, recycle, and maybe even attempted to stop someone else's bad emissions!
But do you really have any control over nature, will anyone, or everyone for that matter really change the weather of this enormous world that we live in?
If you think about how big the earth is and how puny we and our carbon emissions are then you will see how impossible it is for us to do anything about anything in regards to the weather.
Well, if I am not responsible for the weather then why do all the scientists, the politicians, and the media tell me the opposite?
The reason so many people support Global Warming is because of its popularity. It is popular to believe that those bad republicans and those bad SUV drivers and the bad people out there are causing world catastrophe and we are all going to die by 2050 because they refuse to save the environment.
What makes Global Warming Popular?
Global warming is highly supported and publicized in the media because of its draw.
Would you buy a paper or watch a show telling you that there is no problem with the world, showing everything as good as ever with no signs of changing?
You wouldn't buy that paper and the company would go out of business. The truth is that news companies thrive on BAD news and love all of those end-of-the-world scientists.
The politicians have a similar motivation. They present the world with a problem and then they present their perfect solution to imminent disaster. If you believe the paper and you think that you will die without the politicians perfect plan then you vote for him and he becomes the popular candidate. Would you vote for a candidate who said they believed in the destruction of Global Warming but had no intention of doing anything about it?
The majority of scientists only support Global Warming because it is popular with the media and the politicians. The Scientists will get the support of everyone if they teach what is popular, they may get grants from the government for promoting Global Warming that they would otherwise not have received. In science you can get money, fame, and power for your Global Warming beliefs, not to mention being part of the "IN CROWD".
You see! The real reason for the GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT is to sell a few papers, to get a politician into office, and to give people the false feeling that they are doing some good for humanity.
Now that we see how it started, let's discus the facts of Global Warming or maybe even Global Cooling.
Please: if you agree with me then send this instructable to someone who believes Global Warming and let them know the facts.
Because my ideas are so unpopular I will probably be hated and I my instructable may be kicked out,
but if you agree with me and the true science then please post your support and all your anti-global warming content.
If not, post your own ideas so that they can be debated.
When I talk about some of the groups, I sometimes am referring to the extreme cases or limited cases. I have no intention of being insulting or offensive anyone. Since these groups greatly very, I wish that you would simply post up with anything that you see as offensive.
Keep your comments constructive and I will try to keep my comments constructive.
So you made it to the end of the first page: But I'll bet that you will shut down this instructable before the end, because you don't want to hear the truth or even the opposing side's case. If you hear this then you may start to question your own beliefs and then your own popularity goes right down the drain. If you care to hear something that is not popular BUT IS THE TRUTH then keep on reading.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Warning: This article contains content that is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politically Incorrect, Politically Unpopular, Factual, Accurate
Viewer discretion advised
IS GLOBAL WARMING BAD!
Global Warming is always supposed to be BAD and therefore we need to stop it.
But is Global Warming really bad?
I tend to think the opposite.
In fact I wish Global Warming was occurring, because it would mean that the whole earth would turn into a perfect paradise with mild warm California type weather.
Right now you are thinking "WOW thats crazy! Everyone knows that Global Warming is not responsible for anything good, especially a lush paradise. "
What you hear from your local environmentalist is this.
"The carbon emissions from your vehicles and the factories are creating an insulating layer similar to a greenhouse's glass roof. The radiation comes in but it can't go back out."
Remember a few years back when everyone was worried about the ozone layer. The theory went that CFC's were breaking down ozone in the upper atmosphere and as the ozone breaks down the atmosphere escapes into space. The thinning atmosphere causes a temporary cooling which then leads to Global Warming as the UV rays get through to the earth. Sound familiar? They are using the same rhetoric to justify this new unscientific theory (At that time they said there was a hole over the south pole caused by Right Guard Deodorant. So Right Guard and everything else is propelled by propane now instead of freon. It turns out the hole was caused by the extreme cold and had always been there).
Now for the part that they leave out!
Sure, if the ozone was depleted or if we ended up with enough greenhouse gases this would happen! ( by the way, water vapor is a greenhouse gas).
BUT!
This wouldn't be a problem because
1.) As the UV rays enter the earth the temperature goes up.
2.) As the temperature rises the ice caps begin to melt in the north and south poles and it would appear that the ocean level was going to increase and that we were all going to drown.
3.) But as the caps melt the ocean still evaporates.
Now for the part that you probably don't know
4.) Water evaporates faster than the ice caps melt (Rate of Ablation {glaciers melting} is slower than the rate of evaporation.)
5.) The evaporated water turns into clouds
6.) The cloud layer blocks the UV rays and acts like a green house, distributing the heat evenly all over the earth.
Will the Greenhouse Effect cause the heat of the sun to be trapped in the earth resulting in an ever increasing heat effect where we all get cooked?
NO! Absolutely Not!
If you have ever seen a greenhouse or a terrarium you know that the temperature is not going up and up continuously in a never ending cycle! The truth is that the heat will reach an equilibrium point that is not dramatically higher than the earth's average temperature's now.
The humidity will increase along with the fog which will be much more conducive to plant growth all over the world. It will actually help the environment (Yes, us Global Warming skeptics do like trees, too).
At this point a lot of benefits occur.
1.) A comfortable warm climate all over the earth
2.) A dramatically increased lifespan for humans because of the lack of UV radiation.
3.) The weather will stay more stable
4.) The heat of the earth will not dissipate as fast, so nights won't cool down as dramatically
5.) The Ocean levels decrease making more land available.
6.) Fewer Hurricanes ( take a look at this study :Global Warming Causes Less Hurricanes)
Be careful about what is fact and what is speculation: click on this regarding Polar Bears Polar Bears
Disadvantages:
1.) Fewer ski slopes
Sounds completely different from what you have been told before, doesn't it?
You may have heard that the water level has risen a few inches in the past couple of years (NOT TRUE AT ALL- A BUNCH OF MEDIA BALONEY)
But, the temperatures have not been increasing. In fact they have been dropping for the last 7 years.
Does this make any sense?
Ask some eco nut about what happens to water when the temperature goes up.
Tell them to prove me wrong.
Don't stop now: there is more fun ahead!
Pretty controversial stuff right? You Bet!
But just you wait, the fun's just getting started!
What, you're leaving?
Coward!
Sissy!
Told you that the truth would make you leave!
Carbon Emissions!
Yes, we do give off gases that could cause the greenhouse effect.
But, are we giving off enough to actually change anything or are we just encountering a natural cycle in which the temperature is just a few points of a degree higher?
Are we the only ones giving off these terrible green house gases?
No! Actually, there are plenty of natural forms of green house emissions that we are not in any way responsible for.
Water vapor for one, contributes greatly in terms of percentage to the greenhouse effect .
Water doesn't seem bad so that can be ignored!
Right?
OF COURSE NOT!
Everything has to be considered, because everything is important.
When stuff like this is ignored the studies are all thrown off significantly!
Some other forms of natural greenhouse gases come from volcano's and certain animals.
Three volcanic eruptions give off more green house gases then all the coal factories did throughout the entire industrial revolution.
This figure kind of blows away any of our puny attempts at controlling our temperature
Studies of all sorts that try to prove some aspect of Global Warming have been under pressure to produce pro-Global Warming results, and therefore can not be trusted 100%.
You do not get funded if you are trying to prove Global Warming is a myth.
You do not get fame or future jobs if your hypothesis turns out to be false.
It is very easy to come up with figures, make your study produce figures, believe figures that may not be true, or use figures that have no scientific basis.
No research is 100% accurate.
I don't think that anyone put a big jar over a volcano and measured the quantity of greenhouse gases directly. I tend to believe the research of someone who had no pro-Global Warming Bias to start with.
A study that sets out to prove Global Warming WILL in the prover's eyes and in the eyes of the scientific community succeed even before it starts.
Example: The temperature rose 1 degree in 1 year; so, at THAT RATE we would all die in 30 years.
Now you are told it this way:
According to the experts, the temperature of the earth may be rising at a rate so fast that human life will be impossible within 30 years.
That study does not prove anything, but it convinces a whole bunch of people that they have a reason to fear and thus a reason to join in with the Global Warming Group.
Cows and other big animals give off methane in great quantities. One Moose Creates More Greenhouse Gas Annually Than 8077miles (13,000 km) of Car Travel
I know that there are more cars than moose but are there more cars then all methane producing animals?
And by the way, do cars really affect the temperatures at all? Look at the chart below showing the temperatures during the past hundred years.
If you know your history then you know that 1941 is when World War II started.
At that time, the temperature "dramatically" dropped. Does this explain Global Warming?
Sounds more like an ice age than Global Warming.
What if you think about it this way:
The scientists realize that the temperatures are dropping too rapidly because of a lack of emissions to keep the temperature up so they begin to evoke new smog laws, requiring everyone to do their share to warm up the planet; they require at least a minimum amount of pollution for all companies, and they still predict a dismal frozen end of all civilization.
Now, are we and volcano's and cows really causing enough emissions to cause a dramatic change in the weather all of a sudden? For all the years that this earth has existed and all the years that cows and volcano's have been around, the earth has been perfectly fine.
Even if volcano's give out less then 1% of the gases that cause global warming now, after so many years of no cars or factories wouldn't the greenhouse effect been achieved anyway?
So if volcano's give off any greenhouse gases then the billion year evolution is refuted.
But if that's wrong then the billion year evolution is still refuted. The truth is that we have not been around that long and that volcano's have always been giving off greenhouse gas. (Evolution being false should not surprise anyone since it is the same people who teach and promote both, and for the same reasons) because the atmosphere is so vast the puny "emissions" do relatively nothing.
But what is this dramatic rise I see on the graph?
The natural cycle of the earth involves temperature rise and decline and it just so happens that we are at a time of Sun Spot Max.
I can't stay and listen to this!
I begin to forget what I believe as it gets jumbled up with a whole bunch of facts?
I don't ask that you believe everything that I wrote, all that I ask is that you read it to see my reasons for believing what I do.
Sun Spot Max!
The concept is simple!
Sun Spot Maxima cause increased radiation, increased radiation causes increased temperature, increased temperature causes increased cloud cover, increased cloud cover causes the paradise greenhouse effect until the sun's radiation decreases. At this point the cloud cover stays intact until it all falls again as rain.
Sound too simple to be true!
Remember Y2K? Remember the big build up and all the tension for NOTHING?
Remember the "EXPERTS"?
I doubt that they are still considered experts.
But what about those graphs?
The Temperature has been increasing since the 1730's when the "Little Ice Age" in Europe came to an end. This trend started before the industrial revolution and has continued steady since then. The use of the hundred year time frame is inaccurate and used only to prove some correlation between the Industrial Revolution and Global Warming. The trend started before the industrialization and is more accurately indicative of the earth entering a natural warming trend. The recent short spike in temperature correlates to the sun spot max in 2001.
This is the spike that people began to get worried about.
But after 2001according to the IPCC (UN agency) the temperatures have leveled off and actually dropped. The IPCC were the people that started the global warming scare in the first place. Now you will notice that they don't even use the term Global Warming, but in fact they use the term climate change because there data can not back up Global Warming.
Yes there is a trend but what caused people to get hysterical a few years back was just the sun spot max.
Is it just coincidence that "Global Warming" happens at precisely the same time that Sun spot maximum occurs?
Don't quit now, just a little longer and you can accurately say that you know why I believe as I do.
NEGATIVE RESULTS OF THE "GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT"
So why should we bother about it?
If it makes them happy to think that they are saving the planet then why not let them continue?
High gasoline prices are a result of environmentalism.
What??!!! That can't be!
Well, read on.
Gasoline is not high because of the Arabs in the middle east, it is not high because of the war, and it isn't even the president's fault.
We have massive amounts of oil in the United States.
We do?
Yes! But because of decisions by the government in favor of the environmentalists we have not been allowed to drill in Alaska or the gulf of Mexico.
Because of this it is required that we get our oil overseas at over $100 a barrel.
But that is not the only problem.
Since 1976 there have been no new refineries in the United States
and oil has to be refined to work in cars.
Since the refineries can only produce so much gas, there is a shortage,
and the shortage drives up prices.
The high prices mean that less gas is used and therefore less "Global Warming" gases escape. So they (the eco nuts) are not in any hurry to let gas drop down to ONE DOLLAR a gallon so long as Global Warming is still a threat in their minds.
Because of these strict "Global Warming" laws many industries have problems that directly affect us and the world economy.
Because of this, many industries move to other countries where their pollution is legal. As the businesses leave the prices increase and the money goes out of the country.
There are many economical problems with the continuance of the Global Warming Movement,
many of which are not going to be discovered until it is to late.
If you know of more negative effects of the Global Warming Movement then please tell everyone and post it here.
The people don't deserve to be kept ignorant of any facts, so please tell all you know.
You can't say that about all those people who are just trying to see to a better world!
Actually I can. I have to suffer the high gas prices same as anyone!
Don't feel too bad, just keep reading
THIS SECTION IS ABOUT MY PERSONAL BELIEFS AND TO SOME IS CONSIDERED NOT RELEVANT TO THE GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION. IN MY OPINION THIS IS A LEGIT REASON FOR MY DISBELIEF IN GLOBAL WARMING BUT I AM CONSIDERING THIS SOMETHING EXTRA SINCE IT REALLY SHOULD BE WRITTEN UNDER A DIFFERENT TOPIC.
PLEASE READ IT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED OR IF YOU WISH TO DEBATE.
IF YOU DO READ IT REMEMBER THAT IT WAS YOUR OWN CHOICE AND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT POST SPITEFUL AND PURELY HATEFUL COMMENTS. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS CONSTRUCTIVE. THANKS.
OTHER REASONS!
Since the billion year evolution theory is not true because of what we understand about volcanic eruptions, we must assume that something else has occurred.
If you have read the book of Revelation or Isaiah in the Bible then you would begin to see the situation prophesied beginning to unfold. The world is actually approaching a paradise-like state.
That sound crazy?
Well, just wait and see!
Someone will be proved wrong in the end!
Ever wonder how come there are no transition species between the perfect species of the past and today?
There are no half completed species that barely can survive.
Each one is completely unique and amazingly coordinated for something that came together by chance, it is almost like it was intentionally designed.
Ever asked a scientist where "stuff" came from?
I don't mean people and animals.
I mean the very existence of anything and everything!
Matter!
The very particles, the energy, and also the infinite nothingness of the universe.
Were they always there?
Or did they have a beginning?
In our world and our realm of understanding doesn't everything have to have a beginning?
Can you think of anything that just was?
The only alternative is that there is something outside of our universe, our dimensions, our time and our global warming controversies, In which time is not existent.
So yes, three space dimension's and a time dimension are a creation.
At this point most of you who have made it this far are going to shut this page down because you are afraid of the truth, you are afraid that this could affect your popularity, because you are afraid that there might be more to this life than you realize. You might think that scientists know whats happening, they know all the facts and they know all about everything.
But do they?
Were they not once just like everyone else in terms of their knowledge until they were taught something that they took to be truth?
Have not some students of some schools in the past accepted something that was later proved to be wrong?
Are we just to assume that everything taught in school is 100% accurate, or are we actually supposed to seek the truth?
Seeking the truth is not very popular because it often entails leaving the zone of popularity and entering the zone of the outsider.
All that I can say is that time will tell.
In time we will all know the truth.
If I am wrong I will know it! If you are wrong THEN YOU WILL KNOW IT.
For more information look at this movie Creation in symphony: THE MODEL by Dr Carl Baugh
http://www.creationevidence.org
For you free thinkers and truth seekers make sure you see the movie: EXPELLED
Thanks For Reading
You made it.
GOOD!
Then perhaps you are seeking truth after all. Maybe you are truly wanting to know what is truth.
Maybe you didn't find what you were looking for in this article. Maybe you need something better than my facts. All that I ask is that you constantly seek the truth.
But do you really have any control over nature, will anyone, or everyone for that matter really change the weather of this enormous world that we live in?
If you think about how big the earth is and how puny we and our carbon emissions are then you will see how impossible it is for us to do anything about anything in regards to the weather.
Well, if I am not responsible for the weather then why do all the scientists, the politicians, and the media tell me the opposite?
The reason so many people support Global Warming is because of its popularity. It is popular to believe that those bad republicans and those bad SUV drivers and the bad people out there are causing world catastrophe and we are all going to die by 2050 because they refuse to save the environment.
What makes Global Warming Popular?
Global warming is highly supported and publicized in the media because of its draw.
Would you buy a paper or watch a show telling you that there is no problem with the world, showing everything as good as ever with no signs of changing?
You wouldn't buy that paper and the company would go out of business. The truth is that news companies thrive on BAD news and love all of those end-of-the-world scientists.
The politicians have a similar motivation. They present the world with a problem and then they present their perfect solution to imminent disaster. If you believe the paper and you think that you will die without the politicians perfect plan then you vote for him and he becomes the popular candidate. Would you vote for a candidate who said they believed in the destruction of Global Warming but had no intention of doing anything about it?
The majority of scientists only support Global Warming because it is popular with the media and the politicians. The Scientists will get the support of everyone if they teach what is popular, they may get grants from the government for promoting Global Warming that they would otherwise not have received. In science you can get money, fame, and power for your Global Warming beliefs, not to mention being part of the "IN CROWD".
You see! The real reason for the GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT is to sell a few papers, to get a politician into office, and to give people the false feeling that they are doing some good for humanity.
Now that we see how it started, let's discus the facts of Global Warming or maybe even Global Cooling.
Please: if you agree with me then send this instructable to someone who believes Global Warming and let them know the facts.
Because my ideas are so unpopular I will probably be hated and I my instructable may be kicked out,
but if you agree with me and the true science then please post your support and all your anti-global warming content.
If not, post your own ideas so that they can be debated.
When I talk about some of the groups, I sometimes am referring to the extreme cases or limited cases. I have no intention of being insulting or offensive anyone. Since these groups greatly very, I wish that you would simply post up with anything that you see as offensive.
Keep your comments constructive and I will try to keep my comments constructive.
So you made it to the end of the first page: But I'll bet that you will shut down this instructable before the end, because you don't want to hear the truth or even the opposing side's case. If you hear this then you may start to question your own beliefs and then your own popularity goes right down the drain. If you care to hear something that is not popular BUT IS THE TRUTH then keep on reading.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Warning: This article contains content that is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politically Incorrect, Politically Unpopular, Factual, Accurate
Viewer discretion advised
IS GLOBAL WARMING BAD!
Global Warming is always supposed to be BAD and therefore we need to stop it.
But is Global Warming really bad?
I tend to think the opposite.
In fact I wish Global Warming was occurring, because it would mean that the whole earth would turn into a perfect paradise with mild warm California type weather.
Right now you are thinking "WOW thats crazy! Everyone knows that Global Warming is not responsible for anything good, especially a lush paradise. "
What you hear from your local environmentalist is this.
"The carbon emissions from your vehicles and the factories are creating an insulating layer similar to a greenhouse's glass roof. The radiation comes in but it can't go back out."
Remember a few years back when everyone was worried about the ozone layer. The theory went that CFC's were breaking down ozone in the upper atmosphere and as the ozone breaks down the atmosphere escapes into space. The thinning atmosphere causes a temporary cooling which then leads to Global Warming as the UV rays get through to the earth. Sound familiar? They are using the same rhetoric to justify this new unscientific theory (At that time they said there was a hole over the south pole caused by Right Guard Deodorant. So Right Guard and everything else is propelled by propane now instead of freon. It turns out the hole was caused by the extreme cold and had always been there).
Now for the part that they leave out!
Sure, if the ozone was depleted or if we ended up with enough greenhouse gases this would happen! ( by the way, water vapor is a greenhouse gas).
BUT!
This wouldn't be a problem because
1.) As the UV rays enter the earth the temperature goes up.
2.) As the temperature rises the ice caps begin to melt in the north and south poles and it would appear that the ocean level was going to increase and that we were all going to drown.
3.) But as the caps melt the ocean still evaporates.
Now for the part that you probably don't know
4.) Water evaporates faster than the ice caps melt (Rate of Ablation {glaciers melting} is slower than the rate of evaporation.)
5.) The evaporated water turns into clouds
6.) The cloud layer blocks the UV rays and acts like a green house, distributing the heat evenly all over the earth.
Will the Greenhouse Effect cause the heat of the sun to be trapped in the earth resulting in an ever increasing heat effect where we all get cooked?
NO! Absolutely Not!
If you have ever seen a greenhouse or a terrarium you know that the temperature is not going up and up continuously in a never ending cycle! The truth is that the heat will reach an equilibrium point that is not dramatically higher than the earth's average temperature's now.
The humidity will increase along with the fog which will be much more conducive to plant growth all over the world. It will actually help the environment (Yes, us Global Warming skeptics do like trees, too).
At this point a lot of benefits occur.
1.) A comfortable warm climate all over the earth
2.) A dramatically increased lifespan for humans because of the lack of UV radiation.
3.) The weather will stay more stable
4.) The heat of the earth will not dissipate as fast, so nights won't cool down as dramatically
5.) The Ocean levels decrease making more land available.
6.) Fewer Hurricanes ( take a look at this study :Global Warming Causes Less Hurricanes)
Be careful about what is fact and what is speculation: click on this regarding Polar Bears Polar Bears
Disadvantages:
1.) Fewer ski slopes
Sounds completely different from what you have been told before, doesn't it?
You may have heard that the water level has risen a few inches in the past couple of years (NOT TRUE AT ALL- A BUNCH OF MEDIA BALONEY)
But, the temperatures have not been increasing. In fact they have been dropping for the last 7 years.
Does this make any sense?
Ask some eco nut about what happens to water when the temperature goes up.
Tell them to prove me wrong.
Don't stop now: there is more fun ahead!
Pretty controversial stuff right? You Bet!
But just you wait, the fun's just getting started!
What, you're leaving?
Coward!
Sissy!
Told you that the truth would make you leave!
Carbon Emissions!
Yes, we do give off gases that could cause the greenhouse effect.
But, are we giving off enough to actually change anything or are we just encountering a natural cycle in which the temperature is just a few points of a degree higher?
Are we the only ones giving off these terrible green house gases?
No! Actually, there are plenty of natural forms of green house emissions that we are not in any way responsible for.
Water vapor for one, contributes greatly in terms of percentage to the greenhouse effect .
Water doesn't seem bad so that can be ignored!
Right?
OF COURSE NOT!
Everything has to be considered, because everything is important.
When stuff like this is ignored the studies are all thrown off significantly!
Some other forms of natural greenhouse gases come from volcano's and certain animals.
Three volcanic eruptions give off more green house gases then all the coal factories did throughout the entire industrial revolution.
This figure kind of blows away any of our puny attempts at controlling our temperature
Studies of all sorts that try to prove some aspect of Global Warming have been under pressure to produce pro-Global Warming results, and therefore can not be trusted 100%.
You do not get funded if you are trying to prove Global Warming is a myth.
You do not get fame or future jobs if your hypothesis turns out to be false.
It is very easy to come up with figures, make your study produce figures, believe figures that may not be true, or use figures that have no scientific basis.
No research is 100% accurate.
I don't think that anyone put a big jar over a volcano and measured the quantity of greenhouse gases directly. I tend to believe the research of someone who had no pro-Global Warming Bias to start with.
A study that sets out to prove Global Warming WILL in the prover's eyes and in the eyes of the scientific community succeed even before it starts.
Example: The temperature rose 1 degree in 1 year; so, at THAT RATE we would all die in 30 years.
Now you are told it this way:
According to the experts, the temperature of the earth may be rising at a rate so fast that human life will be impossible within 30 years.
That study does not prove anything, but it convinces a whole bunch of people that they have a reason to fear and thus a reason to join in with the Global Warming Group.
Cows and other big animals give off methane in great quantities. One Moose Creates More Greenhouse Gas Annually Than 8077miles (13,000 km) of Car Travel
I know that there are more cars than moose but are there more cars then all methane producing animals?
And by the way, do cars really affect the temperatures at all? Look at the chart below showing the temperatures during the past hundred years.
If you know your history then you know that 1941 is when World War II started.
At that time, the temperature "dramatically" dropped. Does this explain Global Warming?
Sounds more like an ice age than Global Warming.
What if you think about it this way:
The scientists realize that the temperatures are dropping too rapidly because of a lack of emissions to keep the temperature up so they begin to evoke new smog laws, requiring everyone to do their share to warm up the planet; they require at least a minimum amount of pollution for all companies, and they still predict a dismal frozen end of all civilization.
Now, are we and volcano's and cows really causing enough emissions to cause a dramatic change in the weather all of a sudden? For all the years that this earth has existed and all the years that cows and volcano's have been around, the earth has been perfectly fine.
Even if volcano's give out less then 1% of the gases that cause global warming now, after so many years of no cars or factories wouldn't the greenhouse effect been achieved anyway?
So if volcano's give off any greenhouse gases then the billion year evolution is refuted.
But if that's wrong then the billion year evolution is still refuted. The truth is that we have not been around that long and that volcano's have always been giving off greenhouse gas. (Evolution being false should not surprise anyone since it is the same people who teach and promote both, and for the same reasons) because the atmosphere is so vast the puny "emissions" do relatively nothing.
But what is this dramatic rise I see on the graph?
The natural cycle of the earth involves temperature rise and decline and it just so happens that we are at a time of Sun Spot Max.
I can't stay and listen to this!
I begin to forget what I believe as it gets jumbled up with a whole bunch of facts?
I don't ask that you believe everything that I wrote, all that I ask is that you read it to see my reasons for believing what I do.
Sun Spot Max!
The concept is simple!
Sun Spot Maxima cause increased radiation, increased radiation causes increased temperature, increased temperature causes increased cloud cover, increased cloud cover causes the paradise greenhouse effect until the sun's radiation decreases. At this point the cloud cover stays intact until it all falls again as rain.
Sound too simple to be true!
Remember Y2K? Remember the big build up and all the tension for NOTHING?
Remember the "EXPERTS"?
I doubt that they are still considered experts.
But what about those graphs?
The Temperature has been increasing since the 1730's when the "Little Ice Age" in Europe came to an end. This trend started before the industrial revolution and has continued steady since then. The use of the hundred year time frame is inaccurate and used only to prove some correlation between the Industrial Revolution and Global Warming. The trend started before the industrialization and is more accurately indicative of the earth entering a natural warming trend. The recent short spike in temperature correlates to the sun spot max in 2001.
This is the spike that people began to get worried about.
But after 2001according to the IPCC (UN agency) the temperatures have leveled off and actually dropped. The IPCC were the people that started the global warming scare in the first place. Now you will notice that they don't even use the term Global Warming, but in fact they use the term climate change because there data can not back up Global Warming.
Yes there is a trend but what caused people to get hysterical a few years back was just the sun spot max.
Is it just coincidence that "Global Warming" happens at precisely the same time that Sun spot maximum occurs?
Don't quit now, just a little longer and you can accurately say that you know why I believe as I do.
NEGATIVE RESULTS OF THE "GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT"
So why should we bother about it?
If it makes them happy to think that they are saving the planet then why not let them continue?
High gasoline prices are a result of environmentalism.
What??!!! That can't be!
Well, read on.
Gasoline is not high because of the Arabs in the middle east, it is not high because of the war, and it isn't even the president's fault.
We have massive amounts of oil in the United States.
We do?
Yes! But because of decisions by the government in favor of the environmentalists we have not been allowed to drill in Alaska or the gulf of Mexico.
Because of this it is required that we get our oil overseas at over $100 a barrel.
But that is not the only problem.
Since 1976 there have been no new refineries in the United States
and oil has to be refined to work in cars.
Since the refineries can only produce so much gas, there is a shortage,
and the shortage drives up prices.
The high prices mean that less gas is used and therefore less "Global Warming" gases escape. So they (the eco nuts) are not in any hurry to let gas drop down to ONE DOLLAR a gallon so long as Global Warming is still a threat in their minds.
Because of these strict "Global Warming" laws many industries have problems that directly affect us and the world economy.
Because of this, many industries move to other countries where their pollution is legal. As the businesses leave the prices increase and the money goes out of the country.
There are many economical problems with the continuance of the Global Warming Movement,
many of which are not going to be discovered until it is to late.
If you know of more negative effects of the Global Warming Movement then please tell everyone and post it here.
The people don't deserve to be kept ignorant of any facts, so please tell all you know.
You can't say that about all those people who are just trying to see to a better world!
Actually I can. I have to suffer the high gas prices same as anyone!
Don't feel too bad, just keep reading
THIS SECTION IS ABOUT MY PERSONAL BELIEFS AND TO SOME IS CONSIDERED NOT RELEVANT TO THE GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION. IN MY OPINION THIS IS A LEGIT REASON FOR MY DISBELIEF IN GLOBAL WARMING BUT I AM CONSIDERING THIS SOMETHING EXTRA SINCE IT REALLY SHOULD BE WRITTEN UNDER A DIFFERENT TOPIC.
PLEASE READ IT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED OR IF YOU WISH TO DEBATE.
IF YOU DO READ IT REMEMBER THAT IT WAS YOUR OWN CHOICE AND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT POST SPITEFUL AND PURELY HATEFUL COMMENTS. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS CONSTRUCTIVE. THANKS.
OTHER REASONS!
Since the billion year evolution theory is not true because of what we understand about volcanic eruptions, we must assume that something else has occurred.
If you have read the book of Revelation or Isaiah in the Bible then you would begin to see the situation prophesied beginning to unfold. The world is actually approaching a paradise-like state.
That sound crazy?
Well, just wait and see!
Someone will be proved wrong in the end!
Ever wonder how come there are no transition species between the perfect species of the past and today?
There are no half completed species that barely can survive.
Each one is completely unique and amazingly coordinated for something that came together by chance, it is almost like it was intentionally designed.
Ever asked a scientist where "stuff" came from?
I don't mean people and animals.
I mean the very existence of anything and everything!
Matter!
The very particles, the energy, and also the infinite nothingness of the universe.
Were they always there?
Or did they have a beginning?
In our world and our realm of understanding doesn't everything have to have a beginning?
Can you think of anything that just was?
The only alternative is that there is something outside of our universe, our dimensions, our time and our global warming controversies, In which time is not existent.
So yes, three space dimension's and a time dimension are a creation.
At this point most of you who have made it this far are going to shut this page down because you are afraid of the truth, you are afraid that this could affect your popularity, because you are afraid that there might be more to this life than you realize. You might think that scientists know whats happening, they know all the facts and they know all about everything.
But do they?
Were they not once just like everyone else in terms of their knowledge until they were taught something that they took to be truth?
Have not some students of some schools in the past accepted something that was later proved to be wrong?
Are we just to assume that everything taught in school is 100% accurate, or are we actually supposed to seek the truth?
Seeking the truth is not very popular because it often entails leaving the zone of popularity and entering the zone of the outsider.
All that I can say is that time will tell.
In time we will all know the truth.
If I am wrong I will know it! If you are wrong THEN YOU WILL KNOW IT.
For more information look at this movie Creation in symphony: THE MODEL by Dr Carl Baugh
http://www.creationevidence.org
For you free thinkers and truth seekers make sure you see the movie: EXPELLED
Thanks For Reading
You made it.
GOOD!
Then perhaps you are seeking truth after all. Maybe you are truly wanting to know what is truth.
Maybe you didn't find what you were looking for in this article. Maybe you need something better than my facts. All that I ask is that you constantly seek the truth.
JUNE 2013 Build Night - 3D Printing with 123D & Tinkercad
Instructables Build Night w/ Bare Conductive @ Noisebridge
Embed a 3D viewer in your Instructable
Maker Faire 2013 Slide Show!
Fried Contest Launches 5/13, HQ Celebrates with Fried Day Friday
MEH! :D A Build Night at Montana Ethical Hackerspace!
Got contest ideas? Want to help HQ staff?
Large Instructables Robot head made out of driftwood, check it out!
Call for pre-made parts!
The Instructables Green Design Contest is starting on Earth Day!
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
It is global warming or evolution that offends you?
Ah, the light dawns - the poster lists his age as 16, and has a bee in his bonnet about what schools teach.
I smell a troubled teen, indoctrinated by his church since pre-school, who has just had his comfortable religious safety blanket torn in two by a few facts from a science teacher.
(Check's kentjoe's profile) ... Shooting, FIRE, Explosion ... I especially like the things that Go BOOM.
Why am I not surprised?
Even though I like to figuring most things out for myself.
Since he's swallowed the whole YEC mythology whole, I'm not so sure he's being entirely honest with himself.
I'm guessing South of the Mason-Dixon line. Well South.
Doesn't it usually mean that when your opponent starts to use personal attacks that you are winning the debate? Personal attacks on me only hurt your case!
Well since you have slurred my "good name" (Ha what a joke) then I will have to come up with an answer.
Yes I am 17 years old and yes I do like ... Shooting, FIRE, Explosion ... I especially like the things that Go BOOM. and I am proud of what I like.
Hasn't mankind been fascinated by fire for as long as it has been around (this I heard from an evolution teacher). Am I the only one who enjoys the hobbies of model rocketry and gun shooting? Take a look at how many other people use explosives, fire, and guns on this site. When did fire stop being fascinating and turn into a mental disorder?
I smell a troubled teen
This I find funny and quite ironic. Christians are disliked because they supposedly "Judge" others based on their own moral standards but It seems OK for you to judge the Christians based on no standard what-so-ever. Please tell me what standard that you used to come up with the conclusion that I was troubled. So others judge too, not just Christians. Hmm...
Oh and by the way, I live smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles two blocks from a movie studio. This is probably the most liberal place on earth.
indoctrinated by his church since pre-school, who has just had his comfortable religious safety blanket torn in two by a few facts from a science teacher.
The only thing that kids understand and the only thing that churches teach them is the Ten Commandments and how to live a good moral life. They don't understand anything about Jesus or God except that he loves them. It is when they are older and can make a decision that they choose what they want to believe.
I have been going to a Junior College since I was 13 years old and I have anything but a comfortable religious safety blanket. I have been opposed everywhere just because I was a Christian. I have often wished to have a more protective social environment. If anyone has a blanket it is those who hide under the social blanket, those who have all the world on there side to back them up.
Every fact that I have received I have been able to refute or find a refutation. When voting my sister asks my dad, "who should I vote for?" he answers I will tell you what I know about everyone and you have to pick. This is a very open way of learning and is in no way indoctrination.
Everything that I believe I have confirmed by something other then just a preacher.
So you now understand your opponent.
There is no more need to smear me.
Ah, I can smell the maturity! It's either that or I really need a shower.
Besides, well south of the Mason-Dixon line is Florida. There are some real nice people there. And oranges. I like oranges. But not grapefruit.
To an external observer, it is clear that the majority of fundamentalist creationists tend to live in states below the Mason-Dixon. I have no idea why, but I am also sure that there are many nice people there. Unfortunately, as i said, there are also many YECs.
Floridian oranges I can take or leave - I prefer smaller citrus fruits like satsumas or mandarin oranges. I'm also rather fond of grapefruit. (Sorry - another cultural divide 'twixt we two)
Hmm. Your technique is reminiscent of exploring whether a leg is broken using a steel-toed boot, with kicks of increasing intensity until a definite conclusion is reached.
Let's look at this analogy.
My sister says that she KNOWS the sky is orange.
I tell that I know for a fact it's blue.
She still refuses.
Just because she believes that the sky is orange, doesn't mean anything if I can look up at the sky and physically see that it's blue. Just because you believe it doesn't make it correct...
Global warming seems to be a pretty obvious thing, from the warming and weather changes, it's very noticeable since scoland no longer has skiing, we seeem to be headed towards the hottest summer on record, last summer had a monumental heatwave, which is a bit odd for miserable old N.I. those are things I can say in recent time but it seems true enough that global warming is happening.
However, to me it sesm doubtful that it's us causing it, though ecosystems on the whole are delicate cars are a drop in the ocean compared to the world's volcanoes, there have always been natural forest fires and methane decay aswell, sure we add to this, especially with farming and electricity, cars are another one but we don't add that much.
Saying global warming isn't happening is flying in the face of alot of evidence, granted we'd be better putting a giant cork in mount etna that sticking turning our heating off.
Which is an interesting one, see it's more efficient to cool a home than heat a home so oil, gas and electricity consumption would drop with a temperature rise, in some places anyway.
We still have to conserve resources like fossil fuels, making better use of them, mainly because they're running out fast, nuclear power seems like a handy option, though limited in similar ways...
Err ice caps melting doesn't mean the water level wont rise, though if evaporation increases were taken into account there's a good chance this wouldn't be as bad a prediction as though before... Maybe my little brother is right he thinks we should put water in space...
I saw the words
Now this is a good one...
and I guess I just assumed that you liked it.
Maybe next time you should start with something like "Had some problems" or "I don't agree" or "I noticed some major flaws with your article, consider re-writing"
This will eliminate confusion.
Thanks anyway for commenting
I am not denying that we are in a natural cycle in which the temperatures are increasing. But I do see a difference between GW and a small temperatures rise.
No two years are going to have the exact same average temperature, so does that mean that if the temperatures drop one degree by next year that we are headed for an ice age.
You are right the world is Warming up slightly and we can't deny that. But Is GW something we have to worry about or are the temperatures just going to drop back down eventually.
Thanks for commenting
skate6566, don't say evolution is tried and proven, it ain't. It's just the theory that best explains the observed results. We have no observational records from while it was happening, no one has spent millions to billions of years trying to replicate the results. The theory itself has undergone change since Darwin, is subject to tweaks and revisions even today, thus there isn't a final absolute version that could be "tried and proven" anyway.
Frankly, I don't care which one wishes to believe as long as it's agreed who's behind it all. It's a debate between Created and Evolved. Well, it don't take much engineering skills to realize evolved systems can be much better than created ones. Windows is created, Linux is evolved. One university I visited, they didn't put in walkways the first year they were open, they put them in later where the students had left paths. If you're called upon to improve a manufacturing process so the workers get better quality with less effort, you don't ask the people high in the office for suggestions, you ask the guy on the floor what he thinks would work.
That said, evolution has limits, the initial setup must be done before the process can be sent off running. No computers, no programmers, no concept of an OS, no Linux. The idea that this all "just happened" would be incredulous at best for practically any other topic. Consider the odds of there even being a planet that can have life period, and also sustain it indefinitely, and allow for massively multi-celled life like us. Moreover, it sure looks like there are some general guidelines and plans involved. All known life is carbon-based, not silicon, and has water content. The most advanced life forms, at least roughly, follow a 4-limbed layout, with 1 brain housed separately from the internal organs. Etc. And I have yet to hear about how that final "tweak" to self-awareness, to being able to contemplate about things that are not directly sensed, can be of such an evolutionary benefit as to have been selected. Indeed, we're doing our level best to defeat and even reverse natural selection, stopping evolution dead. In our own species, and in many we're trying to "preserve" that prevailing conditions would wipe out in favor of something better, more adaptable.
Look, I have no problem accepting evolution in general. I know of no religious texts that have warned against immersing yourself in water and letting it flood your lungs lest you die. We are meant to observe, theorize, experiment, and share what was learned, beyond those texts. We are lead to believe that evolution is the best explanation, so be it. BUT, there is no way I know of to demonstrate that it isn't a directed evolution, one normally left to itself but subject to rare nudges and tweaks. To believe absolutely that there isn't something greater supplying that direction, is an act of faith.
BTW, from chooseausername: "B : However the advantage of matter over deities, is that we can touch and feel it : we have the proof it exists."
Haven't you been keeping track of current theories? Matter that you can touch and feel is rare, practically a contaminant, well over 90% of everything is dark matter and dark energy. There are no electromagnetic interactions, a moon-sized glob of dark matter could go straight thru the Earth, you'd never know. Our best science, the best theories for explaining the universe we have, are telling us to accept the unseen, what we can't sense. What we will never touch and feel.
Why is it okay to accept one thing that can't be sensed that's based on new work by a few people, and reject another that's based on writings thruout recorded history and anecdotal evidence from many, many millions of people?
Now, back to the original topic, Global Warming!!
So what?
Just think about it. The permafrost is thawing, leading to greater CO2 releases; the polar ice is melting, exposing deep dark water that's soaking up sunlight and heating up, leading to more melting. Other things are happening beyond mankind's influence. If we would shut down our CO2 emissions today, we'd only slow the rate of increase down. We're past the tipping point. It's happening. It'll be about a hundred years of our best most unified efforts, everyone worldwide, to bring it to a halt. And, so what?
You want to believe in evolution, then accept adaptability. Whatever happens, we'll adapt to it, we'll survive. If we don't then we're not a good species, we deserve extinction. But, we'll make it.
However, the most offensive part of the whole GW thing, is the marketing of it. Teaching little kids in school to be afraid of the oceans rising 20 feet! That one CGI piece I saw of what looked like a quickly-deserted New York City, swiftly inundated by a tsunami-like wave! And the disaster movies... To those of you who had high hopes, I'm sorry, but Waterworld ain't going to happen.
Face the facts, reject the hype. The changes will be far more gradual, what qualifies as good science on climate change shows it'll take decades for really noticeable things to occur. We'll have plenty of time to adapt. We're past the tipping point anyway, it'll be 5, 10, maybe 20 generations from now until it's stopped. All those generations, adapting as they go.
And then, they'll look around at what they've adapted to. What is normal to them. And consider what more they'll have to do to make things like they were in their ancient ancestor's time, our time. And loudly proclaim:
"So what? Who cares?"
Now if you wish to argue it's not straight randomness, something is skewing things to where something like Earth had to happen...
You're concept of straight randomness seems to imply that there's only one lottery commission, and that the lottery takes place once a week.
On straight randomness, with infinite time all possible lottery numbers will happen.
Well, there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies changing over billions of years. Even if there were only one lottery commission on each planet, then indeed all possible lottery numbers have occured. Many times.
I don't think you have a clue about the boundlessness of the universe, and the uncountable number of molecular events that happen every second.
There's a catch 22-- IF the earth evolved randomly, well, then as an evolved being on earth you'd HAVE to be right here, wouldn't you? (as opposed to somewhere life didn't evolve.)
On straight randomness, something like Earth doesn't have to happen at all.
Absolutely, 100% true. Just because it happened, doesn't imply it HAD to happen.
Well for one thing, that was one lottery commision for the entire universe. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned time, not like that, since somehow that seemed to imply regular periodic drawings. It's more like saying you could have everything else set up and ready, but without life you won't get your earthlike world, and life does not have to automatically start. If everything would hold at just the right conditions then eventually you'd get life, if you have infinite time to wait. But conditions will change with time, and the chance will be lost.
In any case, with true randomness it doesn't matter if there are billions, trillions, or quadrillions of potential planets out there. The "boundlessness" doesn't matter as the sum of all the energy and mass is still finite, there are not infinite planets out there. It doesn't matter how many tickets are sold. It doesn't matter if it's twelve 3-digit numbers or three 1-digit numbers. As long as there is one combination that no one picked, it's possible that no one will win.
Just look at a coin flip. It never has to come up heads. I can flip that coin twice, fifteen times, five hundred times, 80,000 times, it will never have to be heads. It will get increasingly improbable that it hasn't come up, but it is not impossible. That's true randomness.
All possible lottery numbers need not have occured. At all.
"true randomness" doesn't eliminate the possibility. Indeed, if you're arguing probabilities, you're arguing in favor of the least likely one, not the most likely one.
When you argue against the lottery analogy, you're arguing with me, not against me. Your arguing for the unlikely, the unusual, the quirky. So you would be a believer in evolution.
And it's disingenuous to argue against so unlikely an occurrence; by implication you believe that supernatural deities are statistically likely and somehow the norm.
Well for one thing, that was one lottery commission for the entire universe.
If you let someone illogical set the rules, you get illogical rules. In fact, in terms of chemical interactions, there are trillions upon trillions of lottery commissions on every planet, all happening on a micro-divided time scale that approaches infinite rapidity.
Again, if you were actually arguing real probabilities, your "true randomness" argument would be related to a footnote, as it is in all actual statistical studies. But you're taking that footnote and acting as if that trumped the probabilities themselves (laughable.)
I'm supposed to believe that your entire world view is based on an analogy, and on a tiny margin of error being wrong? A margin of error that's so small, I'd have to fill this page with zeros after the decimal.... You've got to do better than that...
life does not have to automatically start..
As long as there is one combination that no one picked, it's possible that no one will win.
It never has to come up heads.
I completely agree with you. There's absolutely nothing inevitable about the formation of life. I'll say it again, because you missed it:
Just because it happened, doesn't imply it HAD to happen.
But it did. I can prove that because I'm sitting here typing at you....
An aside:
I can never figure you guys out. Science doesn't disprove religion at all, and you can't prove religion with science or logic, or disprove science with crappy half-truths and pseudo-science.
It's a matter of faith, not science. You're killing all that's beautiful about your faith, and looking foolish in the bargain... You want to eliminate faith, and make God as pedestrian as McDonald's.... Name a REAL certainly or "technological miracle" you don't take for granted.
You want to bring God down to the level of the iPhone.
Sorry, but your posts read back-and-forth so much you're making my neck hurt.
Statement was made that something like earth was bound to happen, implication being there is no need to believe a "higher power" exists as earth (and life) was inevitable. My argument is something like earth was not bound to happen thus it has not been shown there is no need to believe on that basis.
Your arguing for the unlikely, the unusual, the quirky. So you would be a believer in evolution.
I argue that an earth-like planet, one with the possibility of life, is rare and indeed may never happened at all thruout the entire universe. The argument extends to life need not have happened as well. Since we are here, we have either beaten very long odds or a "higher power" is responsible.
Of course, even if an earth-like planet (with life) was inevitable that does not remove the possibility that a "higher power" is involved. On the flip side, one would have to show that such a planet (and life) was impossible, i.e. we shouldn't be here at all, to prove a "higher power" was involved, but the argument is invalid since because you exist you are possible. The existence of that "higher power" remains a possibility, shown to be neither absolutely impossible nor absolutely certain.
Then we come to what's really a seperate issue. One may believe in creationism, which affirms the existence of God. Or one may believe in Big Bang / evolution, which, contrary to what many want to believe, really does not deny the existence of God. I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, specifically an evolution influenced by God on a planet in a universe brought about by God. I have found that both beliefs best fit the available evidence and my own observations, thus they are the most logical choices. They make sense to me.
I just want to keep science out of the churches, and religion out of the (science) classrooms.
As I was raised in the church, faith is the litmus test. If you remove faith (by substituting proof), you've destroyed the foundation.
One more thing:
The Intelligent Design must be fought, as well as the Creationists. Not because there's anything wrong with the phrase--simply because (in America, at least) the movement was founded by Christians who've stated publicly that "Intelligent Design" is merely a "wedge issue" that will help to eventually force schools to accept Creationism.
If you look at Intelligent Design as a movement (not as an idea), you'll find it's mostly Christian based, and not very open to alternative creators, faiths, etc...
Heh, now there might be a source of contention. Perhaps you should use a different wording, "I just don't want science dictating what's in the churches, and religion dictating what's in the (science) classrooms." Lord knows we have enough mistaken people who think if you're religious at all then you can't be really scientific, or scientific at all!
Besides, there's a very long and great tradition of religion-operated schools (not the same as those Muslim indocrination centers seen on the news). The Catholics of course, various Christian (Protestant) ones, etc, that have generated great scientific minds. They didn't do that by saying chemistry requires prayers to Bunsen of Titration, patron saint of non-nuclear reactions. Science has a place in the churches, and as long as it stays in that place and doesn't wander around then it's not an issue.
As I was raised in the church, faith is the litmus test. If you remove faith (by substituting proof), you've destroyed the foundation.
This is, in several ways, one of the silliest things I've ever read. Sorry. Faith, belief without proof, is indeed a wonderful thing. No one wants to be called a Doubting Thomas. But it's simple human nature to take proof when we can find it, "trust yet verify." If a group of believers had run up to another and said "Come quick, Jesus is in the other room!" and that person said "No, I don't have to see him, thanks anyway," well that would be mighty suspicious. Perhaps he was lying about believing thus didn't care about having proof, or he was an ultra-devout believer trying to show he was so much better than the others by not needing it. Well, don't know about you but I'd sure be running.
Blessed are those who have not seen yet believed. But by then a substantial body of proof had been built up with eyewitness reports. Thomas was basically saying they had to be lying. In any case, if it was true that the foundation of our belief must be faith alone, there is no room for proof, well then, Jesus wouldn't have come back at all.
Like any oversimplification it could be expanded, but I'm comfortable with the statement, and stand by it.. A religious-affiliated school that teaches real science is a school. A "school" that teaches hokum like Creationism is a church.
Real science is, of course, science that's accepted by a majority of scientists. Or at least discussed seriously by a majority of scientists. Science eventually accepts valid concepts.
Only idiots think that scientists don't accept religious views because of some conspiracy. They don't accept religious views simply because they are not science. And I believe most scientists are religious...
But by then a substantial body of proof had been built up with eyewitness reports.
Eyewitness evidence is the least reliable. It's certainly not scientific evidence. Again, it's really just faith--especially since cynicism is the norm today. In fact, that's exactly what eyewitness evidence is--who do you believe?
Nor does the Bible constitute proof. Except for the faithful.
This is, in several ways, one of the silliest things I've ever read......................Well, don't know about you but I'd sure be running.
Disagree totally. Again, a happening doesn't constitute proof, just an eyewitness account. Two people will see the same thing, and not even agree on what happened, especially if that something is ..uh.. outside the natural relm. Two clergy men will spin the same miracle 180 degree apart.
Video wouldn't even constitute proof. if you have no faith, you'll insert aliens, or ghosts, or Japanese Oni demons, or any one of thousands of other "explanations."
In fact, you could say > 50% of Americans have no faith in science--no amount of proof would ever convince them of evolution. Facts can always be denied.
Eh. I'm getting tired of arguing all these points. But that's one of Christianities largest failings, isn't it? Excessive nitpicking over minutia, resulting in thousands of different sects...Most of which believe the same basic truth, but you couldn't get then together in one room without a fight.
So I'm bowing out of this conversation.
Yeah, you got that right.
Eyewitness evidence is the least reliable. It's certainly not scientific evidence.
Again, a happening doesn't constitute proof, just an eyewitness account. Two people will see the same thing, and not even agree on what happened, especially if that something is ..uh.. outside the natural relm.
Video wouldn't even constitute proof.
Hold up.
Eyewitness accounts were definitive proof. If someone wrote down they paid you three peices of silver but two witnesses said they only saw two, then it was two. The level of accuracy involved was agreeing they saw a brown cow with white spots. You can't spin that into saying it might have been a white goat with black spots. And they didn't have video.
It's a simple matter. A lot of people said they saw their teacher and friend. That should have been enough, but Thomas wanted his own proof. A lot of neighbors told him a Camaro was parked down the street. What are you arguing, that it could have been a Mustang, or that it could have been a motorcycle?
Just about all of science is based in eyewitness accounts, someone saw something and wrote it down. They don't always get it right, it took forty years to agree humans have 46 chromosomes, before it was generally agreed 48 were observed. Science lies in the replication of results, the same experiment is run (or something is merely observed), when enough agree they saw the same thing then it's accepted as truth. And even then, the experiment itself may be flawed, more accurate instrumentation or a different method shows the results were not valid, eventually a new consensus is reached. And even then... There still isn't a definite yes or no answer as to whether or not indigo is a color of the visible spectrum. Some see it, some don't, some scientists just deny it while others accept it. After all, it's traditional in science for it to be a color, goes all the way back to Newton. Who decided there were seven colors for metaphysical reasons.
Note that we're getting low on absolute methods of proof. Audio, photos, video and even physical evidence can all be faked. There are detectable signs of this, which get noted, resulting in better fakes. "Proof" these days keeps heading to a "reasonable doubt" standard. In many ways eyewitness accounts are becoming the best evidence available.
Real science is, of course, science that's accepted by a majority of scientists. Or at least discussed seriously by a majority of scientists.
Then just about every scientific breakthru that has ever happened, started as imaginary science?
So I'm bowing out of this conversation.
You refuse to separate personal observations from repeatable scientific facts.
Yes, eyewitness reports can verify simple mundane facts. Some facts that no one disputes: Jesus lived. Jesus preached. People followed.
Here's the distinction: You believe that the "personal observations" in the bible are irrefutable proof. Following that reasoning, then the Qur'an is equally acceptable proof.
As are the teachings of Hinduism--the Vedas would be the work of actual prophets, who have seen or talked to gods. If I accept the bible as fact, I must also accept this.
Or is it a matter of belief, as I've said all along. You read the text, and KNOW it must be true. That's faith, my friend.
Scientific proof isn't necessary for mundane observations. But it is for belief-shattering ones. Science is repeatable, observations of religious phenomenon are not..
Non-scientific people often drag science down by claiming that science can't claim to prove evolution, because it wasn't observed, and it's not repeatable.
But that ignores: Massive amounts of fossil and geologic evidence (NOT eyewitness accounts, which are suspect), loads of experimental evidence: concepts like speciation, which proves with repeatability that new species can evolve from existing ones.
You won't believe it because you choose not to believe it. As I said--no amount of proof, scientific or otherwise would ever convince you. That's why no one chooses to argue with you.
Me--I'm sick and tired of other Christians telling me how my Christian beliefs are wrong... So continue to preach to the choir.
We're arguing about something in context, like if it was Greek mythology and involved an exchange between Herakles and Hera. A bunch of people said they saw something, one said he didn't believe them. Simple.
Yeah, I too have trouble understanding why other people can't accept evolution, the evidence is there, the theory fits. However, the major stumbling block continues to be the insistence that God cannot be involved. The stance is not logical, if you cannot prove nor disprove the involvement of God, then you may say you lack (conclusive) evidence showing any involvment, you do not say absolutely there is no involvement possible, and you really don't give your "proof" of that as being there absolutely is no god period. Now if in the same breath you wish to state you also lack evidence that pixie dust is involved, hey it's your choice, at least it's a logical statement.
All I'm asking for is they should play by their own rules and admit what is logical, the possiblity exists that a higher power was involved. If they then want to fight to the hilt against YECs, the packaging that is Intelligent Design, and all the like, fine by me, I'll be right at their side. But what is being done is insisting that science and religion are mutually exclusive and science is the only real truth, which means they're saying religion has no truth, and that ain't right.
I'm not a Creationist (capital C), certainly not a YEC, nor ID. I accept God. I accept evolution. I accept God is behind evolution, He is the Creator. I don't like to accept labels, but if people are going to keep insisting I need one then I'll rather make my own than be continually slapped with incorrect ones. I am a creational evolutionist.
...I'm sick and tired of other Christians...
Oh good, you've identified yourself as a fellow Christian. The way you were going back-and-forth I couldn't even figure out if you were atheist or not.
should be:
would be relegated to a footnote
All I'm saying is that Evolution is the one side that makes the most sense, has the most science backing it up, and has the most evidence.
Let's look at it this way.
My sister says the sky is orange. She believes this.
I know the sky is blue. I know this for a fact.
Just because we both believe them doesn't make us both right.
And I know for a fact I'm right because I can just look up at the sky and see... that it's blue. So I have evidence backing it up, but yet my sister doesn't. She still, however, believes it's orange. Despite overwhelming evidence otherwise.
You are basically saying that the sky is orange.
Or we could look at it this way.
I write a book about a leprechaun that lives under my bed and created the world. Do you:
- A: Automatically believe it until I show you that there isn't one? (Even then, you still think there is or that it was just an analogy)
- B: Say "that's absurd" until I PROVE to you that there is? (Or I admit that there isn't one)
Personally, I prefer the latter.- A: Automatically believe it until I show you that there isn't one? (Even then, you still think there is or that it was just an analogy)
- B: Say "that's absurd" until I PROVE to you that there is? (Or I admit that there isn't one)
OK, it isn't quite like that, but I don't think that anyone will really just accept what seems absurd. So why not try to debate creation using scientific facts. I'll start with one that makes me disbelieve evolution. If the ocean's have evaporated, come out as rain, and washed the salts of the earth into the ocean for 4 billion years wouldn't the ocean be saltier then its current 3% concentration?And another!
If evolution occurred wouldn't we be able to find way more bones/fossils/evidence of billions of years worth of creatures that were both transitional species and full species? We should be up to our ears in weird creatures bones.
Hope this kind of switches the debate to a more factual direction.
Thanks for commenting
How salty the ocean is, however, defies ordinary comprehension. Some scientists estimate that the oceans contain as much as 50 quadrillion tons (50 million billion tons) of dissolved solids.
If the salt in the sea could be removed and spread evenly over the Earth's land surface it would form a layer more than 500 feet thick, about the height of a 40-story office building. The saltiness of the ocean is more understandable when compared with the salt content of a fresh-water lake. For example, when 1 cubic foot of sea water evaporates it yields about 2.2 pounds of salt, but 1 cubic foot of fresh water from Lake Michigan contains only one one-hundredth (0.01) of a pound of salt, or about one sixth of an ounce. Thus, sea water is 220 times saltier than the fresh lake water.
Every last bit of land covered with 500 feet of salt. That... is a lot of salt. Lake Michigan, which sees lots of land runoff, is 220 times less salty. I really don't think there is enough salt left on dry land to nudge that ocean percentage. Practically all the salt in the world is in the ocean! As would be expected after 4 billion years!
Now, you're really going to have to explain what you think a "transitional species" is, because technically all species are transitional, between what they were before and what they will become someday. Plus you should have a better understanding of the sheer rarity of fossils period. Skeletons alone rarely survive, in the woods around where I am there could easily have been millions of birds over the past century but I'd be hard pressed to find the skeleton of even one. The minerals to make them come from the earth, the earth reclaims them when discarded. To even have a chance at becoming a fossil, the skeleton needs to be sealed away from weather and bacteria, like trapped in a mudslide. How rare is that? As it stands, for creatures with which there would have been millions of individuals, we're lucky to find the fossil of one.
In any case, guess we have found "transitional species" after all. Birds came from raptors and we've found a bunch of raptor fossils. And the finches of the Galapagos Islands , which lead Darwin to his theory, are related to ones on the South American mainland. Offhand I guess that means those South American ones are living transitional species.
I am glad to be able to enter in a debate that uses scientific data.
I hope to be able to use the site you provided to be able to debate with you using some simple math.
http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm
Sometimes river water travels far from shore before it mixes with sea water. This is shown by data gathered from a study of the Columbia River, which, in an average year, carries to the ocean enough water to cover an area of 1 million acres to a depth of 197 feet. Using a radio- active tracer, scientists at Oregon State University have followed the river's water from its mouth near Astoria to a point southwest of Coos Bay, 217 miles away.
There are 640 acres in a mile. OK?
The earths radius is 3,963.191miles.
The equation of the surface area of the earth is (4/3 * Pi * r2) I think, but anyway I found the earths surface area to be 316940069.991miles
(510065600 km)
So what am I getting at?
Time to do the math!
1,000,000/640 =1562.5 miles then multiplied by 197 feet. This gets poured into the ocean annually with a 1/100 salt concentration. Now assuming that this river produces about 1/100 of all the water that runs into the ocean (Just a wild guess-it is probably much more) there is 1562.5 miles 197 feet high of salts entering the ocean per year.
Now multiply by 4 billion years.
6,250,000,000,000 square miles * 197 feet from the 100 rivers.
OK lets try 10 million years,
15,625,000,000 square miles * 197 feet from 100 rivers.
try
100,000 years
156,250,000 square miles * 197 feet from one hundred rivers.
Now lets see what happens when we take the data that this site has and convert it to square feet.
500 feet thick and 316940069.991 miles in surface area.
500 * 5280*316940069 = 836,721,782,160,000 feet cubed.
Now using the 100,000 year estimate for 100 rivers for one year.
197*5280*156,250,000 = 162,525,000,000,000 feet cubed.
So that means that five hundred rivers for 100,000 years or 100 rivers for 500,000 years, would produce enough salt to be equal to what the scientists believe is in the ocean. That is if the rate was constant all throughout time, but as you said
I really don't think there is enough salt left on dry land to nudge that ocean percentage. The rate has slowed way down which means that the time is less then 100,000 years for five hundred rivers to equate to what the site said.
Now for the topper!
There are more then five hundred rivers entering the ocean and the figure above leaves out all types of natural disasters. A hurricane, a tidal wave, or a world wide flood would wash huge amounts of salt into the ocean and so therefore we couldn't be older then 100,000 years. With a flood it means that we are less than 10,000 years old.
Makes more sense to me then carbon dating.
As for the lakes they fill with rain and a few rivers that proceed to pump the salt's on through the lake to the ocean. The salts have to stay in an ocean but in a big lake they just travel with the current out the rivers. In small lakes they have the same concentration as the small rivers that enter them.
There is more?
I will be back this afternoon to discuss the rest. If I made any errors it was because I was rushing. Please wait until I get back.
Thanks for posting
Hmm... 5280 feet per mile. 640 acres per sq mile. Convert area in acres to sq miles, convert depth in feet to miles, multiply for volume: (1*106 acres * ( 1 sq mi / 640 acres)) * (197 ft * (1 mi / 5280 ft)) = 58.3 cubic miles. Cubic miles to cubic kilometers yields 243. cubic kilometers of Columbia River salt output per year.
The volume of the oceans is about 1.3*109 cubic km. At 3% salinity that's 3.9*107 km3 of salt in the ocean. 3.9*107 km3 / 243 km3 = 1.6*105. Thus the output from the Columbia River alone, if the only source of ocean salinity, would need only 160 thousand years to account for all the salt in the ocean, provided the ocean started as pure water without any salt.
Which means that if the Earth were only 10,000 years old, there'd only be allowance for 16 rivers total like the Columbia River. If 6,000 years then only 26. Okay?
Now then, the Columbia River's average discharge rate is 7,504 cubic meters per second. Let's go look at the biggest rivers. Biggest of all, the Amazon, discharges at 219,000 m3/s. Uh-oh. That's 29 times the Columbia. Add them together, 160,000 / 30 = 5333. The Earth's already down to only being 5,333 years old. Let's sum those big rivers up, paying attention that they actually drain into an Ocean. (insert long-winded list here) So ignoring those three, I have 533 thousand m3/s. Add in Columbia, divide total by Columbia, divide the 160,000 years by that total... The world is only about 2,200 years old!
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. (Yes, Balki...) It's silly to assume there was no salt in the ocean to start, you said there are more than 500 rivers, plus with natural disasters etc, the world is obviously far younger than even 2000 years. Might not be 1000, or even 200 years old!
Hopefully you can see the problem with assuming the salt just goes into the ocean water and stays there, permamently dissolved, the concentration ever increasing. Somehow salt must also be leaving the water, and until the rate(s) and method(s) of removal are known, both your calculations and mine are flawed.
Of course, up to now you've missed a very important fact.
The land did not appear until the third day. Plus the water and the land were seperated, the land was not created at that moment, thus the already-made land must have been under the water. Whatever salt the land might have had would have dissolved into the water while the land was immersed, after the seperation whatever salt the land would have would come from evaporation of the water component from the seawater-soaked land (and if you think the land wouldn't have dried in this time frame, God commanded dry land thus you know it went quick).
Thus practically all the salt would have been in the ocean at the end of the creation week, and very little in the land. Thus the entire "4 billion years and only 3%?" argument is busted from the start as the creation story tells me the same thing!
Oh! Wait!
I just found a mistake in my calculations that you used in your calculations.
Hmm... 5280 feet per mile. 640 acres per sq mile. Convert area in acres to sq miles, convert depth in feet to miles, multiply for volume: (1*106 acres * ( 1 sq mi / 640 acres)) * (197 ft * (1 mi / 5280 ft)) = 58.3 cubic miles. Cubic miles to cubic kilometers yields 243. cubic kilometers of Columbia River salt output per year.
First of all this figure is not the amount of salt being pumped into the ocean. To get the amount of salt you need to multiply the value you got by the salt concentration. The salt concentration of the ocean is 220 times that of a fresh water river. So 3% / 220 = .0136% river concentration. So I am going to multiply the 58.3 cubic miles by .000136 to get .007929 cubic miles (0.03km) of salt.
The volume of the oceans is about 1.3*109 cubic km. At 3% salinity that's 3.9*107 km3 of salt in the ocean. 3.9*107 km3 / 243 km3 = 1.6*105. Thus the output from the Columbia River alone, if the only source of ocean salinity, would need only 160 thousand years to account for all the salt in the ocean, provided the ocean started as pure water without any salt.
So using the new figures we redo what you just did.
3.9*107 / .03 km3 = 1.3*109
So one river would actually take 1.3 billion years to make the oceans salt concentration equal 3%.
OK 1.3*109 / 30 from the two rivers would equal 4.3*107 years.
OK, now assuming that we have 1000 times the amount of these two rivers salt output. 30,000 sounds about right.
1.3*109 / 30,000 = 43,333 years
Now add a flood and other natural disasters and we get a number about 10,000 years or less. But that is not precise enough for me so I am going to use the figures to try to figure out about how much salt a world wide flood would bring into the ocean. I am going to use the present volume of water
and pretend that it is just one big river. The only time salts are stirred up is when the water is moving so we can't just assume that still water will absorb salts from the soil. Rivers are in gorges because they take bits of the soil with with them.
1.3*109 *.000136 would be 1.76*105 km3 of salt which would be all the water of the ocean flowing through the rivers. The Amazon gives 29 times more salt then the Columbia so how much more salt would a flood produce then a river. Assuming that the Grand Canyon was made by this flood we have to assume that the the output was probably over 10,000,000 times what It would have been in only the rivers.
10,000,000*.000136*176,000=239,360,000 km3 of salt from the flood.
Now to find the amount of salt in the ocean after the flood ended
(1.3*109) - (239,360,000) = 1.06*109
So if the flood was 10,000,000 times the salt producer that the oceans all flowing through the rivers would be then we would still be
1.06*109 / 30,000 = 35,333 years old.
OK so what would it take for the flood to produce enough salt for us to be under 6,000 years old? The flood would have had to take
{1.3*109 - ( 6,000*30,000 )} = 1.12 billion times what the whole ocean would produce by flowing through our rivers.
Hopefully you can see the problem with assuming the salt just goes into the ocean water and stays there, permamently dissolved, the concentration ever increasing. Somehow salt must also be leaving the water, and until the rate(s) and method(s) of removal are known, both your calculations and mine are flawed.
Salt will stay dissolved in the water until the water is saturated. And then it will just stay at the bottom. I am willing to believe that there possibly could be some natural removal of salt from the ocean but since science doesn't have an answer for that I am more inclined to believe in an young earth. If there is a natural removal of salt from the ocean then our calculations are flawed and we won't know how to calculate it until someone comes up with some sort of salt removal rate.
The land did not appear until the third day. Plus the water and the land were seperated, the land was not created at that moment, thus the already-made land must have been under the water. Whatever salt the land might have had would have dissolved into the water while the land was immersed, after the seperation whatever salt the land would have would come from evaporation of the water component from the seawater-soaked land (and if you think the land wouldn't have dried in this time frame, God commanded dry land thus you know it went quick).
The bible doesn't say that the land was underwater and besides, how much salt could have dissolved in one day. God need not let the salt dissolve if it wasn't needed. And the bible talks about seas after creation and not a salty ocean.
There was a person who spent his whole life proving that the world was at maximum 100,000 years old using similar logic. He was not a religious man and his ideas were taught in schools for many years. I don't know his name but my point is that there are proofs out there in favor of the YEC's that just conveniently disappear.
Thanks for Commenting
Kentjoe
Ah bud, now you're doing it too, just a few words shy of explicitly stating 'you won't accept because you're stupid!' Each side on a different side of the street, standing on a ledge of a building ten stories up, yelling at each other how stupid the other is for not joining them, neither realizing how silly they both look. And trust me, from here on the street it can look hilarious.
Follow the example. Learn what the modern missionaries learned, those after the age where they came with soldiers and a "convert or die" mentality. Just telling people the truth, any truth, rarely works by itself. The "ignorant savages" mindset is a major hinderance. You want to get them to sit down and talk, serve lunch. Before you get down to business, ask them how their life is going, is there anything you can do to help. BE the example. If you want them to know how great and wonderful your system will be in their life, and you represent the system, you be great and wonderful in their life.
And avoid the hard sell tactics. Implying or outright saying they're stupid if they don't buy, or loudly insisting they must get it now before it's too late, that just puts people off. Speaking soft yet with conviction, listening well and long, demonstrating how well it works for you, answering questions until there are none, that's what works.
And that's just basic salesmanship. I trust everyone here should be smart enough to handle that.
OK you are totally right. I admit I was wrong and I apologize. This is not the way to debate.
All that I meant to say was we shouldn't just eliminate an option because we don't understand it. I wasn't trying to sound this way but now that I read it again I realize that Forgesmith is right.
And avoid the hard sell tactics. Implying or outright saying they're stupid if they don't buy, or loudly insisting they must get it now before it's too late, that just puts people off. Speaking soft yet with conviction, listening well and long, demonstrating how well it works for you, answering questions until there are none, that's what works.
You are right again!
I will try harder in the future to keep myself from writing things like this. In fact I think that I will delete this post and replace it with something better.
Again, sorry all and no offense meant towards my opponents beliefs.
Elitism in science is bad. Elitism leads to revolt, revolution. Elitism excludes, however fundmentalism includes. Keep shutting people out and they'll go where they're accepted. And it seems really out of place on this site, which sure seems dedicated to showing anyone they can do anything.
Scientific people need to relax, and accept what you're already using, the concept of the working model. It doesn't have to be completely true, perhaps not true at all, but it works for the situation so you use it. Chemists generally don't sit down and do quantum mechanical calculations to figure out chemcal reactions, they just use the electron shell model of the atom, it ain't true but it works. Working models provide framework, understanding, are a simple and reliable place to work from without delving into unneeded complexity. Ghandi was a Hindu, his faith provided the structure and motivation for his great works. Are his accomplishments invalidated because he didn't accept the "truth" of atheism? Would he have even accomplished so much, done what he did, if he had become an atheist? Sure seems a big "no" on both counts.
Travel to some remote isolated village, let the tribe explain how the gift of the fire pleases the water spirits so they dance. You try to explain about atoms, molecules, kinetic and thermal energy. Doesn't matter either way, the water is still going to boil and they can make supper. You insist that the spirits don't exist, or even that the water won't boil if they don't accept your truth, don't be surprised if they burn you at the stake. And I'll bring my Zippo. Afterwards, me and the tribe will talk about why lighter fluid burns but water doesn't, swap explanations, maybe throw in the different evaporation rates. I'll also whip up a solar water heater, show them the fire isn't needed, see what they say then. Hopefully they'll see that my system, while seeming complex, is actually simpler, and adapt it for that reason. If not, well at least they now know how to boil water when the sun is out, cuts down on the wildfires.
Oh, BTW, here's your camera back. You can clearly see it's actually mostly an off-white color, looks like plastic. An hour in the sandblaster will do that. Wait, why are you so upset, don't like that color? Here, let's cover that over, got a can of orange paint around here somewhere....
Think about it. With what we know about this earth and world, it is completely absurd to actually base your entire life off of a book retranslated and rewritten tons of times. It makes no true sense to believe there is a man in the sky. IT MAKES NO SENSE! NONE. In this day and age it is... {subbed out} to Actually believe we were created magically. Logical thinking would show that there is no such thing as magic or supernatural beings.
And what does logic really tell you? To a primitive person a cell phone is magic. This "magic" could be a science we don't know yet. No one knew what oxygen was 10,000 years ago, yet it still existed. An ant doesn't have a full picture of what a human is, might know smell, warmth, the weight of your shoe as you squash it, just glimpses of what a human is. But, you may say, ants are stupid. Well humans are far more limited than we care to admit, we should know the solution of a sudoko puzzle at a glance, all needed information is right there at the start. Could be we don't know what God is, as an ant doesn't know what a human is.
Logic tells us we don't know enough, and possibly never will, to rule out the existence of God.
In case you missed it, I'm pretty far from being a fundamentalist bible-thumper. Take a guess how I feel about the Bible as it exists today being completely error-free and absolutely literal. Yet I have faith. If what's keeping you from accepting God, even the possibility of God, is that you don't want to be a fundamentalist anti-evolution non-scientific bible-thumper, newsflash, you don't have to be.
Erm.. Not it's not. That's the truth. The bible has been written, rewritten, and translated back and forth tons of times.
Affirming a universal negative...I'm only a novice at logic myself but I think that's an untenable position
What in the... WHat are you talking about there?
Only an omniscient - supernatural - being could know if there's no such thing as a supernatural being. You claim that there is no such thing as a supernatural being. Therefore, you must be a supernatural being.
By your logic, then I don't exist. But I'm typing, aren't I?
If I say, "There is no such thing as an apple that, unaided, will fall upwards," I have made a logical statement that can be supported by fact. All matter is subject to gravity and falls downward and an apple is made of matter so it must fall downward unless there is some force that propels it upward.
Yes, but there is Scientific Evidence supporting that fact. Where is the science behind Creationism? Where? The bible? The bible has no science backing it up. The only thing backing up the bible... is the bible. Circular? Yes, I know.
So tell me then...when was the bible written? When was it rewritten? Where was it translate and by whom?
So the bible was originally written in Hebrew(?). It must have been translated to English, French, etc. So everyone can read it. Over time, however, a Spanish version may have been retranslated back to English. If you know how translation works, the meanings were changed noticeably and even possibly catastrophically.
Also, Agnosticism isn't more thought out. Agnosticism is the most simple and basic thing anyone can come up with. I can just come out and say 'Global warming might be true, or it might not'. Agnostics don't have to back up facts or even really think about it. Atheists have to think it through and come up with a logical answer. Religious folks just have to go to church on sunday and say a prayer every so often. Even most Religious folks don't have to think it through, they just do what they were told by their mom, dad, and pastor.
Everyone has to accept something from someone because they can't research everything themselves. You accepted everything that your school taught and I accepted some of what I was taught in church. So you are saying that you really have to think things through more than anybody who has a different belief. Everything that my pastor teaches about creation includes facts from NON-Religious sources. Pastors don't come up week after week telling you to accept what you are told without proof. A pastors job is to explain the bible and and not to scientifically prove it. There are scientists for both sides and those who are skeptical about evolution have a lot more to think through with a lot less to work with. Fewer scientists and therefore fewer facts for creation. Think about how it would be if we changed places and you were the one who was trying to prove creation, you would have a real hard time with the limited scientific proof. Everything that the evolutionists tell me I have to think through and discover why it is wrong/right because I don't believe everything I hear. You say look How Much evidence there is and I say look AT the evidence there is. Have you ever tried to prove to yourself any of the things that you are told?
It is pretty hard to do!
Everyone takes an extreme amount for granted.
The only reason there is more evidence to support evolution is because there are more people trying to get evidence for evolution. There are cases for both sides but ever since evolution was taught as truth in school there has been virtually no one even trying to prove anything but evolution.
Even most Religious folks don't have to think it through, they just do what they were told by their mom, dad, and pastor.
I do listen to my Mom and Dad and often do what I am told. Is that bad?
So that is what atheists do! They rebel against the wisdom of their parents and cling to the socialized schooling for guidance. And then they justify their lack of respect for their elders by saying that they think things through and don't allow their parents to indoctrinate them.
Do you believe differently from your parents in any way?
Now do you believe differently from the school system in any way?
Which do you trust more?
Thanks for commenting
Kentjoe
Yes, it is! That means you don't have a mind of your own. I don't just follow what the schools teach, I did my own research on both topics before I decided that atheism was the correct choice. Why? Because there is factual evidence and we have physically observed evolution in practice. The only thing backing up creationism as evidence is the bible.
AT But why believe the bible?
CH Because it's infallible.
AT How do you know it's infallible?
CH Because it's the word of god.
AT How do you know it's the word of god?
CH Because the bible says so.
AT But why believe the bible?
etc.
You're basically believing in creationism because the bible says so. But the only way to prove the bible is the word of god is to read the bible, where it says it right there. It's a never ending loop of absurdities and lack of evidence.
Which do you trust more?
The schooling system. Why? Because my parents are christian and therefore biased towards creationism and god.
At lease I know were you are coming from. Without a moral standard like the Bible you can't say that it is right or wrong. But the Bible says honor your father and mother and that is what I am going to do. I know of many people who had too much of a "mind of there own" and are now dead or in prison. Schools teach science but not wisdom. And because of this we now have sky-rocketing crime, AIDs, Scholastic decline, and much more. The open minded little boy runs out into the street and gets hit by the car but the obedient respectful little boy stays on the sidewalk and stays alive. It seems to me that you think that your parents are stupid because they are Christians and they could never be as smart as you. Because they are Christians you reject all of the wisdom that they would offer you on the basis that nothing a Christian has to offer could be of any value.
The only thing backing up creationism as evidence is the bible.
The only thing that you have heard of or care to admit that you have heard of is the Bible. There are scientific facts in favor of creation, in fact there are plenty of whole books on it. If you care I could find a few that you could look.
I am not saying that you shouldn't look for truth.
But I believe it is wise to respect your parents and obey them until you are an adult and even then it is a good idea to heed their advice.
Thanks for commenting
WRONG!. I have my own moral standard that I live by, and I would say that it's higher than what the bible says, which is to kill people who don't believe.
I just don't follow the moral standard of the bible.
Everyone does what is right in there own eyes.
If there is no absolute standard then there really is nothing that is right or wrong. Hitler had a moral standard, Murderers have a moral standard, and we have our moral standards. If everyones standards are correct then there is in fact no standard. You may have a perfectly fine standard but without a law to begin with you can't break the law.
which is to kill people who don't believe.
Please tell me what part of the Bible or of Christianity that you heard that from.
NO CHRISTIAN that I know of is in favor of killing people who don't believe the same. You must be confused with the Muslim religion with includes killing Christians and Jews in its religion. Where in the world did you get the idea that Christians are killers.
The Bible tells Christians "Be holy as God is holy", that is the standard. Of course no one can achieve this standard so they don't appear to the atheists as have a high moral standard. Since everyone falls short of the standard people tend to lower the standard so that it fits them.
You may live a more moral life then I do but still my standard is God and your standard is whatever you decide works for you. I will never be good enough to meet my standard but in your eyes you have already reached the standard that you picked and are thus morally perfect.
Part of the bible we have these days is from texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. The latter portion is in Greek. There is some debate about whether the Greek portions were originally in Hebrew but only speculation at this point.
We do in fact know exactly where every version and translation came from; here they are as a matter of fact. One thing you'll notice is that there are revisions but very few retranslations - one exception being and most of the rest are based on original manuscripts. The two I use, New American Standard BibleNew American Standard Bible and New International VersionNew International Version - are both based on original texts. There is some debate about whether
I shall complete the two gaps I left and call it quits for now:
"one exception being..." the Great BibleGreat Bible which hasn't probably been used in two or three hundred years.
I was revising things and forgot to erase "There is some debate about whether..." when I move that section to the previous paragraph.
Well, now my train of thought has derailed. I'll have to pick this back up later.
Hell, I'm observing it as we speak. I recently sprayed some bug spray to kill some cockroaches. One didn't die. Now today we have cockroaches that just won't die. Me and my sister have to stomp on them.
Religion isn't just absurd to the nth degree, it's also going to be the death and downfall of us all.