Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?


The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ...
https://answersingenesis.org/.../the...ience-that-con...
Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

You didn't answer my question.

And you aren't seriously trying to pass off some mumbo jumbo fairy tale handed down through the ages and translated untold times as scientific evidence are you?

Especially with a link that doesn't work.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

About Answers magazine
The purpose of Answers magazine is to illustrate the importance of Genesis in building a creation-based worldview, and to equip readers with practical answers so they can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy and graciousness.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

So I assume from your reply you did not follow and study the links, tells me one thing you refuse to look at all the evidence only what supports your preconceived ideas.

Try refuting scientific evidence with evidence. The Bible is not evidence.
You're trying to tell us that we have to "follow and study" the Bible or every hair-brained idea that it's believers make up about God or Jesus , as evidenced in your link, in order to refute your make believe. You will have a better chance recruiting members going door to door.

I think all you want to do is proslatize your religios beliefs in the guise of intelligent discussion on climate change..

No what I am telling you is you did not follow the link, if you had you would have found more links to scientific work that presents facts to support a young earth. Facts about the fallacies of carbon dating and so forth.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?


The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ...
https://answersingenesis.org/.../the...ience-that-con...
Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

You didn't answer my question.

And you aren't seriously trying to pass off some mumbo jumbo fairy tale handed down through the ages and translated untold times as scientific evidence are you?

Especially with a link that doesn't work.

The ink worked for me, and no fairy tale mumbo jumbo scientific studies.

Peter, I haven't really been following this thread, but tell me do you believe that man is or isn't, at least in part, responsible for global warming, climate change or whatever you might call it, or do you think God did it?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The ink worked for me, and no fairy tale mumbo jumbo scientific studies.

Good to know you have a working printer.

Your link does not work. And the site is pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. So no need to repair the link.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

So I assume from your reply you did not follow and study the links, tells me one thing you refuse to look at all the evidence only what supports your preconceived ideas.

Try refuting scientific evidence with evidence. The Bible is not evidence.
You're trying to tell us that we have to "follow and study" the Bible or every hair-brained idea that it's believers make up about God or Jesus , as evidenced in your link, in order to refute your make believe. You will have a better chance recruiting members going door to door.

I think all you want to do is proslatize your religios beliefs in the guise of intelligent discussion on climate change..

No what I am telling you is you did not follow the link, if you had you would have found more links to scientific work that presents facts to support a young earth. Facts about the fallacies of carbon dating and so forth.

The link worked for me. I saw it. If it's a scientific treatise on the subject, the Bible makes for a poor introduction. Now you want me to follow it deeper into the rabbit hole. You've had your chance.

Originally Posted by Neo

Peter, I haven't really been following this thread, but tell me do you believe that man is or isn't, at least in part, responsible for global warming, climate change or whatever you might call it, or do you think God did it?

Do I think God is responsible no I do however see there is a lot of historical evidence that temperature changes to the earth have been happening through out the history of the earth. I hear a lot of talk of carbon dioxide leading the way of man made contributions to climate change, I feel the earth is more than capable in dealing with carbon dioxide

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

So I assume from your reply you did not follow and study the links, tells me one thing you refuse to look at all the evidence only what supports your preconceived ideas.

Try refuting scientific evidence with evidence. The Bible is not evidence.
You're trying to tell us that we have to "follow and study" the Bible or every hair-brained idea that it's believers make up about God or Jesus , as evidenced in your link, in order to refute your make believe. You will have a better chance recruiting members going door to door.

I think all you want to do is proslatize your religios beliefs in the guise of intelligent discussion on climate change..

No what I am telling you is you did not follow the link, if you had you would have found more links to scientific work that presents facts to support a young earth. Facts about the fallacies of carbon dating and so forth.

The link worked for me. I saw it. If it's a scientific treatise on the subject, the Bible makes for a poor introduction. Now you want me to follow it deeper into the rabbit hole. You've had your chance.

I personally don't care if you follow the link to any where that would be up to you, what I will say is if you choose not to look at all sides of the debate don't talk to me about science this or science that.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

So I assume from your reply you did not follow and study the links, tells me one thing you refuse to look at all the evidence only what supports your preconceived ideas.

Try refuting scientific evidence with evidence. The Bible is not evidence.
You're trying to tell us that we have to "follow and study" the Bible or every hair-brained idea that it's believers make up about God or Jesus , as evidenced in your link, in order to refute your make believe. You will have a better chance recruiting members going door to door.

I think all you want to do is proslatize your religios beliefs in the guise of intelligent discussion on climate change..

No what I am telling you is you did not follow the link, if you had you would have found more links to scientific work that presents facts to support a young earth. Facts about the fallacies of carbon dating and so forth.

The link worked for me. I saw it. If it's a scientific treatise on the subject, the Bible makes for a poor introduction. Now you want me to follow it deeper into the rabbit hole. You've had your chance.

Since the link leads to multiple links discussing science supporting a young earth why would the bible make for a poor introduction?

Originally Posted by Neo

global warming

an interview with Bill Gates that touches on this , but looking at future energy sources that do not emit co2

When I sat down to hear his case a few weeks ago, he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”

An Interview with Bill Gates on the Future of Energy - The Atlantic

Yes, I visited the site itself. Your link gives a 404.

However, on reading some other articles, it's clear that only a blithering brainwashed idiot would believe that nonsense.

e.g.

Either the rock record is the evidence of millions of years, or it is largely the evidence of Noah’s Flood. It can’t be both. If we believe the earth is billions of years old and shows no sign of a worldwide Flood, then that belief contradicts the biblical account of Noah. If we accept God’s testimony regarding the Flood, we cannot logically believe in millions of years.

This is typical of Ken Ham's blithering pseudoscience.

The "fact" that the bible said there was a worldwide flood is "evidence" that rocks are not millions of years old.

Forget the fact that even 1,000 years ago man had neither the technology nor the communications ability to identify and verify a "worldwide" flood.

How the fuck can you expect anyone to take this shit seriously?

You really don't even know what the word "scientific" means, do you?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I personally don't care if you follow the link to any where that would be up to you, what I will say is if you choose not to look at all sides of the debate don't talk to me about science this or science that.

If you believe Young Earth theories and creationism then there's no point talking to you about science because you obviously don't know what science is:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Nothing in there about fairy tales from a book about a Jewish zombie whose married mother was a virgin and is riddled with other inconsistencies and contradictions. That's not science. It's not even plausible fiction.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I personally don't care if you follow the link to any where that would be up to you, what I will say is if you choose not to look at all sides of the debate don't talk to me about science this or science that.

If you believe Young Earth theories and creationism then there's no point talking to you about science because you obviously don't know what science is:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Nothing in there about fairy tales from a book about a Jewish zombie whose married mother was a virgin and is riddled with other inconsistencies and contradictions. That's not science. It's not even plausible fiction.

I'm still amazed Jesus fell for that shit.

"It was a ghost wot got me pregnant".

"Oh OK love, that makes sense".

Originally Posted by RPETER65

answersingenesis.org

In the same vein, another link you may find useful.
Liberty University Patents New Psychiatric Medication


There's a lot of facts on that site that are being suppressed by the unholy scientific conspirators.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I personally don't care if you follow the link to any where that would be up to you, what I will say is if you choose not to look at all sides of the debate don't talk to me about science this or science that.

If you believe Young Earth theories and creationism then there's no point talking to you about science because you obviously don't know what science is:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Nothing in there about fairy tales from a book about a Jewish zombie whose married mother was a virgin and is riddled with other inconsistencies and contradictions. That's not science. It's not even plausible fiction.

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.
Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is ... The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe . .... Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid ( meters ...

Originally Posted by david44

It was hard for single mother's to get foodstamps under the Roman occupation.

Having a son who as an outstanding Magician albeit briefly was handy.

There is no debate abut Science that's what the hoodwnked faithful fail to grasp.

The Scenttific method as Harry and Ant have tried to explain as trial and error experiemnt peer review.

Grown us don't have invisible freinds and kudos to the tolerance of Science that the psychosis is allowed to exist once a week with optional clapping of hands ,bending singing or quaking.

When the last believer evaporates in the meltdown of realizing they've been duped.

Just as you require evidence for climate change, produce the evidence for God and the lost will follow.

P.S. Crying statues and hearing voices don't cut much ice.

What exactly was that bowl of word salad supposed to say?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.
Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is ... The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe . .... Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid ( meters ...

At one point in human history there was a LOT of evidence that the earth was flat.

Turns out that it wasn't/isn't but apparently some people out there still believe and promote that theory with 'scientific' evidence. Go figure.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.
Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is ... The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe . .... Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid ( meters ...

At one point in human history there was a LOT of evidence that the earth was flat.

Turns out that it wasn't/isn't but apparently some people out there still believe and promote that theory with 'scientific' evidence. Go figure.

Obviously you did not read the article that has a lot to say about scientific evidence of a young earth, if you refuse to consider all the evidence of the earths age how can you be taken seriously at most you have only a highly prejudist opinion.

Because there's legitimate scientific critique and then there are wackjobs that dress up their theories with pseudo-science in order to give it legitmacy it simply neither has nor deserves, that's why.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.
Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is ... The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe . .... Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid ( meters ...

Just looking at the first one:

Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

Such utter rubbish. None of the leading theories have problems - they just have unanswered questions, more of which get answered as time goes by.

How the Moon Formed: Violent Cosmic Crash Theory Gets Double Boost

He gets even worse at the second:

When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left

Frankly the author is clearly neither a reservoir engineer nor a geologist. But he doesn't appear to know it. The earth's crust is constantly on the move - that's why we have earthquakes, and it's how most oil reservoirs were formed.

And different types of rock have different levels of porosity and permeability. Has the gibbering fool never heard of oil shale?

I can't be bothered reading the rest of this bloody gibberish because it's fairly obvious that its all going to be that bad.

If you believe any of that nonsense, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

Originally Posted by hazz

All a rather unholy alliance of vested interests, self deceivers and jesus wheezers.

There is a logic behinf the jesus wheesers like peters. As a young earther there si a conflict between the evidence of global warming and his faith based knowledge that the earth is less than 10k years old.

If he were to acknowledge the evidence of global warming, he would be acknowledging that his faith based beliefs about the age of the earth are wrong. And like all good religious nutters.... the words in the book always override reality.... rather like the nutters in iran, the middle east, africa and america to name a few.

I would feel sorry for him, if it were not for the damage he and his kind of creating for our children

You don't read well do you? I stated in a response to Neo that I do not reject global warming, I am however still in question of the cause.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by hazz

All a rather unholy alliance of vested interests, self deceivers and jesus wheezers.

There is a logic behinf the jesus wheesers like peters. As a young earther there si a conflict between the evidence of global warming and his faith based knowledge that the earth is less than 10k years old.

If he were to acknowledge the evidence of global warming, he would be acknowledging that his faith based beliefs about the age of the earth are wrong. And like all good religious nutters.... the words in the book always override reality.... rather like the nutters in iran, the middle east, africa and america to name a few.

I would feel sorry for him, if it were not for the damage he and his kind of creating for our children

You don't read well do you? I stated in a response to Neo that I do not reject global warming, I am however still in question of the cause.

you mean facts?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by S Landreth

It’s only the hard core stoopid that don’t understand that humans are the (main) cause of today.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

They have no actuall facts,

another one

Facts