Absolutely clueless...

Quote:NUTTER: This is a seventh, uh, kind of worse rainstorm in the city’s history so, you know, we do the best that we can with these circumstances but, uh, I’ll take the first part of your question, there is no question in my mind for the last hundred people on the planet who are not sure about climate change, or is it’s real, unfortunately whether east coast, west coast, half way around the world, unfortunately we’re going to see more and more of these kind of severe weather events.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/video/nutter-c...42062.html

beat him to it

People keep voting for ignorant politicians. It's an inherent flaw in democracy.

At this point I just assume anyone who believes in AGW is also a Young Eather. How else could you possible square the 4.3 billion year geological history of the planet and decide that the last 100 years are good enough for making statistical predictions.

(05-02-2014 11:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  At this point I just assume anyone who believes in AGW is also a Young Eather.

That's going to make some heads explode.

Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

I don't make the association as an insult to YEC, it is an assumption I make because the only way 100 years of industrial activity can have any statistical relevance is if Earth is only 6000 years old.

I've yet to get a rational explanation from AGW who believe the planet to be 4.3 billion years old and are fully versed in the historical epochs that led to present day Earth, tell me why the industrial period has any relevance when balanced against the proceeding billions.

(05-02-2014 11:23 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

I don't make the association as an insult to YEC, it is an assumption I make because the only way 100 years of industrial activity can have any statistical relevance is if Earth is only 6000 years old.

I've yet to get a rational explanation from AGW who believe the planet to be 4.3 billion years old and are fully versed in the historical epochs that led to present day Earth, tell me why the industrial period has any relevance when balanced against the proceeding billions.

That’s a fair comparison.

But I don’t think that there are really that many true global warming alarmist,
I think most that push AGW are pragmatic redistributionist.

(05-02-2014 11:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  At this point I just assume anyone who believes in AGW is also a Young Eather. How else could you possible square the 4.3 billion year geological history of the planet and decide that the last 100 years are good enough for making statistical predictions.

They actually think they can tell you the exact temperature and exact amount of carbon in the air at a given point throughout the 4.3 billion years, which is even more laughable.

(05-02-2014 11:32 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  That’s a fair comparison.

But I don’t think that there are really that many true global warming alarmist,
I think most that push AGW are pragmatic redistributionist.

I tend to think of them of the moral busybodies that C.S. Lewis warned of. Mainly because the pragmatism you speak fall away when the reorganization places them at a position lower is the hierarchy. Say going from Professor at a Small Univ. to making 100K as a sanitation worker.

(05-02-2014 11:32 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:23 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

I don't make the association as an insult to YEC, it is an assumption I make because the only way 100 years of industrial activity can have any statistical relevance is if Earth is only 6000 years old.

I've yet to get a rational explanation from AGW who believe the planet to be 4.3 billion years old and are fully versed in the historical epochs that led to present day Earth, tell me why the industrial period has any relevance when balanced against the proceeding billions.

That’s a fair comparison.

But I don’t think that there are really that many true global warming alarmist,
I think most that push AGW are pragmatic redistributionist.

.........and there is the real push by those politicians pushing it. In a way, it's funny that they are using the "believers" as no more than ignorant sheep.

(05-02-2014 11:44 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  At this point I just assume anyone who believes in AGW is also a Young Eather. How else could you possible square the 4.3 billion year geological history of the planet and decide that the last 100 years are good enough for making statistical predictions.

They actually think they can tell you the exact temperature and exact amount of carbon in the air at a given point throughout the 4.3 billion years, which is even more laughable.

Another data point I like to often use. The oldest ice core we have is only 11,000 years old. Again, that number is a statistical blip when compared to the age of the planet.

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

This raises a philosophical question that I've put forward in the past. Consider a process of divine creation, whereby the universe did arise from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and Darwinian evolution can help explain the existence of cognitive homo sapiens. (I once metaphorically suggested that God created a DVD, pushed play and then sat back and watched.)

This universe could then satisfy the would be athiest and allow each individual to make their own decision.

On the other hand, imagine if science could prove that God created the universe. What need would there be for faith, as belief would be automatic?

(05-02-2014 11:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

This raises a philosophical question that I've put forward in the past. Consider a process of divine creation, whereby the universe did arise from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and Darwinian evolution can help explain the existence of cognitive homo sapiens. (I once metaphorically suggested that God created a DVD, pushed play and then sat back and watched.)

This universe could then satisfy the would be athiest and allow each individual to make their own decision.

On the other hand, imagine if science could prove that God created the universe. What need would there be for faith, as belief would be automatic?

I often state that science can never prove or disprove the existence of God. Bare in mind, a good number of scientist have some affiliated faith and more atheists have no problem with other peoples' belief. Its just the fringes of each end of the spectrum screaming at each other.

(05-02-2014 11:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

This raises a philosophical question that I've put forward in the past. Consider a process of divine creation, whereby the universe did arise from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and Darwinian evolution can help explain the existence of cognitive homo sapiens. (I once metaphorically suggested that God created a DVD, pushed play and then sat back and watched.)

This universe could then satisfy the would be athiest and allow each individual to make their own decision.

On the other hand, imagine if science could prove that God created the universe. What need would there be for faith, as belief would be automatic?

That's a misunderstanding of Biblical faith.

Faith is active obedience to God's commands, even when (especially when) the alternative seems to make more sense.

Faith is not just passive belief that God is real.

(05-02-2014 09:57 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Absolutely clueless...

Quote:NUTTER: This is a seventh, uh, kind of worse rainstorm in the city’s history so, you know, we do the best that we can with these circumstances but, uh, I’ll take the first part of your question, there is no question in my mind for the last hundred people on the planet who are not sure about climate change, or is it’s real, unfortunately whether east coast, west coast, half way around the world, unfortunately we’re going to see more and more of these kind of severe weather events.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/video/nutter-c...42062.html

He should try reading Matthew in the Bible.

(05-02-2014 12:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

This raises a philosophical question that I've put forward in the past. Consider a process of divine creation, whereby the universe did arise from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and Darwinian evolution can help explain the existence of cognitive homo sapiens. (I once metaphorically suggested that God created a DVD, pushed play and then sat back and watched.)

This universe could then satisfy the would be athiest and allow each individual to make their own decision.

On the other hand, imagine if science could prove that God created the universe. What need would there be for faith, as belief would be automatic?

That's a misunderstanding of Biblical faith.

Faith is active obedience to God's commands, even when (especially when) the alternative seems to make more sense.

Faith is not just passive belief that God is real.

Call it what you want. That doesn't change my point. If you believe in God, you can still believe in the scientific discoveries as being correct.

(05-02-2014 11:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  At this point I just assume anyone who believes in AGW is also a Young Eather. How else could you possible square the 4.3 billion year geological history of the planet and decide that the last 100 years are good enough for making statistical predictions.

touche.

(05-02-2014 01:46 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 12:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:17 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  Although I’m not a YECer, Their argument is that if God can create Adam as
a fully grown adult, he certainly could have done the same with the universe.

This raises a philosophical question that I've put forward in the past. Consider a process of divine creation, whereby the universe did arise from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and Darwinian evolution can help explain the existence of cognitive homo sapiens. (I once metaphorically suggested that God created a DVD, pushed play and then sat back and watched.)

This universe could then satisfy the would be athiest and allow each individual to make their own decision.

On the other hand, imagine if science could prove that God created the universe. What need would there be for faith, as belief would be automatic?

That's a misunderstanding of Biblical faith.

Faith is active obedience to God's commands, even when (especially when) the alternative seems to make more sense.

Faith is not just passive belief that God is real.

Call it what you want. That doesn't change my point. If you believe in God, you can still believe in the scientific discoveries as being correct.

Of course you can. In fact you should.
Prov 3
19 By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;
20 by his knowledge the watery depths were divided,
and the clouds let drop the dew.

But that doesn't eliminate the need for faith, nor is it the same as "belief".

(05-02-2014 11:44 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 11:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  At this point I just assume anyone who believes in AGW is also a Young Eather. How else could you possible square the 4.3 billion year geological history of the planet and decide that the last 100 years are good enough for making statistical predictions.

They actually think they can tell you the exact temperature and exact amount of carbon in the air at a given point throughout the 4.3 billion years, which is even more laughable.

Well Earth didn't have an (recognizable) atmosphere for a while after it was created, so it's not throughout the 4.3 billion years.

We can actually tell the carbon composition and temperature of the atmosphere from way back. The problem is scale and resolution. I can tell you the average temperature of the Earth from 1 million years ago, but I can't tell you how it changed from 10 years before that to 10 years after that. The further you go back, the lower your resolution gets. Clearly now our spatial resolution is however close you can get two thermometers together and our temporal resolution is a matter of seconds.