Bowsite.com

Gorbal whackey can and will cause:

More or less hurricanes

More or less ice

More or less sea rise

More or less glacial development

More or less temperature highs & lows

More or less civil, financial, environmental, nutritional stress gorbally

Just you wait & see, something will happen somewhere

"For 2016 year to date (January-March), the average temperature for the globe was 2.07 degrees F above the 20th-century average, according to scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. This was the highest temperature for this period in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.50 degrees F. The globally averaged sea surface temperature for the year to date was also highest on record, surpassing the same period in 1998 by 0.42 degrees F, the last time a similar strength El Niño occurred."

What could possibly go wrong?

And your "science" is politically driven horsesh*t.

What's happening now, and in the past, and in the future would be happening if man were here or not. It was damn sure happening WAAAAY before we showed up, and will be happening long after we're gone..

Or haven't you thought that far? Still buying Bernie's bullsh*t are you?

Not happily, but there's the Supremes to consider, and compared to the maniacs on the other side . . .

This volcanic activity is mostly underwater. I wonder if this is a large part of the El Nino and also wondered if these volcanoes were releasing internal heat and the core is cooling while surface temperatures rise? Could this explain part of what we observe?

Answer me this:

When glaciers spread widely into what is now the northern USA a great many years ago, was it man-made global warming which caused the warming which melted and eliminated those glaciers?

Science should never be settled or theories ruled out.

I think the poles are shifting since ice is increasing on one and decreasing on the other....

"Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming."

The question is immensely complex, with many of the factors commonly mentioned, such as orbit variance, solar activity, particulate matter, clouds etc forming only a part of the equation (these people are amazing).

So it seems to me prudent to accept the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists that human activity is responsible for some of the climate change we are experiencing. There are of course further questions, such as whether it's reversible or whether it will self correct in time.

It seems to me fair to question the accepted conclusions, but it should be done in the spirit of neutral enquiry, not seeking a pre-determined outcome, particularly a politically acceptable outcome.

I think we have to careful not to dismiss something merely because understanding it might not lead to desirable ends.

Really?

I learned about the North American glaciers that inundated Wisconsin, NE South Dakota, Minnesota- the Land of 10,000 (glacier-created) Lakes, and much of the rest of country 40-45 years before there was a Wikipedia.

Why did they change the name of the movement from Global Cooling, to Global Warming, and then to Climate Change?

Climategate

Anyone remember Climategate and the release of IPCC internal emails revealing collective collusion? The exposure of the selective data sets revealed that the gorbalists had to manipulate the data to "fit" their assumptions (ass-u-me).

Further, throughout the global cooling anthropomorphic global warming "climate change" propaganda, the computer models regularly had to be changed to fit the agenda.

I am a scientist, although degree'd in the biological scieces, and spent much time doing statistics, writing programs, and very familiar with laboratory funding. The collective gorbalists published papers that were peer reviewed among themselves. Highly dependent upon government funding, their research had to support prevailing political philosophy. Much of the work by Manning and cohorts has been found wanting in the data used, the analysis done on the selective data and the fact that departments in the federal government provided data that omitted numbers that did not fit the meme.

Further, it has been well documented that the IPCC and the gorbalist science community had organized to prevent publication of numerous papers that refuted and contradicted the claims of AGW community. The warmists were abetted by both media and politicians in promoting the warming fears. (That old adage about telling a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as truth thingy.)

A little search on the Bowsite could easily bring up the photos that Jim Johnson provided that showed just how much of the collective temps were located near heat sinks (asphalt parking lots, A/C vents, etc.)

An active volcano spews more carbon dioxide and other gasses than any made by mankind. How many are active world wide at present?

Add to the mix that a large part of the population falls into the "duh" class where things like climate and weather are considered equal. The gorbalists with their claims of AGW look at a relatively small span of years when one considers the actual age of the earth. It is well accepted by even the most religious AGW believers that the climate of the earth has varied greatly over the millenia...and yet their "best" data can only cover less than 100 years (earlier data can only be estimated but not measured).

Basically, it all comes down to money. Estimates have been shown that Obama's latest decrees concerning government program$, taxe$, elimination of coal, etc. would (at best)lower the average global temperature by less than 1/100th of a degree...basically immeasurable.

If man were at the cause of gorbal warming, more might be done by grounding Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Barry Obama, and all the others who flock to the Alarmist meetings in their private jets...each flight issuing more hot air than their speeches.

Kyle...time to post your favorite song ;o)

Let's see some solid evidence in the existence of Noah's Ark and we'll talk. Although it wouldn't prove a young Earth theory it would help bolster your argument. Of course if the Ark were discovered, how would we possible get an accurate date of its existence? Would you have a bit more "faith" in carbon dating then?

When our wind turns south or "kona" winds, it blows the sulfer smoke from Kilauea volcano across the chain of islands hundreds of miles away, so thick at times it looks like from a forest fire on the mainland. The sulfur triggers asthma attacks, burning eyes... tons are released daily 24/7/365, no matter where it blows. Nobody notices it much when it's regular trade winds and it goes out to ocean.

Another underwater volcano is building another island off the big isle as the tectonic plate moves slowly over that hot spot, as it's built island after island in a row over the millennia. It too is dumping chemicals, just into the water instead of the air. But dumping it is, at an unbelievable rate. It would shame the steel mills in the industrial world.

They can call me when they get just that little chunk of earth under control first.... I'll be over here holding my breath...

Moonbat Tech: eCool Refrigerates Beer Envirosensitively

Since moonbattery is a totalitarian ideology, it can be applied to every conceivable aspect of life — even drinking beer. Introducing eCool:

Once you have spent $369 on an eCool, you will no longer need a refrigerator (assuming of course that all you keep in the fridge is beer).

Not using electricity to keep beer cool may not save the flourishing polar bears, but it does bring us a tiny step closer to the caveman level of existence mandated by environmentalist ideology taken to its logical conclusion.

They call it “progressivism” because erasing civilization is too big a job to accomplish all at once. The goal can only be accomplished by marginal increments. Moonbats who do their part by burying their beer are entitled to wear their smugness proudly.

"facebook? I can't live with out my facebook!"

Seriously.... Just today I saw a Tesla go by, I've seen the guy driving it around a few times, he's a 70 year old geezer ("geezer" is not an age, it's a condition...) and a few time a kinda hot blonde 30 something, must have been a trophy I saw in seat with her....

But today it came by... on top of a tow truck.... I almost felt bad laughing at it, almost...

There is for sure a very measurable impact to the climate from human activities. It is NOT proven to be the only reason for changes in climate, nor even the primary reason for the current warming trend, which after all started long before there were enough humans to impact anything.

To me it is also a foregone conclusion that these climate change cycles will go on long after there are no longer any humans on the planet. Geologic history is a really, really, long time....

The universe came from nothing....and if that isn't a magic trick worthy of God I don't know what is.

See example.

If you were born with, and STILL HAVE an "outie", then you use the MEN'S bathroom.

If you were born with, and STILL HAVE an "innie", then you use the WOMEN'S bathroom.

Even Democrats should be able to understand that...with "should" being the operative word here.

Anyways, you know as well as I do that nobody is sure exactly how the universe began. This includes you. But there have been great strides in understanding it's true physical origin.

Why is it either God OR science? Why can't the two work together? I've asked this question many times here, and Im amazed at how many folks refuse to accept that they are one in the same. One is the condensed version while the other is a more detailed explantion.

Is this something you agree with or not? I'm just curious what your stance is on the concept of both possibilities.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

We all know that story of creation. Although I don't take it in its literally sense. It's like saying, "the Packers beat the Cowboys in Dallas." Cool, now lets see the video to understand how the game sctually played out. I don't believe it happened within our current perception of time. I for one want to know the details. That's where science comes in. Some feel that science is trying to disprove the existence of God. But you can't disprove something that has never been proven to begin with.

I have long believed in both. God is for eternity, so a "day" to Him is something we cannot fathom. The Earth is young compared to eternity and somewhere we became confused over the time line of the Creation IMHO.

Reading the collision of the two black holes over a billion years ago, and scientists thinking they can trace the gravitational waves back to the "Bing Bang" is awesome.

But a Big Bang happening out of nothing just does not make sense to me unless God was the Bing Bang.

God is watching us find Him.

But if everything is only 6000 years old, what happened to the Dinosaurs? Did Noah not listen to God's command? Did they die suddenly? From What? The link of any reference of dinosaurs to the Bible is weak at best IMO.

From what I've heard, there is a possibility that the big bang was not the true beginning. It's also possible that black holes may have played a part in the big bang regardless of its position in the chronological timeliness of the Dawn of our universe. That is, if our universe is the only one in existence.

Some prehistoric animals are still here, some were obviously eradicated. Not making the boat sounds as plausible as meteors or whatever theory you subscribe to. Lots of animals have gone extinct. I'm thankful God didn't leave dinosaurs, and many other animals that would greatly conflict with civilization.

Always a challenge from the Bible thumper to prove science but NEVER the same challenge or standards of proof to substantiate your own fairy tales! What evidence do you have that a woman was 'poofed' into existence from a rib? You read it in a book written by some guys a thousand years ago... who demonstrate no more knowledge of the universe than some ordinary guys sitting around a thousand years ago. I read a book about an old lady who lived in a shoe with so many kids she didn't know what to do. And you know what? It isn't real... it was written to teach a moral lesson! Get a friggin' clue!

The argument is often made here that Cruz isn't selling medieval religious fanatacism, but here are those same rabid Cruz followers selling his same ancient fables as if a literal truth that trumps modern science (no pun intended). Who want to take control of the government no less. It's the Christian Taliban, without the bombs. And just as scary stupid! WOW.

I have had these discussions with several folks who are devout Christians and atheists. Some even include family members from the home schooled clan I mentioned. All extremely intelligent. I put up my best scientific arguments.

They are not all even in agreement on the Earth's age. The ones who believe in the 6k theory will say, as I mention the constantly expanding universe (caused by the force of the big bang, the recent measurement of the gravitational waves caused by the collision of two black holes a billion plus light years away, etc. that they believe the universe is that old, but if you believe in God, He does have the power to do anything include placing the Earth in an already existing universe without any evidence to suggest otherwise.

I never argue whether God exists or not. I know He does, not from physical proof but from Faith. Faith is a gift from the Holy Spirit.

The harder you seem to try and make great arguments, the more I am convinced there is a fight within you going on.

You know how much I respect you. Please do not be offended. Listen, you may hear.

The total lack of education and complete ignorance of common elementary school knowledge that I see from so many here, especially in this day and age IS medieval. The exact same thing we see from groups like the Taliban and IS. The world would be far better off without any fundamentalists.

But, matter is neither created no destroyed correct? Where did it originally come from and being s stats guy, it is just impossible for me to believe natural forces caused the formation of a single living cell coming from what exactly to blossom into the advanced life forms we have today.

The true 'beginning' is a circular argument that goes nowhere. No sense worrying about it, or dressing in robes and chanting while waving smoke filled orbs. The primative rituals are embarassing in this day and age! You can argue the nuance of religious beliefs until blue in the face, but basic earth science to the general "thousands" or "billions" of years old is clear. To argue otherwise is stupid. To elect a guy like Cruz who either believes this 6000yr old crap, or spins such a stream of double-talk as to never clearly answer the question is a cult mentality.

Science is science, math is math, and magic is ridiculous. Teach the faith/belief stuff at home and in church. Share with people who volunteer to be students, and stop peddling that crap door to door (or in forums). If you want to see what religious teachings in school would look like, look no further than Josh. Strident fanaticism is not attractive.

H4W, i am not conflicted or confused. Just evolved, both figuratively and literally. I eventually told my kids there was no Santa Claus. At some point you have to grow up and step into the light of the 21st century. Believe what you want, that is a personal choice. But let government protect that freedom, rather than be controlled by it.

How do you know the climate has changed in the last 4.5 billion years (you have a couple extra zeros there)? Jack has already told you 'and yet their "best" data can only cover less than 100 years'. Maybe the climate was completely static from 101 years ago back to the formation of the earth?

teaching creationism is the intellectual equivalent of teaching that the earth is flat. Your intellectual limitations are just that......your limitations. Believe what you want..just don't act like your superstitions have any substance. The pronouncement above that creationism and evolution are just theories clearly demonstrate that you don't even have the educational background to debate this subject.

And if mankind was told that the same thing would happen to us tomorrow; folks would proclaim it as the second coming of Christ and hail it as a biblical fact. My question is...why dont we consider the extinction of the dinosaurs a prehistoric rapture? Instead, many folks say it's unbelievable or never happened.

I should know better than to talk religion and politics together. Sorry guys!

"But let government protect that freedom, rather than be controlled by it"

Could not agree more, and have said so many times.

SA, a little harsh, and yes I do have the educational background to debate it. And do, with PhDs who are much brighter than you and I combined.

A belief in Creationism and a Superior Being, whether true or not, is part of both Eastern and Western culture and has had much influence on our lives and in many facets. That is why it should continue to be taught as a theory. The evolution of man's philosophy would be incomplete without a discussion that included the influence on our thinking caused by a belief in something greater, whether that is God or something else.

No one has proved either Creationism or Evolution, or disproved either.

Back to the ever expanding universe. The scientific journals I have read cause me to think, based on college level physics courses, that an "explosion" caused an outward pressure in all directions simultaneously. What caused that explosion, what existed in this "space" before?

Sniper, your points are very valid IMO, and asked of myself, by myself on more than one occasion. Can you offer an explanation that would explain how all of this matter came to be? When it came into existence? Neither can I. Science must continue to look.

The full complexity of the beautiful world we live in was beyond even Einstein's understanding, and yes he was no believer, more of an agnostic. So no one gets to act like they know more than anyone else here.

I do believe, and will weather the insults, always have. But for me, science and religion are not that far apart. The difference between is a Faith in something science cannot yet explain.

Sorry to have offended anyone.

You said, "no one has proved either Creationism or Evolution, or disproved either.". I think that is demonstrably false. Animals are always evolving. In the near term, we see bacteria and animal species evolving to develop genetic immunity to pesticides. In the longer time cycle we have fossils showing the evolution of the giraffe gaining a longer neck ovwr time. The internet is replete with examples of evolution for you to see. But NOWHERE is there ever one example of creationism. Faith, hope, and wishful thinking is not a theory. It remains a religious belief system and should never be confused with actual science.

And while there may be a chance that a Creator who was always there poofed everything into existence, the greater likelihood is that the universe was what was always there. If something had to be there at the start of time, it just makes more sense to have it be a real thing... rather than a magical invisible omnipotent super god who then creates the universe. That just seems like a unnecessary extra step invented by the weak minds of humans afraid of their own mortality.

"A Universe From Nothing" Dr. Lawrence M Kraus.

Kraus's work is just an opinion piece SA. No one knows for sure, unless you believe there is a God:)

The so-called singularity had to come from somewhere and it's "theorized" that it may have come from a black hole of immense proportions.

Time runs slower wherever gravity is strongest.

Here’s a little something you probably didn’t know about the Earth: its center is two-and-a-half years younger than its surface, and it has nothing to do with how the Earth formed. It is thanks to the effects of gravity as described by general relativity.

According to Einstein, your position in a gravitational field changes the rate at which you experience time passing, an effect known as gravitational time dilation. In other words, time runs slower wherever gravity is strongest, and this is because gravity curves space-time. This idea has been rigorously tested, and in fact, has an impact on Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites.

GPS satellites are positioned about 12,550 miles above Earth’s surface and therefore are not as close to Earth’s gravitational field. The clocks on these satellites actually tick faster than the clocks on Earth’s surface, so scientists put a correction into satellite programs to ensure that the GPS data sent back to Earth has matching times... (continued at link)

But you couldn't convince me that time didn't practically come to a standstill during that 10 minute meeting. I'm positive that "where are you going...when will you be back...where do you live...who's your parents...etc. took at least 3 hours. :^)

The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Since the universe is constantly expanding, the first sentence of Genesis would indicate that the earth is the oldest celestial body in the universe as well as THE center of the universe. But the "light", or sun and moon, were created after the earth. Not only is the earth NOT the center of the universe, it's not even the center of our galaxy. Nor is it even the center of our solar system. Not to mention the earth is not the oldest celestial body in our galaxy much less in the universe.

Please make sense of this for us.

How do you know the climate has changed in the last 4.5 billion years (you have a couple extra zeros there)? Jack has already told you 'and yet their "best" data can only cover less than 100 years'. Maybe the climate was completely static from 101 years ago back to the formation of the earth?"

Static? Now THAT'S funny! I guess the ice ages we had all happened in a static climate. Those glaciers, eksers, drumlins, till deposits, etc that are a ubiquitous part of the landscape in most of the northern US the are simply figments of our imaginations.

And I did NOT have a "couple extra zero's" there. Google it yourself. It's 450 BILLION years. Now...the industrial age began in the mid-1700s. Let's say for the sake of you rainbows and unicorn fart believers that our "changing" of the climate began then, 250 years ago. 250 years is SO minute a fraction of the earth's existence that it's mathematically non-existent.

If you REALLY believe what you posted, then we have absolutely nothing to discuss, because what you just stated is on par with saying that the sun does not rise in the east and go down in the west.

I think you need to spend sometime outdoors....with your eyes open.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

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

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, whereinthere is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1

Which part did you have a question about? Science supports Creation!

The Grand Canyon was poofed into existence as a deep hole, or did the snake river erode it over millions of years??

And let the record show that those who believe an utterly ridiculous idea like the earth being only thousands of years old, are those that also strongly support Cruz. Birds of a feather... that never evolve.

Yeah...God and the "son" are the center of the universe spiritually. What does the Bible says is the physical center of the universe? Hint:It ain't earth, and it ain't the "sun". And I'm not "quoting" any scientests.

By the way, the author of the bible is a few dead prophets. St.Aquinas claims God as the author, but God was simply the inspiration of it. Believe me, if I could talk to the prophets, I would. But conveniently for folks like you and TF, that isn't possible.

BS you admitted to the bible being written a over a thousand years ago. How do you explain fulfilled prophecies? Are those in your Mother Goose edition of nursery rhymes? Where do you stand on global warming? Do you buy into the fairytale written by Al Gore and his chronies bought and paid for by liberal government?

Fulfilled Prophecies? There are none. It's no different than the weekly horoscope where people find what they are trying hard to see. For comfort.

But rather than argue the origins of the universe (which we may never know) I tried to keep it simple at the rough age of the earth. Thousands of years? Or beyond hundreds of millions of years? Its not a subtle variance. There is no nuance. To believe the bible so literally that you would think the earth is only thousands of years old, ignores basic elementary school earth science and things like the Grand Canyon erosion, ice ages, dinosaurs, etc. That is why smart science can argue against global warming based on prior ice ages and temperature changes. Your story would say global warming is not real because the earth is new and only the devil would want it hotter. And you would be laughed out of any room that held books other than a bible.

And it just so happens that those who believe this far right fanatacism of a young earth are the same devout Cruz disciples crusading here. Coincidence? I think not. Josh, Link, HA/KS.. who else among the rabid Cruz supporters happens to suffer from the same young earth psychosis? It may not true in every case, but its a common connection that cannot be easily ignored...

Thats the same thing as inerrancy of science...there's no such thing. It's like the word "perfect". When it comes to creation and evolution, nothing is "perfect"; which is the only reason we exist in the first place.

Current estimates of the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion. Age of the universe is ~13.8 billion.

Maybe I was asking the wrong question. What is the question that you are answering with 450 billion years?

I see my point was a little subtle. We know that the climate has been cycling because the climate scientists have recorded that it has been cycling. They have ice cores from Antarctica, Greenland and other glaciers (back ~800,000 years). They have taken deep sea cores to get climate data ~20,000 years ago. The same people who are now saying that the composition of the atmosphere today is changing because of human activity, are the ones that have recorded things like CO2, other greenhouse gasses, dust particles, temps going back 500,000-800,000 years.

To determine the ice ages (both past and future), they have come up with the Milankovitch cycles which take a look at the earth's orbit fluctuations and compare them to the past ice ages. To know if humans are causing differences in the atmosphere, you have to know the climate baseline without humans.

Let me put it this way - you are using data from climate scientists to try and show that the same climate scientists are wrong. That is all I was (unsuccessfully) trying to point out.

now that's funny right there...

BS I wasn't raised in a church or by a church going family so to suggest I'm clinging to a fairytale of my childhood is very rudimentary of you. I don't have a stance on how long between God speaking the earth into existence and got creating man was, whether it was God sized days or 24 hours. I do believe in the rough estimate in added lineage from Adam to me as 6000 years. I also believe that when Adam was in the garden the Grand Canyon was a lot like it is today. A creator can create something to appear old and with certain amounts of carbon. Obviously since man has done this to fool carbon dating scientists, God has done this in order to leave you searching. You search long and hard enough and you'll come to a place of answers. When you reach the end of your rainbow I promise there won't be any test tubes or litmus paper. ;)

I think you misinterpret what many of us think is stupid.....personally I believe in God. I just don't have a closed mind about how God has arranged for the universe to work.

What is really there for anyone who wants to understand is far more amazing to me than anything written in the Bible by men.

To claim the earth is only 6000 years old however, is not only Taliban style religious arrogance shunning science, but blatantly ill-informed and stupid. It ignores any basic human understanding of the world we live in, and is no different than clinging to the flat earth theory, or believing that gravity is tiny earth demons pulling us downward. Believe what you want, but accept that you will be judged in the 21st century accordingly...

Not to confuse this massive fraud of intellect (young earth) with the less specific general belief in a higher power

.....philosophy is all fine and good. Just don't confuse it with science.

Science is all fine and good. Just don't confuse it with fact.

In science, a fact is nothing more than a repeatable careful observation or measurement. To me, EVERYTHING is conjecture until supported by repeatable measurements and careful observation.

In philosophy a fact can be as meaningless as something that makes a particular sentence true for instance and very likely may not have anything to do with reality...

I rather like the Buddhist idea that "Buddha teaches us to try and understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding" - Ven Dhammika

"A creator can create something to appear old and with certain amounts of carbon. Obviously since man has done this to fool carbon dating scientists, God has done this in order to leave you searching."

No offense but that's ridiculous. You make it sound as though its possible that our own personal birth could be the beginning of time. And everything and everyone around us was created at the same moment we were born. God just created some people and plants to seem older than us to fool us into thinking they are older than they are...Yeah, I don't buy that for a minute. Sorry, but It really makes you sound like you're in denial.

"Science is all fine and good. Just don't confuse it with fact."

Are you suggesting the bible is based on facts? You know as well as I do that when it comes to our existence, the facts are few and far between. Otherwise we wouldn't need to debate the subject the way we do.

Very well stated SA!! My sentiments exactly!!

70lbdraw - I'll start another thread just about those 6,000 years so we don't hijack this climate thread even though what happened at the time of Noah's Flood affects our climate today. We can chat there. My money says LINK, SA and BowSniper will join us.

If you mean in a science class, then I disagree completely.

If you mean one in science class and one in a church or a religion class if it is a private school, then I agree.

BowSniper, you mentioned me above and made a false statement. NEVER have I stated that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I have stated that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It doesn't matter to me how old the earth is. My faith doesn't depend on it.

If you have a problem with God and/or his Word (really the same thing), take it up with Him.

My dispute is primarily with the young earth science heretics.

Our understanding of it is open to suspicion. Man was not created with the ability to understand scripture on our own, but only with the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

I always taught evolution because I was a science teacher. If students asked what I believed, I told them that I was created.

Science is man's fallible attempt to understand God's Creation. I do not claim to understand it, but accept on faith.

Choosing not to chose is choosing not to think. And more often than not, those who choose to blatantly ignore and deny science such as the young earth crowd are the same fanatic Pro-Cruz crowd. Disturbing... in an anti-science Taliban sort of way. Constitutional eligibility aside.

"Everything is conjecture... Fact is meaningless". Thanks straight arrow, now I see where you guys are coming from.

At least acknowledging there are competing ideas to a generally accepted theory that have been offered, and as of yet neither proven or disproven, allows students to continue searching and arriving at their own conclusion.

I could not teach a "theory" I did not fully believe in any other way.

I challenge you to prove it without simply quoting scripture. Start by explaining why our bodies are made up of 70% + water, yet the bible says God created man from dust and a breath. Where did all of our water content come from?

I realize adding water to the mix makes mud, which creationists vehemently disagree with. So where did it come from?

There are a lot of scientists would claim they have demonstratively proven the very things you are calling theory. At one time Newton and others didn't know that Momentum was Mass * Velocity...he hypothesized what it was and proved it by experimentation.

To a scientist a 5 Sigma level of confidence is proof. This correlates to a 1 chance in 3.5 million it is due to random chance.

Personally I'm happy with 4 sigma...since I'm a betting man I would bet on 4 sigma all day long and get rich!

Relativity is a theory but it makes your GPS work!

Not only is that not a theory, that is a chemical formula you have there.

I would argue with you in general. Everything in science has the opportunity to be overturned with new evidence. There also is a big difference between a scientific theory and the common definition of a 'theory' - check out a wiki for both.

Your momentum example (with the correct formula) is a wonderful example of this. Up until 1905, we had a 'proven' formula for momentum. It was testable and predictive. It worked in every test that was ever run. Then Einstein came along and said that momentum would change as you approached the speed of light. New evidence created a more accurate representation of a natural phenomena - science!

Knew you had a science background from the shingles thread. Momentun is a "science" formula, and that is what Henry was talking about, science.

I guess I should have stated the momentum principle is accurate for all intents and purposes as we do not approach the speed of light except in FermiLab type experiments, (and in Europe) I believe?

I learned momentum in both physics and chemistry.

This part: "Everything in science has the opportunity to be overturned with new evidence"

And that makes Creationism a possibility even though science is being used to argue against it. IMHO!

Why do people insist on accusing science of trying to disprove creationism? Why is evolutionary creation such an evil concept? Some of us aren't trying to disprove the existence of God. My issue is with people that take the bible in its literal sense and think it explains everything verbatim. The "men" that wrote the bible had no clue as to the magnitude of depth that the story actually contained. Therefore it is NOT inerrant, and it contains many assumptions due to lack of understanding in the time frame that it was written. IMHO!

I agree that the Bible was written in a time of limited knowledge, which makes its wisdom even that much more curious to most people. As others have said, some believe God's words are reflected in the Bible, and He used certain individuals to pen His words.

The history of the Bible is captivating to me. Certainly will never know all of the truth until the day we die. If I am wrong about eternal life, I will never know it. If I am right, I hope whomever they assign me is ready for a long Q&A session;)

Nope. I only support theories as fact that have an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them. Theories with ZERO evidence don't pass that hurdle and are just a conjecture without anything to back to them up.

I see that most people were not paying attention when they learned about the scientific method.

Actually I strongly believe in the process of peer review. For every scientist that is seeking to publish proof of something there are a dozen seeking to prove he is wrong it is their evidence that proves the opposite.That's how scientists earn their stripes. It all gets sorted out in the long run.

I used to be a total denier...I am willing to concede now that we have an some impact....but I believe it would continue to warm until the next ice age no matter if humans were here or not. We might just get there quicker now.....these kinds of warm periods always end in major glaciation. At least for the last couple of million years anyway.

Really??? Where does Joel Osteen get his money? Is he a rich scientist Monday thru Saturday and a hobby evangelist on Sundays?? Just curious...

Common sense to me says our activity has an impact, but I still think he biggest impact by far is non-man-made of which some is beyond scientific comprehension yet.

You can find lots of scientific theories to challenge, but I only mock those who would never dare hold their own to the same standards of proof. Talking snakes? Mankind just "poofed" into existence? Noah 800 years old? Striped animals coming from a tree branch with its bark peeled thrown into water. The earth mere thousands of years old? Utterly ridiculous and foolish.

While no one can explain the origins of the universe, holding a fable as tightly as a security blanket is irrational. You might as well just say no one knows and move on. The real arrogance in all this is to claim YOUR magic book is right and that all of the other magic books are wrong.

If you want to take every sentence in a book as the literal truth, try Humpty Dumpty because I could really go for a Yuuuuuge omelette tonight. :-)

No doubt this is true....there is always a lot of risk associated going up against the establishment ideas. The church sentenced Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life after the inquisition...but the truth is out now.

...like I said it will all get sorted out over the next 100 years or so and I don't think cutting down on some emissions, transitioning from fossil fuels to something else, etc. would be a bad thing.

I'd be happy to have an electric F250 to replace the 12 miles a gallon deal I got going on now...

I agree; however, I would like market forces to direct those changes not government mandates.

"I'd be happy to have an electric F250 to replace the 12 miles a gallon deal I got going on now..."

Make that a Tundra with the same horsepower and torque, electric to fuel, and I would agree;)