Calling Texans: Interesting Theory regarding Global Warming
- Thread starter clown boy
- Start date
saltn00b
Active Member
sorry to go off topic but:
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
Don't know if you realized this but the radiometric dating method has been proven false:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...oactive-dating
(not posting that link to promote Christianity but to dis-prove the radiometric dating methods)
Also just wondering, do you know how they date geometric layers of rock?
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
Don't know if you realized this but the radiometric dating method has been proven false:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...oactive-dating
(not posting that link to promote Christianity but to dis-prove the radiometric dating methods)
Also just wondering, do you know how they date geometric layers of rock?
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
wow, another one that doesnt read... i said there is still discussion as to the cause of it.
You also said:
Originally Posted by saltn00b
the entire scientific community has agreed that there is climate change occurring and have moved on to how to stop and how to reverse it...
That's where you are mistaken.
wow, another one that doesnt read... i said there is still discussion as to the cause of it.
You also said:
Originally Posted by saltn00b
the entire scientific community has agreed that there is climate change occurring and have moved on to how to stop and how to reverse it...
That's where you are mistaken.
saltn00b
Active Member
i have done halflife dating back when i was in school, but i dont remember the exact process. its basically calculating how long it take for an isotope of a certain material to decay, and comparing it to how much decay already exists in the item in question.
i dont think that article proved anything at all. show me a secular scientist that will refute carbon dating with evidence, and we will talk.
i dont think that article proved anything at all. show me a secular scientist that will refute carbon dating with evidence, and we will talk.
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
i have done halflife dating back when i was in school, but i dont remember the exact process. its basically calculating how long it take for an isotope of a certain material to decay, and comparing it to how much decay already exists in the item in question.
i dont think that article proved anything at all. show me a secular scientist that will refute carbon dating with evidence, and we will talk.
from what you said and this decaying thing, wouldn't the decaying be accelerated from a huge natural catastrophe?
i have done halflife dating back when i was in school, but i dont remember the exact process. its basically calculating how long it take for an isotope of a certain material to decay, and comparing it to how much decay already exists in the item in question.
i dont think that article proved anything at all. show me a secular scientist that will refute carbon dating with evidence, and we will talk.
from what you said and this decaying thing, wouldn't the decaying be accelerated from a huge natural catastrophe?
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by saltn00b
i have done halflife dating back when i was in school, but i dont remember the exact process. its basically calculating how long it take for an isotope of a certain material to decay, and comparing it to how much decay already exists in the item in question.
i dont think that article proved anything at all. show me a secular scientist that will refute carbon dating with evidence, and we will talk.
And this is what the article is saying in a nutshell:
It is universaly accepted that rock layers closer to the top are younger than rock layers closer to the core.
The example of the grand canyon is this: There was some "older" lava that formed igneous rock on top of igneous rock made from magma that was supposidely "younger". They sent the evidence in to be radiometric tested, and it came out that the top was older than the bottom. Wonder how that happened?
i have done halflife dating back when i was in school, but i dont remember the exact process. its basically calculating how long it take for an isotope of a certain material to decay, and comparing it to how much decay already exists in the item in question.
i dont think that article proved anything at all. show me a secular scientist that will refute carbon dating with evidence, and we will talk.
And this is what the article is saying in a nutshell:
It is universaly accepted that rock layers closer to the top are younger than rock layers closer to the core.
The example of the grand canyon is this: There was some "older" lava that formed igneous rock on top of igneous rock made from magma that was supposidely "younger". They sent the evidence in to be radiometric tested, and it came out that the top was older than the bottom. Wonder how that happened?
saltn00b
Active Member
Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods
Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:
Reference to a case where the given method did not work .
Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated :
Constancy of radioactive decay rates .
Contamination is likely to occur .
1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.
2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.
to read more on the others
go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...th.html#helium
everything is cited and refrenced, even the christianity stuff.
Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:
Reference to a case where the given method did not work .
Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated :
Constancy of radioactive decay rates .
Contamination is likely to occur .
1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.
2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.
to read more on the others
go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...th.html#helium
everything is cited and refrenced, even the christianity stuff.
reefer545
Member
Mike22
That aritcle holds some valid arguments, but come on. Do you actually believe that? That is a giant bunch of crap. What about carbon dating? Even Carbon dating has shown artifacts and skeletal remains to be more than 5000 years old. I am NO scientist, but I am pretty sure that is not the same as the radioactive dating mentioned in that article.
I believe in the Body of Christ, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world is older than 5 thousand years. Genesis itself also says that "a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day." Bear with me. Let's take that statement for exactly what it says. That would mean, if it took God 7 days to create the earth, then the earth is AT LEAST 7 thousand years old. Granted, you will probably say something along the lines of that being an example of how we cant truly know God's timeline, plan, etc. But if the shoe fits....Did you know many religions which believe in God, believe He will return in 2000 something because Genesis says God will return in 7 days (and based on the 1 day =1000 years), and if a day is a week, then 7000 years later is NOW.(?) That would also put the earth at at least 14000 years old. I dont know for sure, but I believe it was Nostradamus who predicted the world will end in 2012. But that is a planetary and lunar alignment thing. just a side note. Rhetorical really, but interesting.
Back to the main topic: Global Warming is apt. Glaciers, Ice caps, climate change - in drastic and very fast magnitude compared with recorded history. I dont mean "records". But the every day averages are raising. Whether or not we caused, gave it a kick start, or had nothing to do with it, is not the point. It is real, if you ask me.
That aritcle holds some valid arguments, but come on. Do you actually believe that? That is a giant bunch of crap. What about carbon dating? Even Carbon dating has shown artifacts and skeletal remains to be more than 5000 years old. I am NO scientist, but I am pretty sure that is not the same as the radioactive dating mentioned in that article.
I believe in the Body of Christ, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world is older than 5 thousand years. Genesis itself also says that "a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day." Bear with me. Let's take that statement for exactly what it says. That would mean, if it took God 7 days to create the earth, then the earth is AT LEAST 7 thousand years old. Granted, you will probably say something along the lines of that being an example of how we cant truly know God's timeline, plan, etc. But if the shoe fits....Did you know many religions which believe in God, believe He will return in 2000 something because Genesis says God will return in 7 days (and based on the 1 day =1000 years), and if a day is a week, then 7000 years later is NOW.(?) That would also put the earth at at least 14000 years old. I dont know for sure, but I believe it was Nostradamus who predicted the world will end in 2012. But that is a planetary and lunar alignment thing. just a side note. Rhetorical really, but interesting.
Back to the main topic: Global Warming is apt. Glaciers, Ice caps, climate change - in drastic and very fast magnitude compared with recorded history. I dont mean "records". But the every day averages are raising. Whether or not we caused, gave it a kick start, or had nothing to do with it, is not the point. It is real, if you ask me.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
What if people aren't buying our product? And if I'm not mistaken, aren't most companies and assembly lines moving elsewhere because of cheaper people to make the stuff?
Sorry I forget I'm not arguing with economic professors. Lets break it down a little further. You do agree that there is still a manufacturing going on in the USA. And lets assume that today's trade barriers are the barriers in the example. (so they don't raise tariffs ect, that is illeagal anyway) And we are competing against foreign Industries, we exported $1017 billion worth of good last year. So we are producing and exporting something. Now lets assume that the status quo remains the status quo as far as that goes.
There is this other concept in economic models, a small country and a large country. In the small country they produce so little it does not effect world prices ect. In the Large Country it does. The US is a large country, we aren't going to be nationally boycotted or embargoed by countries who insist on us adopting green regulations.
All I'm saying is, If we don't adapt some very restrictive regulations, that is going to add HUGE costs to manufacturing. And the other countries do. Then we will have that as an advantage. And make better the situation that we have now.
What if people aren't buying our product? And if I'm not mistaken, aren't most companies and assembly lines moving elsewhere because of cheaper people to make the stuff?
Sorry I forget I'm not arguing with economic professors. Lets break it down a little further. You do agree that there is still a manufacturing going on in the USA. And lets assume that today's trade barriers are the barriers in the example. (so they don't raise tariffs ect, that is illeagal anyway) And we are competing against foreign Industries, we exported $1017 billion worth of good last year. So we are producing and exporting something. Now lets assume that the status quo remains the status quo as far as that goes.
There is this other concept in economic models, a small country and a large country. In the small country they produce so little it does not effect world prices ect. In the Large Country it does. The US is a large country, we aren't going to be nationally boycotted or embargoed by countries who insist on us adopting green regulations.
All I'm saying is, If we don't adapt some very restrictive regulations, that is going to add HUGE costs to manufacturing. And the other countries do. Then we will have that as an advantage. And make better the situation that we have now.
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by REEFER545
Mike22
That aritcle holds some valid arguments, but come on. Do you actually believe that? That is a giant bunch of crap. What about carbon dating? Even Carbon dating has shown artifacts and skeletal remains to be more than 5000 years old. I am NO scientist, but I am pretty sure that is not the same as the radioactive dating mentioned in that article.
I believe in the Body of Christ, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world is older than 5 thousand years. Genesis itself also says that "a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day." Bear with me. Let's take that statement for exactly what it says. That would mean, if it took God 7 days to create the earth, then the earth is AT LEAST 7 thousand years old. Granted, you will probably say something along the lines of that being an example of how we cant truly know God's timeline, plan, etc. But if the shoe fits....Did you know many religions which believe in God, believe He will return in 2000 something because Genesis says God will return in 7 days (and based on the 1 day =1000 years), and if a day is a week, then 7000 years later is NOW.(?) That would also put the earth at at least 14000 years old. I dont know for sure, but I believe it was Nostradamus who predicted the world will end in 2012. But that is a planetary and lunar alignment thing. just a side note. Rhetorical really, but interesting.
Back to the main topic: Global Warming is apt. Glaciers, Ice caps, climate change - in drastic and very fast magnitude compared with recorded history. I dont mean "records". But the every day averages are raising. Whether or not we caused, gave it a kick start, or had nothing to do with it, is not the point. It is real, if you ask me.
I agree with the universe being older than a couple of thousands of years, but the earth's history I'm 100% in what I believe in.
And I'm positive that earth was created in 7 days, becuase God made the plants before he made the sun. And plants can't live without light, but can go without a day or two without light.
I agree with the fact that our "time" is nothing compared to His eternity past and eternity future.
And I agree with your views on global warming, it's real. Who cares if we started it or not.
Mike22
That aritcle holds some valid arguments, but come on. Do you actually believe that? That is a giant bunch of crap. What about carbon dating? Even Carbon dating has shown artifacts and skeletal remains to be more than 5000 years old. I am NO scientist, but I am pretty sure that is not the same as the radioactive dating mentioned in that article.
I believe in the Body of Christ, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world is older than 5 thousand years. Genesis itself also says that "a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day." Bear with me. Let's take that statement for exactly what it says. That would mean, if it took God 7 days to create the earth, then the earth is AT LEAST 7 thousand years old. Granted, you will probably say something along the lines of that being an example of how we cant truly know God's timeline, plan, etc. But if the shoe fits....Did you know many religions which believe in God, believe He will return in 2000 something because Genesis says God will return in 7 days (and based on the 1 day =1000 years), and if a day is a week, then 7000 years later is NOW.(?) That would also put the earth at at least 14000 years old. I dont know for sure, but I believe it was Nostradamus who predicted the world will end in 2012. But that is a planetary and lunar alignment thing. just a side note. Rhetorical really, but interesting.
Back to the main topic: Global Warming is apt. Glaciers, Ice caps, climate change - in drastic and very fast magnitude compared with recorded history. I dont mean "records". But the every day averages are raising. Whether or not we caused, gave it a kick start, or had nothing to do with it, is not the point. It is real, if you ask me.
I agree with the universe being older than a couple of thousands of years, but the earth's history I'm 100% in what I believe in.
And I'm positive that earth was created in 7 days, becuase God made the plants before he made the sun. And plants can't live without light, but can go without a day or two without light.
I agree with the fact that our "time" is nothing compared to His eternity past and eternity future.
And I agree with your views on global warming, it's real. Who cares if we started it or not.
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by REEFER545
I believe in the Body of Christ, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world is older than 5 thousand years. Genesis itself also says that "a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day." Bear with me. Let's take that statement for exactly what it says. That would mean, if it took God 7 days to create the earth, then the earth is AT LEAST 7 thousand years old. Granted, you will probably say something along the lines of that being an example of how we cant truly know God's timeline, plan, etc. But if the shoe fits....Did you know many religions which believe in God, believe He will return in 2000 something because Genesis says God will return in 7 days (and based on the 1 day =1000 years), and if a day is a week, then 7000 years later is NOW.(?) That would also put the earth at at least 14000 years old. I dont know for sure, but I believe it was Nostradamus who predicted the world will end in 2012. But that is a planetary and lunar alignment thing. just a side note. Rhetorical really, but interesting.
It all depends if you take the Bible literaly or not. Do you think God was saying that 1000 years was only a day to Him, or was He trying to talk about his infinity and eternity?
I believe in the Body of Christ, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world is older than 5 thousand years. Genesis itself also says that "a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day." Bear with me. Let's take that statement for exactly what it says. That would mean, if it took God 7 days to create the earth, then the earth is AT LEAST 7 thousand years old. Granted, you will probably say something along the lines of that being an example of how we cant truly know God's timeline, plan, etc. But if the shoe fits....Did you know many religions which believe in God, believe He will return in 2000 something because Genesis says God will return in 7 days (and based on the 1 day =1000 years), and if a day is a week, then 7000 years later is NOW.(?) That would also put the earth at at least 14000 years old. I dont know for sure, but I believe it was Nostradamus who predicted the world will end in 2012. But that is a planetary and lunar alignment thing. just a side note. Rhetorical really, but interesting.
It all depends if you take the Bible literaly or not. Do you think God was saying that 1000 years was only a day to Him, or was He trying to talk about his infinity and eternity?
itom37
Member
a) you can find scientists to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and "400 scientists" constitutes a very small portion of the scientific community. if you reject the science that indicates global warming, fine, but at least be consistent.
b) everyone hopes you're right. as annoying as it would be to somehow have the anti-global warming folks be proven right, it would be an excellent thing or our world. the evidence, however, suggests that you're wrong, and it seems silly to oppose measures to decrease greenhouse gas emissions because you don't like al gore or because the science isn't satisfactory enough for you to consider it fact. with stakes so high, why not err on the side of caution?
c) everyone knows continued reliance on fossil fuels is an untenable arrangement, on many levels. allow me to be generous and say serious impact from global warming is only a 50/50 shot... why not go ahead and get off of fossil fuels for all the other reasons and at the same time eliminate this global warming stuff as a topic of conversation?
d) defending the position that i hear all the time which goes like this "well china is dirty, so why should we clean up?" represents the very lowest moral and ethical resolve i can think of. it's hardly different than saying "well... my dad beat my mom so i should beat my wife..."
The planet is pretty important, and I don't think we should so strongly politicize this issue.
b) everyone hopes you're right. as annoying as it would be to somehow have the anti-global warming folks be proven right, it would be an excellent thing or our world. the evidence, however, suggests that you're wrong, and it seems silly to oppose measures to decrease greenhouse gas emissions because you don't like al gore or because the science isn't satisfactory enough for you to consider it fact. with stakes so high, why not err on the side of caution?
c) everyone knows continued reliance on fossil fuels is an untenable arrangement, on many levels. allow me to be generous and say serious impact from global warming is only a 50/50 shot... why not go ahead and get off of fossil fuels for all the other reasons and at the same time eliminate this global warming stuff as a topic of conversation?
d) defending the position that i hear all the time which goes like this "well china is dirty, so why should we clean up?" represents the very lowest moral and ethical resolve i can think of. it's hardly different than saying "well... my dad beat my mom so i should beat my wife..."
The planet is pretty important, and I don't think we should so strongly politicize this issue.
notsonoob
Member
I had a good laugh about age of the earth.
Just a little counter arguement to anybody actually believing that the earth is only 5,000 years old. Hydrogen fusion at the center of the sun would take at least 10,000 years to bubble from the fusion reactor to the outward surface of the sun. So, if the earth was only 5,000 years old, then it would be pretty chilly since there wouldn't be any sunlight to speak of yet....
Thermonuclear Fusion in the Sun and other Stars
The sun radiates energy at the rate of 3.9 X 1026 W (watts) and has been doing so for several billion years. The sun burns hydrogen in a "nuclear furnace." The fusion reaction in the sun is a multistep process in which hydrogen is burned into helium, hydrogen being the "fuel" and helium the "ashes." The figure below shows the cycle.
Fusion cycle of the Sun
The cycle starts with the thermal collision of two protons (1H + 1H) to form a deuteron (2H), with the simultaneous creation of a positron (e+) and a neutrino (v). The positron very quickly encounters a free electron (e-) in the sun and both particles annihilate, their mass energy appearing as two gamma-ray photons. Once the deuteron has been produced, it quickly collides with another proton and forms a 3He nucleus and a gamma ray. Two such 3He nuclei may eventually (within ten thousand years) find each other, as the bottom row shows.
Overall, this amounts to the combination of four protons and two electrons to form an alpha particle (4He), two neutrinos, and six gamma rays.
I would post a formula, but it would take me about the same time to figure out how to post it...
Just a little counter arguement to anybody actually believing that the earth is only 5,000 years old. Hydrogen fusion at the center of the sun would take at least 10,000 years to bubble from the fusion reactor to the outward surface of the sun. So, if the earth was only 5,000 years old, then it would be pretty chilly since there wouldn't be any sunlight to speak of yet....
Thermonuclear Fusion in the Sun and other Stars
The sun radiates energy at the rate of 3.9 X 1026 W (watts) and has been doing so for several billion years. The sun burns hydrogen in a "nuclear furnace." The fusion reaction in the sun is a multistep process in which hydrogen is burned into helium, hydrogen being the "fuel" and helium the "ashes." The figure below shows the cycle.
Fusion cycle of the Sun
The cycle starts with the thermal collision of two protons (1H + 1H) to form a deuteron (2H), with the simultaneous creation of a positron (e+) and a neutrino (v). The positron very quickly encounters a free electron (e-) in the sun and both particles annihilate, their mass energy appearing as two gamma-ray photons. Once the deuteron has been produced, it quickly collides with another proton and forms a 3He nucleus and a gamma ray. Two such 3He nuclei may eventually (within ten thousand years) find each other, as the bottom row shows.
Overall, this amounts to the combination of four protons and two electrons to form an alpha particle (4He), two neutrinos, and six gamma rays.
I would post a formula, but it would take me about the same time to figure out how to post it...
1journeyman
Active Member
Notsonoob, I'm not a "new earth" believer, but your argument about the sun is very simply countered by stating "the sun was created somewhere already into it's life cycle".
So that's not a valid argument to those that believe in a literal 7 day creation.
So that's not a valid argument to those that believe in a literal 7 day creation.
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
Thanks for the laugh man. Wow, I'm not even going to try to explain that to you since you think global warming means the earth goes up in flames.
Again thanks.
I asked a Republican friend of mine to explain all the rain last year and this was his answer and I quote:"It's the rainy season"
Talk about a lot of assumptions...
I asked a Republican friend of mine to explain all the rain last year and this was his answer and I quote:"It's the rainy season"
Talk about a lot of assumptions...
digitydash
Active Member
I think this is crazy since we have not been keeping weather records long enough to truely say this is corect . When didwe get started taking records early 1900's ? The earths weather goes in cycle it is not a machine that does the same thing all the time . Everyone therories are intresting but I for one am not buying it.Don't get me wrong I do my green wise thing.
Emissions are down in the U.S but China does nothing about theirs.They have a serious emmisions problem since they are the leader in automobile and fuel consumption use now.
Emissions are down in the U.S but China does nothing about theirs.They have a serious emmisions problem since they are the leader in automobile and fuel consumption use now.
notsonoob
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Notsonoob, I'm not a "new earth" believer, but your argument about the sun is very simply countered by stating "the sun was created somewhere already into it's life cycle".
So that's not a valid argument to those that believe in a literal 7 day creation.
Now that is just about the dumbest counter arguement I've ever heard.
Notsonoob, I'm not a "new earth" believer, but your argument about the sun is very simply countered by stating "the sun was created somewhere already into it's life cycle".
So that's not a valid argument to those that believe in a literal 7 day creation.
Now that is just about the dumbest counter arguement I've ever heard.