Elder John A. Widtsoe On The Flood (Full Context)

[MormonFreeThinker]

Both poles are losing ice

 

 

Zakuska thinks that satellite NASA images are a scam. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Since I only have my phone now, off the top of my head Behe is a micro-biologist and michael Denton is a biochemist. I will have to search later.

 

I was thinking of Behe when I asked you the question, he is a biochemist, but he is an old Earth progressive creationist, he believes in millions of years of life and death. Behe is probably the only natural scientist that changed his mind to ID.

 

Denton now believes in Evolution.  

 

Can you name a Biologist that is a former Evolutionist, and is now a Young Earth Creationist? 

 

There are many scientists that changed their mind to Evolution. 

 

 

As to your question, I think I answered it the best I can.

By the way I am traveling thru eastern Utah, and observing the evidence for the flood first hand. It is awesome.

 

I believe you didn't, because I am talking about the past. 

Imagine that Evolution all of the sudden stop, what evidence would convince you that it happened in the past? 

Edited August 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Zakuska]

You do know the difference between sea ice and land ice don't you?

SEE http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

SEE http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/antarctica_is_losing_ice_sheet.asp

Yes I do. Do you know how to read a graph?

For your chicken little all the ice is melting, seas are rising and going to flood the world false alarm to work and prove global warming the blue line (on the graph in your first link) indicating 2014 ice extent shoud be below the plotted 2012 (dotted line) not above it like it is right now. Intrestingly they didn't plot 2013 which was also above the 2012 dotted line as well. Apparently 2014 is continuing the "anomolilus" trend of 2013 ice increasing in extent and thickeness.

According to your first link.

The four highest June average sea ice extents have been in 2014, 2013, 2010, and 1979.

So sea ice extent has increased to record levels in 3 out of the past 5 years and the last graph on your first link shows the record setting sea ice extent of antartica for this year. Apparently you missed my earlier link which shows the lowest temperature ever recorded on earth happening in Antartica fairly recently.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

There is no room here for your labels and your conservative or libertarian agenda.

I don't have a political agenda, I am an independent that voted for Romney just because he is Mormon, I mostly don't care about politics.

I am objective, I follow the scientific evidence, and the overwhelming scientific consensus, and for the moment the evidence points to Global Warming. Now please stop, we already debated this topic before and the thread got locked.

as you wish.

And for the record... i more or less trust the data coming of the satellites before it gets " adjusted".

Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[MormonFreeThinker]

as you wish.

And for the record... i more or less trust the data coming of the satellites before it gets " adjusted".

 

where do you see the data? In the websites that support your views?

again, no room here for your conservative or libertarian agenda. Stop please. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rodeo]

Appealing to belief isn't a good way to establish science.

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

Galileo the Theist

Is the resurrection beyond science?

[Zakuska]

where do you see the data? In the websites that support your views?

Ive linked 3 times directly to the nasa data feeds from the satellites showing arctic ice has been getting thicker and antartic sea ice extent has hit record levels in 3 out of the past 5 years.

Here it is again: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/02/thicker-on-top-higher-down-under/

again, no room here for your conservative or libertarian agenda.

im neither conservative or libertarian, im independent and my only agenda is truth. You sir have inserted politics into your own thread. But i digress.

I would have put it in the news section but i lost my priveledge of being able to start a thread my bad for putting it here. Sorry.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[MormonFreeThinker]

Ive linked 3 times directly to the nasa data feeds from the satellites showing arctic ice has been getting thicker and antartic sea ice has hit record levels in 3 out ofthe past 5 years.

 

We are not interested in your views, you are the one that started this debate here, again. Why do you want to keep talking about the North and South Pole? 

 

Look at the Satellite-based passive microwave images  

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3991

 

Here is what NASA says, 

"The downward trend is likely to continue because the length of the melt season for Arctic sea ice has grown by nearly five days each decade, researchers from NSIDC and NASA reported in March 2014. The melt season is starting earlier and new ice formation is starting later each fall—the result of warmer ocean temperatures and increased sunlight hitting open water in the Arctic Ocean. The pattern feeds back on itself: thin ice is less reflective than thick, so it allows more sunlight to be absorbed by the ocean, making the ice still thinner and the ocean still warmer. Younger, thinner ice is also flatter, so it allows melt ponds to accumulate on the surface, reducing albedo and absorbing more heat" 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83451

 

 

Now stop, we had enough of your propaganda, we are talking about religion and Evolution vs Creationism. 

You started it, you stop it. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[bcuzbcuz]

Since I only have my phone now, off the top of my head Behe is a micro-biologist and michael Denton is a biochemist. I will have to search later.

For evolutionists there is no difference between macro and micro changes, which is why the term get ridiculed. So the idea that evolution is still happening to day, means Marco changes should be observable, at least in part when observing hundreds of thousands generation of bacteria.

As to your question, I think I answered it the best I can.

By the way I am traveling thru eastern Utah, and observing the evidence for the flood first hand. It is awesome.

Eastern Utah? Depending upon where you are exactly, you'll find a good deal of fossils, such as trilobites, from the Cambrian period, just lying around on the ground. I still have my first ever trilobite from that area. A good site for viewing such fossils, if your eyes are untrained, or you don't know what it is you're looking at, is:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianFossils.htm

You'll find Utah mentioned 7 or 8 times. It's a great Cambrian fossil area, such as, the Marjum formation, Willard County or the Weeks Formation.

Trouble with your "Flood fantasy" is that none, zero, nada, Cambrian fossils exist in any modern formations. Check any basic geology book and learn about the various layers. Check any basic biology text for information about Cambrian age fossils. Or better yet, stop off at any of the multitude of small, single owner operated fossil stores scattered along the highways of Eastern Utah. Stop long enough to listen to the old guy (usually is an old guy) who will bend your ear about where and when and how he found the fossil in your hand. Ask him how many Cambrian fossils can be found in modern layers or formations. Get back to me when he stops laughing.

[Zakuska]

We are not interested in your views

That says it all. So much for free thinking and civil dialog.

Now stop, we had enough of your propaganda, we are talking about religion and Evolution vs Creationism.

Funny i thought the thread was about.

"Elder John A. Widstoe On The Flood (Full Context)"

How has the thread digressed into evolution?

Theres not enough water in the polar ice to flood the planet even with all of it melted. Im with Elder Widstoe.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[MormonFreeThinker]

That says it all. So much for free thinking and civil dialog.

Funny i thought the thread was about.

 

I am no longer interested in your views because we already had a debate, and all you said was irrelevant, and the moderators don't like that topic here.  Yes, the sea ice (ice floating on water) that surrounds the Antarctic appears to be growing, so what? That doesn't disprove that the Planet is getting warmer.  

 

Yes, I am open minded, but you admitted that your views don't disprove that the planet is getting warmer, so what is your point? 

 

and you ignore that the North Pole is melting, see 

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3991

 

 

How has the thread digressed into evolution?

 

That is up to the moderators to decide, not you. We already know what they think about the topic you started here. 

 

You started this topic here, you stop it.  

[Zakuska]

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SNOW AND ICE DATA

Link again: Artic sea ice 50% thicker in 2013 Antartic sea ice to record levels (according to most recent data)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/02/thicker-on-top-higher-down-under/

I am no longer interested in your views because we already had a debate, and all you said was irrelevant, and the moderators don't like that topic here. Yes, the sea ice (ice floating on water) that surrounds the Antarctic appears to be growing, so what? That doesn't disprove that the Planet is getting warmer.

and you ignore that the North Pole is melting, see

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=3991

I dont ignore anything. You have a quote from Nasa prognosticating on north pole sea ice and what the trend is "likely" to do. i linked a website which shows the actual arctic sea ice radar scans over the past 4 years showing a 50% Artic sea ice increase in thickness over the past year. So what nasa prognosticated would happen didnt.

Id stop if you and tss would actually read the article and acknowledge that while ice extent has varried in the arctic it has indeed been getting thicker just like the radar says it has. Instead of posting non-accredited websites or to fallible scientific prognostication. Im linking the satellite data. Artic sea ice has gotten thicker by 50% over the last 4 years Nasa was wrong. In the satallite data link at the top, notice all the blue (thinner north pole ice) in october of 2010 and all the red (thicker slower melting ice) in the artic in october 2013. Will be intresting to see October of 2014.

Since your not intrested in discussion ill leave.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Is the resurrection beyond science?

 

Yes. Any appeal to God or God like force is beyond science to address.

[ERayR]

where do you see the data? In the websites that support your views?

again, no room here for your conservative or libertarian agenda. Stop please. 

 

Typical Liberal tactic, If you can't answer it then ban it.  For one who professes to be a free thinker you sure don't seem to extend that privilege to others.  Typical elitist. 

[thesometimesaint]

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SNOW AND ICE DATA

Link again: Artic sea ice 50% thicker in 2013 Antartic sea ice to record levels (according to most recent data)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/02/thicker-on-top-higher-down-under/

I dont ignore anything. You have a quote from Nasa prognosticating on north pole sea ice and what the trend is "likely" to do. i linked a website which shows the actual arctic sea ice radar scans over the past 4 years showing a 50% Artic sea ice increase in thickness over the past year. So what nasa prognosticated would happen didnt.

Id stop if you and tss would actually read the article and acknowledge that while ice extent has varried in the arctic it has indeed been getting thicker just like the radar says it has. Instead of posting non-accredited websites or to fallible scientific prognostication. Im linking the satellite data. Artic sea ice has gotten thicker by 50% over the last 4 years Nasa was wrong. In the satallite data link at the top, notice all the blue (thinner north pole ice) in october of 2010 and all the red (thicker slower melting ice) in the artic in october 2013. Will be intresting to see October of 2014.

Since your not intrested in discussion ill leave.

 

From the National Snow and Ice Center.

http://nsidc.org/soac/sea-ice.html#seaice

 

Arctic Sea ice is declining.

http://nsidc.org/soac/upsetting-balance

[thesometimesaint]

Typical Liberal tactic, If you can't answer it then ban it.  For one who professes to be a free thinker you sure don't seem to extend that privilege to others.  Typical elitist. 

 

Ad Hominem.

 

Over 97% of scientists in the field of climate studies  that took a position of Man made Global Warming agree.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

 

For a list of scientific organizations that accept Man made Global Warming.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

For a list of scientists that don't accept Man made Global Warming, or don't think it is a problem worth addressing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[ERayR]

Ad Hominem.

 

For a list of scientists that don't accept Man made Global Warming, or don't think it is a problem worth addressing.

http://ad hominumen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

This is ad hominem:  From post #530 MormomFreeThinker: 

again, no room here for your conservative or libertarian agenda. Stop please. 

 

Seems like a pretty impressive group who either outright disagree or believe the jury is still out and the issue is far from settled.

Edited August 5, 2014 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

This is ad hominem:  From post #530 MormomFreeThinker: 

again, no room here for your conservative or libertarian agenda. Stop please. 

 

Seems like a pretty impressive group who either outright disagree or believe the jury is still out and the issue is far from settled.

 

No one here doubts my moderately conservative liberal agenda on social issues. On the sciences I do tend to go with the consensus of scientists. I listen to the dissenters when they present good arguments, even if I disagree. So far I see no convincing argument to doubt the overwhelming consensus of established scientists working in that field.  Having work as a scientist, in an unrelated field, believe me it is very hard to get a consensus on anything, let alone a 97% agreement. IE; Say you weren't feeling well, and went to 100 doctors of medicine. If 97 of them said yes you have a cold virus and 3 said it was it just in your mind. Which group's advice are you going to follow?

Edited August 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

No one here doubts my moderately conservative liberal agenda on social issues. On the sciences I do tend to go with the consensus of scientists. I listen to the dissenters when they present good arguments, even if I disagree. So far I see no convincing argument to doubt the overwhelming consensus of established scientists working in that field.  Having work as a scientist, in an unrelated field, believe me it is very hard to get a consensus on anything, let alone a 97% agreement. IE; Say you weren't feeling well, and went to 100 doctors of medicine. If 97 of them said yes you have a cold virus and 3 said it was it just in your mind. Which group's advice are you going to follow?

 

That one is a no brainer.  I would have to go with the 97% as it is a well known fact that I have no mind.  

 

Again: Seems like a pretty impressive group who either outright disagree or believe the jury is still out and the issue is far from settled.

Edited August 5, 2014 by ERayR

[Zakuska]

From the National Snow and Ice Center.

http://nsidc.org/soac/sea-ice.html#seaice

Arctic Sea ice is declining.

http://nsidc.org/soac/upsetting-balance

Very good TSS. You do know the difference between "extent" and "volume" dont you? Artic sea ice "extent" has been waning for about a decade. I even acknowledged that earlier. However, artic sea ice "thickness" has increased by 50% over the past 4 years.

Thicker ice melts slower. Notice all the Red and yellow thick ice showing up in 2013? ↑

(EXTENT * THICKNESS = VOLUME)

Artic sea ice VOLUME is icreasing dispite the decrease in "extent", Thats why BBC news reporting on the new Cryosat satellite tells us that arctic sea ice volume has "bounced back" in 2013.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25383373

The bounce back in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this summer was reflected also in the volume of ice. Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season.This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012.It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years.

It will be interesting to see how much red shows up on the satelitte come october 2014.

Of course, this will never be acknowledged by global alarmists.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Zakuska

[longview]

. . .

I dont ignore anything. You have a quote from Nasa prognosticating on north pole sea ice and what the trend is "likely" to do. i linked a website which shows the actual arctic sea ice radar scans over the past 4 years showing a 50% Artic sea ice increase in thickness over the past year. So what nasa prognosticated would happen didnt.

. . .

Since your not intrested in discussion ill leave.

Just as both of you were not interested in standing for a scientist's right to have his findings on soft tissue found within a fossil be peer reviewed and investigated.

[Zakuska]

Just as both of you were not interested in standing for a scientist's right to have his findings on soft tissue found within a fossil be peer reviewed and investigated.

Im all for that. I've long held that finding soft tissue in calcified bones causes all kinds of problems for the 97% and their millions and billions of years estimates for Dino bones.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Since your not intrested in discussion ill leave.

 

Yes please, we are not interested because you actually agree that the Earth is getting warmer.  So I do not know what your point is. 

 

I was ignoring your comments, but you keep talking about it, so I request that you stop. 

 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SNOW AND ICE DATA

Link again: Artic sea ice 50% thicker in 2013 Antartic sea ice to record levels (according to most recent data)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/02/thicker-on-top-higher-down-under/

 

That article says, 

"While satellite observations have shown a decline in Arctic Ocean sea ice extent since the late 1970s, sea ice is highly mobile, and a decrease in extent does not necessarily imply a corresponding decrease in ice volume"

 

Again, your point is irrelevant because you agree that the Earth is getting warmer. Please stop. 

 

"ery good TSS. You do know the difference between "extent" and "volume" dont you?"

and your point is? Please stop. 

Edited August 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rodeo]

Yes. Any appeal to God or God like force is beyond science to address.

Sounds rather generic. What about miracles? Are they some kind of magic or is there science involved? At what point should we abandon faithless paradigms and invest some real faith in Gods glorious works?

[Zakuska]

Yes please, we are not interested because you actually agree that the Earth is getting warmer. So I do not know what your point is.

I was ignoring your comments, but you keep talking about it, so I request that you stop.

That article says,

"While satellite observations have shown a decline in Arctic Ocean sea ice extent since the late 1970s, sea ice is highly mobile, and a decrease in extent does not necessarily imply a corresponding decrease in ice volume"

Again, your point is irrelevant because you agree that the Earth is getting warmer. Please stop.

"ery good TSS. You do know the difference between "extent" and "volume" dont you?"

and your point is? Please stop.

May I answer your questions?

1. I don't agree the earth is getting warmer. It's been trending colder for a very long time, and especially for the last 10,000 years as compared to three last interglacials.

2. My point is that TSS doesn't seem to get the fact that Ice volume is increasing dispite extent decrease in the north. The section you quoted proves the point I was making perfectly in the most relevant way possible so thank you. But I bet you TSS won't get it.

We have no fear of a global flood as in Noahs day because even if the ice all melted. There wouldn't be enough to flood the land. I agree with elder widtsoe.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Zakuska