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

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

 

Again, even if true, your argument is irrelevant because we are not talking about a long period of time, we are talking about a short period of time, the industrial revolution started a little more than a century ago. 

 

You said, "No ones arguing that the last 200 years havent been getting warmer"

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63679-our-church-cares-about-the-trees/page-14

 

So your North and South Pole arguments are irrelevant, the planet has again been getting warmer since the industrial revolution.  If 2013 or 2014 is a record high for Antarctic sea ice, that is not relevant because you admitted that the planet is getting warmer. 

 

Now please stop, I am no longer interested because I feel that you keep making irrelevant points. No point, you are going to get this thread closed, perhaps that is what you want. 

Like I said, I ignored your comments, but you keep talking and talking about this. If you are going to continue, please cite serious peer-reviewed papers from respected journals if you want to present evidence if you want to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus. 

 

 

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.

 

We agree with you, bytheway, Your 10,000 years of Greenland data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

 

Now please stop. I ignored you, it didn't work, so this climate change conversation must come to an end. You started it, you stop. 

Edited August 5, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Storm Rider]

My problem with this whole topic of man being responsible for climate change is that climate change has always existed.  So either climate change occurs with or without any influence of humanity or what is really being said in the most garbled, misleading of ways is that humanity influences climate change.  

 

If I heard this small clarification I would be more interested in what is attempted to be said because it would lead to a proper deduction:  1) the speaker is being honest, 2) there is no social/political agenda, 3) the speaker actually has valid points to make.

 

Further, if change has always occurred why are we bothered about a process that has always occurred?  If humanity ceased to exist what would be the net impact on the climate?  It would still keep changing.  Does change only bring negative results or can they also be positive?  

[Hermit53]

The Hebrew word that is translated here as 'earth' is translated in other places as 'land' and so the account is subject to the interpretation relayed by the translator rather than the writer. The rest of the account may give clues as to what is intended. Simple geometry figured from the details given in Genesis yields a total of THREE times the combines amount of water contained in all the oceans, ground water (estimated, of course), and atmosphere present today. The question is, where did two thirds of this total disappear to? There is no answer is the flood is to be considered a global one; however, if the word is read as 'land' it changes everything...

[ERayR]

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. 

 

 

"Yes please, we are not interested because you actually agree that the Earth is getting warmer.

 

"Now please stop, I am no longer interested . . ."

 

Unilaterally declare victory and insist your opponent shut up.  That is really a neat way to win debates.  Can anyone use it or is it reserved for the elite?

Edited August 5, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

The Hebrew word that is translated here as 'earth' is translated in other places as 'land' and so the account is subject to the interpretation relayed by the translator rather than the writer. The rest of the account may give clues as to what is intended. Simple geometry figured from the details given in Genesis yields a total of THREE times the combines amount of water contained in all the oceans, ground water (estimated, of course), and atmosphere present today. The question is, where did two thirds of this total disappear to? There is no answer is the flood is to be considered a global one; however, if the word is read as 'land' it changes everything...

 

Maybe here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/16/study-deep-beneath-north-america-theres-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

The God(s) of every religion that I know of posits that their God(s) is/are omnipotent. Meaning that he, she, it can do anything he, she, it likes. Such is not allowed in science simply because it is a uncontrollable factor. To really simplify that. IE; In chemistry I know that Sodium plus Chlorine equals table salt. What I don't know is what Sodium plus Chlorine plus God equals. God may or may not be involved in every chemical reaction that happens, but I tend to doubt it. I'm perfect content to let God do his thing in controlling the big picture. Using science to achieve his goal. As a LDS Christian I have no problem with God. I actually believe that someday I'll be like him.

 

SEE

Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

[Zakuska]

The Hebrew word that is translated here as 'earth' is translated in other places as 'land' and so the account is subject to the interpretation relayed by the translator rather than the writer. The rest of the account may give clues as to what is intended. Simple geometry figured from the details given in Genesis yields a total of THREE times the combines amount of water contained in all the oceans, ground water (estimated, of course), and atmosphere present today. The question is, where did two thirds of this total disappear to? There is no answer is the flood is to be considered a global one; however, if the word is read as 'land' it changes everything...

Excellent observation. I wonder though,

[Rodeo]

The God(s) of every religion that I know of posits that their God(s) is/are omnipotent. Meaning that he, she, it can do anything he, she, it likes. Such is not allowed in science simply because it is a uncontrollable factor. To really simplify that. IE; In chemistry I know that Sodium plus Chlorine equals table salt. What I don't know is what Sodium plus Chlorine plus God equals. God may or may not be involved in every chemical reaction that happens, but I tend to doubt it. I'm perfect content to let God do his thing in controlling the big picture. Using science to achieve his goal. As a LDS Christian I have no problem with God. I actually believe that someday I'll be like him.

 

SEE

Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

Old Eugenie Scott, the secular humanist/ nontheist. It is no wonder she holds the views shoe does. Sounds like a lot of her religious views are in the video. Not really sure but it seems like she is is a hypocrit for trying to censor others religious views and placing hers in view instead. That seems to be the trend over at the NCSE- hire athiests, secular humanists, etc and then get their religious agenda pushed through the public school system and yet decry anyone else who wants to believe in their own religious views. That isnt science. The NCSE is a religious institution not a science institution.

[thesometimesaint]

Old Eugenie Scott, the secular humanist/ nontheist. It is no wonder she holds the views shoe does. Sounds like a lot of her religious views are in the video. Not really sure but it seems like she is is a hypocrit for trying to censor others religious views and placing hers in view instead. That seems to be the trend over at the NCSE- hire athiests, secular humanists, etc and then get their religious agenda pushed through the public school system and yet decry anyone else who wants to believe in their own religious views. That isnt science. The NCSE is a religious institution not a science institution.

 

Science is not a religious agenda.  Here you are using the most scientifically advanced device ever invented and claiming it's powered by the supernatural. No one is stopping Theists from believing, speaking, writing, trying to convince others of their beliefs. The laws of the US prevent Atheists and Theists alike from imposing their views on public schools. Private schools are permitted to teach anything they want. If the best you can do is allege Atheism what are you going to do when a Theist contradicts your sweeping generalizations? BTW Darwin was an Anglican. Some 40% of all American scientist are Theists.

The NCSE is a advocate for science in the public schools and is supported by many religious organizations. SEE http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion

Edited August 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MormonFreeThinker]

Unilaterally declare victory and insist your opponent shut up.  That is really a neat way to win debates.  Can anyone use it or is it reserved for the elite?

 

Seriously? I simply don't want this thread to get locked.  

[Rodeo]

Science is not a religious agenda.  Here you are using the most scientifically advanced device ever invented and claiming it's powered by the supernatural. No one is stopping Theists from believing, speaking, writing, trying to convince others of their beliefs. The laws of the US prevent Atheists and Theists alike from imposing their views on public schools. Private schools are permitted to teach anything they want. If the best you can do is allege Atheism what are you going to do when a Theist contradicts your sweeping generalizations? BTW Darwin was an Anglican. Some 40% of all American scientist are Theists.

The NCSE is a advocate for science in the public schools and is supported by many religious organizations. SEE http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion

The NCSE is a pro-evolution group who doesn't advocate general science. their who beef is with evolution and the atheist view.

[Zakuska]

Again, even if true, your argument is irrelevant because we are not talking about a long period of time, we are talking about a short period of time, the industrial revolution started a little more than a century ago.

You said, "No ones arguing that the last 200 years havent been getting warmer"

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63679-our-church-cares-about-the-trees/page-14

So your North and South Pole arguments are irrelevant, the planet has again been getting warmer since the industrial revolution. If 2013 or 2014 is a record high for Antarctic sea ice, that is not relevant because you admitted that the planet is getting warmer.

Now please stop, I am no longer interested because I feel that you keep making irrelevant points. No point, you are going to get this thread closed, perhaps that is what you want.

Like I said, I ignored your comments, but you keep talking and talking about this. If you are going to continue, please cite serious peer-reviewed papers from respected journals if you want to present evidence if you want to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus.

We agree with you, bytheway, Your 10,000 years of Greenland data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Now please stop. I ignored you, it didn't work, so this climate change conversation must come to an end. You started it, you stop.

2013-2014 increased sea ice volume at BOTH poles is irrelevant? Hardly?!

Since It was accurately predicted to happen by non-manipulated global alarmist computer models clear back in 2012.

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140

The next little ice age begins this year.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

The NCSE is a pro-evolution group who doesn't advocate general science. their who beef is with evolution and the atheist view.

 

Incorrect the NCSE advocates for science literacy in a broad range of subjects. So in your ill informed opinion if an Atheist claims 2+2-4, and a Christian claims 2+2=5 you'll go with the Christian?

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2013-arctic-sea-ice-prediction.html

 

Statistically-based Arctic sea ice minimum extent predictions have performed relatively well, and expect a continued rapid long-term decline.

• however, they predict that we will most likely not see a new record minimum Arctic sea ice extent in 2013.

• overly optimistic contrarian sea ice predictions have had the worst results; now they're celebrating the "record sea ice recovery", which is an expected result because the minimum extent is declining faster than the maximum extent.

Arctic sea ice volume is also declining at an alarming rate - we've lost approximately 80% of the total volume over the past three decades

[MormonFreeThinker]

2013-2014 increased sea ice volume at BOTH poles is irrelevant? Hardly?!

 

Yes, because you said, "No ones arguing that the last 200 years havent been getting warmer" 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63679-our-church-cares-about-the-trees/page-14

 

I see a contradiction, but please stop, no more, I don't want this thread to get locked. 

[Rodeo]

The NCSE is a pro-evolution group who do noy get involved with other aspects of general science. They push the atheist agenda.

[Nemesis]

Thread closed.