Tacenda Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) No, most of them take their cues from the Bible which most of them learned before school taught them otherwise. If the scientific evidence was strong then there would be atheist YEC who made that decision based on the evidence. I have only met one Young Earth creationist who is an atheist and he believes the earth was built by aliens as an insane asylum.Last sentence, priceless!!! :-D Edited February 13, 2015 by Tacenda
Stone holm Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 What about the north east? Huge snowfalls.Phenomenon like the polar vortex were predicted, Vermont weather is becoming more like Western Oregon. Snowfall hasn't increased that much, but summers have been rainier and 100 year storm events have become so common that we will be changing the standard soon. Meanwhile because of the ocean temperature rise the lobster fishing in lower New England has collapsed , but Maine's has soared. However, as the temperature related diseases spread further north, Maine's catch is also expected to collapse. Vermont is gearing up by trying to adapt its agriculture to the changes. The USDA hardiness zone maps are being revised, and we are desperately trying to breed new Sugar Maples that will thrive in the changed climate to protect our iconic syrup crop. So you deniers keep it up, and we will adapt.
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You've made this statement twice. The problem is what people allow as evidence. If for example, blood cells found in dino bones is evidence of a young earth, it is rejected as evidence by atheistic scientists because "there has to be another explanation." One's assumptions leads to one's conclusions. And yes I agree with you this happens on both sides of the spectrum. SEE SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Oh, please….you don't understand the discussion if you think I or anyone else was in the least trying to prove that climate change wasn't happening by commenting on local weather. I don't understand what? So why do you bring it up? What is the difference between climate and weather? Edited February 13, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Yep, first time I remember it being this warm in February, the golfers are lovin it.It is not the first time it happened though. As I re call hearing it happened in the 20's were there was a really mild winter.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Oh, please….you don't understand the discussion if you think I or anyone else was in the least trying to prove that climate change wasn't happening by commenting on local weather.Of course climate change happens. Only a fool would deny it. The problem is that GW was pretty much debunked so they changed the term to "climate change" and shifted the argument to a "climate denier". So stupid and juvenile. Also by doing this they now can claim that when it is colder is it due to man, when it is warmer it is man, when it rains more it is man, when it is dryer it is man. They think they can have their cake and eat it too. It just does not work that way. Edited February 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Phenomenon like the polar vortex were predicted,CFR pls. When are were was this predicted? 1 week before it was going to happen probably? 3 years before? Not likely. And what capacity was it predicted? "There will be a polar vortex in the next 10 years? Or in 2014 there will be a PV in the month of January? Edited February 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) The problem is that GW was pretty much debunked so they changed the term to "climate change" and shifted the argument to a "climate denier". So stupid and juvenile. Are you 100% certain? Are you open minded? Not likely. It is the same thing, it is like saying internet search was changed to google search. The Earth is getting warmer, it is causing the climate to change, same thing. Also by doing this they now can claim that when it is colder is it due to man, when it is warmer it is man, when it rains more it is man, when it is dryer it is man. Who is "they"? The climate scientists? GW theory allows for record lows, you do not know what you are talking about. Edited February 13, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Of course climate change happens. Only a fool would deny it. The problem is that GW was pretty much debunked so they changed the term to "climate change" and shifted the argument to a "climate denier". So stupid and juvenile. Of course the globe's climate is always changing over long stretches of time. It is the rate at which it is changing now that is the problem.SEE https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years A partial list of scientific organizations that accept global warmingSEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Global Warming is the same thing as Climate Change. The climate in your area may be getting cooler, and my area may be getting warmer. But overall the globe is getting warmer. Yes it is stupid and juvenile to take the colder weather in one small area and claim the whole planet's climate is getting colder.
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) CFR pls. When are were was this predicted? 1 week before it was going to happen probably? 3 years before? Not likely. And what capacity was it predicted? "There will be a polar vortex in the next 10 years? Or in 2014 there will be a PV in the month of January? The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853. The phenomenon's sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the winter in the Northern Hemisphere and was discovered in 1952 with radisonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 km Edited February 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint
danielwoods Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 What is interesting is that if they specialize in Biology, most of them stop believing in creationism.Can you name one Biologist in the world that no longer believes in common descent? Even Mike Behe believes in common descent. Dr. Gary Parker https://answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/gary-parker/
Nofear Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 ByCommonConsent article: When Mormons Met Darwin's Origin of Species. The reaction was generally negative, yet many of the ideas quickly integrated with LDS theology.
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Dr. Gary Parker https://answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/gary-parker/ Answers in Genesis is not in any sense of the word a science organization.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Dr. Gary Parker https://answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/gary-parker/ Dr. Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist.MS (biology/physiology), Ball State University EdD (biology/geology), Ball State University WOW I am impressed, but there 7 Billion people in the world, so extremely weird stuff happens sometimes. He has a EdD, not a PhD, but I am still impressed. Can you name another Biologist like Parker that no longer believes in common descent? Just one more. If the evidence against common decent is strong, there should be many. Bytheway, Dr. Parker did not get fired for his religious beliefs. UpdateThere was another one, it was Dudley Eirich. He was removed from the creation.com list, Why? http://creation.com/creation-scientists Edited February 13, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853. The phenomenon's sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the winter in the Northern Hemisphere and was discovered in 1952 with radisonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 kmGreat, were was this last polar vortex "predicted"? And in what capacity was it predicted. If you guys want any credibility with me you will at least quantify this "prediction". So far you have offered up a big fat nothing on it. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Of course the globe's climate is always changing over long stretches of time. It is the rate at which it is changing now that is the problem.Can you define what a "normal" rate of change should be? We only have just over 100 years of record keeping on this. Edited February 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
ERayR Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Last sentence, priceless!!! :-D And there are a few posters on this board that prove his theory true. 1
rodheadlee Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Well gosh it seems the Big Bang will turn out to be a false theory. Imagine that. Edited February 14, 2015 by rodheadlee
thesometimesaint Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Great, were was this last polar vortex "predicted"? And in what capacity was it predicted. If you guys want any credibility with me you will at least quantify this "prediction". So far you have offered up a big fat nothing on it That isn't how science works. First comes the event which we observe. Then comes the science about how it happened. No one knows exactly when the first Polar Vortex occurred. Just that it was described in 1853, and more accurately described 1952. The prediction is that as our world gets warmer,, primarily due to increased CO2, the occurrences of polar vorticies will become more common. "Can you define what a "normal" rate of change should be? We only have just over 100 years of record keeping on this". Man made records are a little over 100 years, But that is hardly the only method we use in determining weather trends in climate.
ERayR Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) No one knows exactly when the first Polar Vortex occurred. Just that it was described in 1853, and more accurately described 1952. 1,747,256 BCE Edited February 14, 2015 by ERayR
ERayR Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Could's be. According to entries in my journal they have come and gone with varying regularity ever since.
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Well gosh it seems the Big Bang will turn out to be a false theory. Imagine that.Interesting that one can label a theory "false" when we have not clue what is "true". So much for the old dictum "If it's not true, it's false."
Stone holm Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 Interesting that one can label a theory "false" when we have not clue what is "true". So much for the old dictum "If it's not true, it's false."Not sure the Big Bang theory makes any difference to our belief system.
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) 1,747,256 BCE Did you know that we now have to throw out our dating system because it still tacitly is based on religion? "BCE" is just a cosmetic patch to make it appear politically correct when all it is is a ruse to distract those who are not yet fully godless as we all must be. We already showed that those who use "AD" - ANNO DOMINI"- "In the Year of Our Lord" are hopelessly dedicated to the non-scientific superstition based in religion. Clearly our dating system combines church and state. The dating system itself threatens our intellectual freedom by suggesting that something important happened around the beginning of the "CE", when of course nothing happened at all. It is clearly time to create a dating system based on the birth of Shirley MacLaine, which means today is April 1 in the year 81. Edited February 15, 2015 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts