Global warming alarmists should spend a year trying to grow crops and tend domestic animals amid these Viking ruins in Greenland, and then report back to us about how the global temperature is higher now than it ever has been.
Posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:42 AM PST by Dr. Marten
Ping!
Thanks for your ping! Interesting stuff.
How come they always say it's the SUV's fault?
Global warming alarmists should spend a year trying to grow crops and tend domestic animals amid these Viking ruins in Greenland, and then report back to us about how the global temperature is higher now than it ever has been.
Okay, how does this relate to creationism and your claim to which I replied?
Does the concept of global averages versus spot observations actually elude you, or are you being intentionally obtuse?
That was a reply in need of an answer? Please enlighten me.
bump
Follow the thread back...Click here or scroll up to #56 for your claim. I responded that I have no idea what you are talking about when you said, "There are four times as many wrong answers as there are right anzwers [sic] when it comes to creation."
I'd be embarrassed too if I belonged to some wacko cult.
Maybe it's the "Church of Fred Flintstone" or something.
So, who do you espouse to be wiser than the God of the Bible?
No one. He was wise enough to use metaphors and literary devices to tell stories that even imbeciles could understand. SOME imbeciles didn't figure it out, they think the numbers were literal throughout the bible. Those people are called cultists.
Name a Christian group which says the earth is millions of years old.
The Roman Catholic Church and every other real Christian denomination acknowledge that the earth is not 8000 years old, but much much older.
Did the people in the bible ride on dinosaurs? Or just eat them? Did they have those little stone cars like Barney Rubble? Did Fred Flintstone really work on that dinosaurs' back at the quarry? Do you "chosen" ones have these answers? Inquiring minds want to know....
I responded that I have no idea what you are talking about when you said, "There are four times as many wrong answers as there are right anzwers [sic] when it comes to creation."
I was being facetious. What I was alluding to is that it seems as if at least once a week another scientist makes a "discovery" which makes the world older than the last estimate. Or, some bone is discovered that changes the estimation of how old man is. It is almost as if they are playing "Name that tune in ___notes"
What do you mean by what is the name of my group?
I'd be embarrassed too if I belonged to some wacko cult.
Well you must be embarrassed because I still haven't heard the name of your group.
And by the way, "Chosen" refers to Jesus choosing me or anyone else who believes in Him. If you have a hard spot with that, take it up with HIM.
I find it interesting that you haven't really had any answers. You have gone into attack mode. I have a problem with your comments claiming an old earth. You say the Bible backs you up. But, does it? I think that you are using modern science to interpret the Bible. If the scientists say that the earth is billions of years old, and they have "proof", then the Bible's days must actually be symbolic and not literal. As a Christian, shouldn't you look to the Bible first? And look at fallible man secondary?
I know that it is hard for people to believe in what we can not see or understand. Science gives people something to hold on to. But, if you start by saying the Bible doesn't really mean 6 days, but each day was millions of years, then what else in the Bible can be re-interpreted using science? I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. I don't need science to explain it to me.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
The watermellons would want this state preserved if that's what the present conditions were.
You never asked me the name of my denomintion. I belong to a Presbyterian Church.
So your little cult doesn't have a name?
Look there is no global warming, okay? I'm in NJ and it snows here everyday. Last eummer, it only reached 90+ degrees briefly in early June and then we never saw that climate again. Did I mention it snows here everyday?
When DID those pesky little dinosaurs go away?
As a Christian, shouldn't you look to the Bible first?
I do. But you pretend that the bible and man's observations on the earth are mutually exclusive. The interpretation of what the bible says is the sticking point. Some people think that there is only one interpretation, theirs. And they are right, and thousands of years of scholarship by other Christians and Jews is wrong. Against all scholarship and evidence, some whacked out minister in some bizarre little cult is right, and everyone else is wrong. No wonder people end up at Jonestown and similar places.
For every poor fool looking for "a different way", there is some charlatan who is happy to take their money for his "Church of the what's happening now".
By your responses I would not have thought that you were a member of a Christian church. I am a member of the Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
http://www.evluthsyn.org/
There are rocks at that 4 billion years old. We can tell because they contain various types of lead that differ in the number of neutrons they contain, of exactly the types we see from the radioactive decay or uranium, in definite amounts. This much type A, this much type B, this much type C. We know the reactions that make each from higher up the chain of elements. The ratios between them change with time, because some of the higher up items in the chains leading to those end types are more stable than others, and hold things up for some routes more than other routes, through the list of intermediate stages.
If we look at the amount of A vs the amount of B and hypothesize "this came from decay of uranium", we can calculate from the rates of decay we see, what the implied age of the sample is. But one such ratio could be just a coincidence. So we check it - what about the ratio of A to C? Gives another date. Happens to be the same date, about. OK, maybe that is a coincidence - so we check it. We look at the ratio of B to C. That gives a third date, a third age for the same sample. Bang on the other two. Every time. Rocks brought up from deep strata, off in podunk, that nobody could possibly know or care about (in Australia e.g.). 4 billion years three ways, every time.
Now, maybe that is some truly elaborately conceived initial condition put their on purpose. But it sure as heck ain't a coincidence. And what imaginable process goes out of its way to fiddle with three tuned ratios of amounts of atomic varieties of lead, differing by a few extra neutrons, buries the result under acres of rock at the ends of the earth, then goes around doing the same thing everywhere? I mean, is it supposed to be a prank of the gods, or what? Or did something rejigger the laws of physics to make radioactive decay happen differently in the past, just for kicks? Unless you think so, and there is literally no earthly reason to think so, there are rocks billions of years old.
And what imaginable process goes out of its way to fiddle with three tuned ratios of amounts of atomic varieties of lead, differing by a few extra neutrons, buries the result under acres of rock at the ends of the earth, then goes around doing the same thing everywhere?
The same Process that created the human body. And, by the way, why do we keep getting updated age of earth or age of bones? Talk about fiddling, consider the following in the case of the ordinary bee:
In 3 days the egg of the queen is hatched
It is fed for 9 days (3x3)
It reaches maturity in 15 days (3x5)
The worker grub reaches maturity in 21 days (7x3)
And it is at work 3 days after leaving it's cell
The drone matures in 24 days (8x3)
The bee is composed of 3 sections-head and two stomachs
The two eyes are made up of about 3,000 small eyes,
each (like the cells of the comb)having 6 sides (2x3)
Underneath the body are 6 (2x3)wax scales with which
the the comb is made
It has 6 (2x3)legs. Each leg is composed of 3 sections
The foot is formed of 3 triangular sections
The antennae consist of 9 (3x3) sections
The sting has 9 (3x3) barbs on each side.
Coincidence? Not if you believe what the God of Bible is capable of doing.
The procedure you quote should be good from square one and not need to be "readjusted". But then again, these readjustments are done by humans who are always looking to make grand discoveries in order to elevate their status in the scientific field. ("The fool says in his heart, there is no God")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.