Posted on 08/16/2009 10:12:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Governments today are trying to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the air, because they fear that the greenhouse effect (which traps heat trying to leave the earth) of CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe. They point to computer simulations suggesting that result. But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Ping!
I’m off to church :o)
All the best—GGG
I'm right behind you! Thanks for the ping... will read upon my return.
Pulling our legs ~ I’m laughing so hard almost fell off the chair ~
Ah heck.....what does he know? Just cause he got it right don’t mean nothin......(sarc)
So much more God with billions of years behind Him.
Creationists vs. the Global Warming crowd - arguing science!
This should be even more interesting & educational than midget mud wrestling!
Thanks for the ping!
A few days ago the guys over at Powerline alerted readers to the new website “Minnesotans for Global Warming”. It’s worth looking at if only for their theme song! It’s a hoot!
Why are you publishing pro-global warming articles?
“The greenhouse effect of the very much higher carbon dioxide levels (15 times current) probably contributed to a warm, relatively uniform climate over the whole earth, just as the fossils show.”
I’m all for a warming period where greenland gets to live up to its name again, aren’t you?
What you want doesn't matter. Why are you posting articles that blame global warming on CO2?
Interesting use of keywords ... catholic, christian, judaism. Are not Catholics Christians?
Your pro-global warming article ignores continental drift!
Wasn't it 1,857 years?
“Some secular geoscientists are aware of the higher CO2 levels in the past, but they are not generally speaking out against the prevailing “politically correct” policies, which are trying to limit carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global warming. Part of their silence may be due to fear of the science establishment, but it may also stem from lack of understanding of why the world of the fossils had so much more carbon dioxide than today’s world. To the secular scientist, it is a mystery.”
—What in incredibly bizarre paragraph, and a poor attempt at mind reading. The danger (according to those that believe it’s a danger) of the increasing levels of CO2 is not that CO2 levels are reaching some dangerous level per se - it’s that the change is occurring so fast. If the change were occurring much more slowly, it probably wouldn’t be seen as a danger at all. After all, at times in the past with 10x the CO2 levels life did just fine. However, they had a biosphere that was adapted for such an environment. If we had a biosphere adapted for CO2 levels 10x what they are now, it would be viewed as just as dangerous to have the CO2 levels suddenly drop to current levels. Thus it’s the *rapid change* that’s viewed as the danger.
Also, it is known why CO2 levels were higher at various times in the past. At times it was due to volcanic eruptions, at other times due to changes in the biosphere. When CO2 levels were at their highest point in the past 60 million years, it was due to India crashing into Asia which crushed large amounts of limestone into marble which releases CO2 (estimated at several hundred million tons of CO2 a year – a small fraction of what humans are releasing each year).
I wish I could say I was surprised, but your comprehension problems have long since ceased to amaze me. From the article:
‘However, the earth began warming following the end of “The Little Ice Age” (about 1850), well before the increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels.4 In fact, global temperatures have fallen over the past eight years, despite increases in emissions.’
Dr. Humpreys’ main point is that not only is global warming nothing to worry about, it should be welcomed, as it brings us closer to the original climate at the time of creation...a climate with ‘much less desert, and much more plant-growing land in higher latitudes than we have today.’
But seeing how you worship at the alter of materialism, I’m sure such a prospect has got you and your fellow Darwiniac global warming fanatics shacking in your jackboots.
Why am I not surprised that you are attempting to provide a rationale for the actions of whacked out darwiniac global warming alarmists? Like Dr. Humphreys points out, God created our planet’s atmosphere to be quite robust and stable, so there is no reason to panic over minor fluctuations in CO2. The original creation was designed to have more CO2 in the biosphere, which is what we appear to be heading back towards. Conversely, the one and only ice age was precipitated by the massive climate changes related to Noahetic flood. So no matter which way you slice it, there’s nothing to worry about in terms of climate change...that is until the Apocalypse...and when that day finally arrives, all the world’s scientists will be powerless to do anything about it (except to repent and ask God for His free gift of salvation purchased for us on the Cross of Calvary).
“Why am I not surprised that you are attempting to provide a rationale for the actions of whacked out darwiniac global warming alarmists?”
—Why am I not surprised that you are attempting to link global warming with Darwinism.
I wasn’t defending global warming - I think both both sides have good points. Humphreys, as usual however, didn’t make any good points for his side and didn’t address any points at all from the opposing side - good or bad - they were all bizarre strawmen. As in the past, he should do at least a few minutes of research before writing on a subject.
And nothing you said had anything to do with anything I said.
==Humphreys, as usual however, didn’t make any good points for his side and didn’t address any points at all from the opposing side
What do you mean by “as usual”? I have read his books, articles and scientific papers, and they are of far superior to the drivel that passes for science or science reporting emanating from the fanatical evo/global warming alarmists. And contrary to your baseless assertion, he corrected a number of global warming myths, and pointed to a much better creation science explanation for past and current climate activity.
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.