Christianity debate

[LogansPapa]

Let's go to Mr. Logic's Street for a moment and actually think about the Earth being created in the year 4004BC.

The Earth was created, with everything on it, man & woman were installed - were not incestuous, a body of people were created, tools were created, structures were created, Noah built his great vessel and got all the animal species - two by two together - from all over the globe, the Great Flood swept all that away, fish that were once in salt water survived in fresh (I can only guess), man and woman started over again - again without any incest, the Pyramids were built (a few millennium before Christ walked the Earth (according to those lying Egyptian calendars), The Chinese society rose and fell half a dozen times, and we ended up here digging in the ground asking - what were those Neanderthal guys anyway?

[Vepr]

Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc

[FlaGator]

Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc

The stoning scene was my personal favorite.

[FlaGator]

[QUOTE=The Night Owl;11623]Scientists have studied all the natural factors which contribute to climate and have determined that they alone cannot account for the rising temperatures on Earth.
[quote]
That is not data. That is opinion. There is historical evidence of huge climate swings both high and low that were completely unaided by man's contribution. Since these changes are factual based on the geologic record then how can scientist determine that all the natural factors have been accounted for when they don't even know what all the natural factors might be? In this case they are offering their best guess in trying to model a system that is much to complex to model and they don't even know what all the variables are. This is less accurate than the meteorologist on the nightly news trying to predict accurately tomorrow's weather.

Anyways, I want to avoid getting in to dueling reports. Since the scientists can't agree on global warming or whether solar radiation is increasing or decreasing then I guess the point is moot. Each of us will gravitate to the scientifc view point that most closely matches are own and this debate will go on until earth melts or hell freezes over.

[The Night Owl]

That is not data. That is opinion.

The opinion is scientific and is based on analysis of the data.

There is historical evidence of huge climate swings both high and low that were completely unaided by man's contribution. Since these changes are factual based on the geologic record then how can scientist determine that all the natural factors have been accounted for when they don't even know what all the natural factors might be? In this case they are offering their best guess in trying to model a system that is much to complex to model and they don't even know what all the variables are.

What is the basis for your claim that scientists haven't accounted for all natural factors which contribute to climate? What do you think they've missed?

Anyways, I want to avoid getting in to dueling reports. Since the scientists can't agree on global warming or whether solar radiation is increasing or decreasing then I guess the point is moot. Each of us will gravitate to the scientifc view point that most closely matches are own and this debate will go on until earth melts or hell freezes over.

Scientists are in agreement that solar irradiance has been more or less level since the late 1970s. Whether irriadiance has increased or decreased slightly is climatologically insignificant. Even the Science Daily article you cited indicated that solar output does not account for the recent temperature trend on Earth.

For those who want to follow what the Sun is doing, the following is a good site...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/f...html#composite

[biccat]

What is the basis for your claim that scientists haven't accounted for all natural factors which contribute to climate? What do you think they've missed?

Curious, although not surprising, that a debate on religious beliefs has turned into a debate on Global Warming. Will Reverand Al preach to us next?


(as reconstructed by oxygen isotope ratios)

[wilbur]

From what I understand, global warming isn't theorized strictly because of temperature changes... it's because dramatic spike in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. This doesn't prove humans are the cause of the CO2 increases but it's a damn strong correlation. The Earth does go through cycles where the CO2 level gradually rises to what they are today, but no where near as precipitously fast as it has since we started spewing it out of factories and automobiles (or cattle?).

If you believe dramatically increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (in addition to what the earth generates naturally) can potentially cause major shifts in the climate, then there is nothing far fetched about global warming (aka climate change).

Yes, climate change is pretty solid scientific theory, despite the loons attached to it, and despite their just-as-loony polar opposites that claim it's a fairy tale (Rush L.). Both use the theory as a way to further their political agenda. But just like evolution, big bang, or any other scientific theory global warming does not automatically justify or force you to adopt certain political positions.