Religion II

[reckless]

Originally Posted by hcap

Global warming =Climate, Change and he is wrong no matter how you and alt science plays your silly word games.

What advanced degree in Science/Ecology did your hero, a first class fraud, Al Gore receive?

When did Al Gore, first rate charlatan and huckster, who prey on the stupidity of others, receive his Noble Prize?

How about all your other geniuses such as Leonard DiCaprio, Camaron Diaz, Don Cheadle --- where's their Nobel Prize or Ph.D?

Pertaining to knowledge and education... as I recall, Al Gore failed out Divinity School, of all things. He couldn't keep up with the program; too difficult.

No wonder Al Gore's the darling of every common sense denier on God's green earth. To these dunces, Al Gore is one smart guy ...

And to think there are clowns out there that question the bona fides of one Ivar Giaever, a legitimate person of Physics/Science and education... and a real Nobel Laureate!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by reckless

And to think there are clowns out there that question the bona fides of one Ivar Giaever, a legitimate person of Physics/Science and education... and a real Nobel Laureate!

As I said, you can pretty much find a Nobel Laureate to support any position you want. Old academic saying: for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. If Nobel Laureate in one of the sciences (not an Al Gore Nobel) was the be all and end all of credibility for anything else, including the earth sciences, there are dozens of such Nobel winners who would refute Giaever. The clear point about Giaever was by his own words he didn't know anything about climate change until he spent half a day googling. People who have spent a career researching a particular topic are expected by the torches and pitchforks crowd to yield to a guy who looked up climate change on the internet for half a day, ostensibly because it's a big conspiracy and four hours of googling proves that.

If you don't understand the science, it's easy to come to a false conclusion. If you don't believe that, read boxcar's treatises on the laws of the universe. For whatever reason you don't want to believe it, and finding someone with a credential to back that up is the Holy Grail of the climate conspiracy folks. As I said, the data will never be perfect enough to convince those who clearly don't have an open mind, either side.

I don't know what in your experience you know a lot about, but if someone came up to you and said, your lifetime of experience has been trumped by my half a day of research on the internet, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say, you got me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why use a sundial when I can get an atomic clock at Wal Mart for $19.95?

Because a sundial is a more poignant way of demonstrating how the movement of Time in the universe is as natural as the sun's rising and setting.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by reckless

What advanced degree in Science/Ecology did your hero, a first class fraud, Al Gore receive?

When did Al Gore, first rate charlatan and huckster, who prey on the stupidity of others, receive his Noble Prize?

How about all your other geniuses such as Leonard DiCaprio, Camaron Diaz, Don Cheadle --- where's their Nobel Prize or Ph.D?

Pertaining to knowledge and education... as I recall, Al Gore failed out Divinity School, of all things. He couldn't keep up with the program; too difficult.

No wonder Al Gore's the darling of every common sense denier on God's green earth. To these dunces, Al Gore is one smart guy ...

And to think there are clowns out there that question the bona fides of one Ivar Giaever, a legitimate person of Physics/Science and education... and a real Nobel Laureate!

Exactly. To deny Ivar in his field of expertise is like denying me in my field of biblical theology. Good post.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Not only are you wrong about religion, science and politics, current history is not one of your strong points either.

Do you have any evidence supporting YOUR claim that "they" changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
...........................................
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...al-warming.htm
Global Warming vs. Climate Change

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:


And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature.

Summary

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

I don't deny the phrase "climate change" hasn't been around for a long time.
But the only reason it became more popular than the phrase "global warming" is strictly for political reasons, since none of the predicted disasters directly associated with "global warming" have ever come to past.

Remember the day when mass hysteria would hit the airwaves at the advent of every new hurricane season, and how this year was going to be the worst ever, and we could expect at least a dozen hurricanes, and at least 3 of them would be Cat 5's, etc., etc.? Doom and Gloom were predicted every hurricane season. And this went on for years. And then someone wised up and figured out that if they keep making bogus gloom and doom predictions, they're going to lose credibility. So...they quit doing that -- what...about 10 or 15 years or so ago?

Enjoy the Kool Aid. At least load it up with a lot of ice, so that you might get some practical benefit from it during the upcoming summer...and hurricane season, of course.

[hcap]

Reckless as I said forget cherry picking one Nobel winner whether Giaever or Gore.
(And no this thread is not the appropriate place to compare Climate Change to religion.)

I wrote in post #2253......

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of Climate Change. One Nobel winner who is not a climatologist is pure cherry picking.

One Nobel Laureates versus 65 and more.

http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel...ates-meetings/
Nobel Laureates Issue A Call To Action On Climate Change
Quote:
...65 laureates gathered with 650 young scientists from 88 countries for a week of lectures and discussion that included several calls to action.
And

https://qz.com/444787/a-group-of-nob...limate-change/
A group of Nobel Laureates have signed a declaration calling for urgent action on climate change
Quote:
In 1955, partly out of urgency and partly out of guilt, a group of 52 Nobel Laureates signed a declaration on Mainau Island in Germany. Now, 60 years on, again out of a mix of urgency and guilt, a group of 36 Nobel prizewinners have signed a new Mainau Declaration (pdf) calling for urgent action on climate change. The document is open for other Nobel Laureates to join.

One more time.

(And no this thread is not the appropriate place to compare Climate Change to religion.)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, there is no one out there who would be able to refute my thesis that the Tri-unity of the Godhead finds its ground solidly in the OT. Certainly, "there are plenty out there who will completely" disagree with me. But not one who would be able to refute me.

I thought you were fond of that Jewish rabbi who you linked me to? No? Has your dark little heart grown cold toward that Jewish rabbi?

So...when all is said and done, you admit that there are plenty of Gentile bible language scholars out there who understand the Hebrew just as well Jewish rabbinical scholars do. Glad to see you have come around to my way of thinking. The only "remarkable" revelation you have shared with us is that many of those scholars would not agree with me and other scholars who believe the doctrine of the plurality of the Godhead has its roots deep in the OT scriptures. Really? Who would have ever thunk such a thing possible?

Now, here's your Mission Impossible: Go find someone who you think can refute my thesis about the Trinity and the OT. Don't waste your time looking around on this forum. No one is even close to being capable. You're going to have to search the Wild and Woolly WWW far and wide, from one corner to the other. Good luck with that. But who knows...Maybe you can find a Jewish rabbi, yet...

https://www.gci.org/god/elohim4

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You are wrong about time - ask a physicist instead of a theologian - and you are wrong about the evolution of the laws of the universe because, and I say this with all sincerity - you don't have the first clue about science.

You're fond of pointing out physicists say the universe had a beginning. Stephen Hawking said the universe had a beginning. That sounds suspiciously like "In the beginning..." But Hawking says, the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time were coincidental. And there is no possible way that even a creationist can come up with a contorted enough interpretation of Genesis to deny the beginning of the universe started with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Heavens and earth qualifies in any science book as a part of a universe. Unequivocally. The day four light argument is simply a diversion. Or as Monty Python noted, argument for the sake of arguing. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to time, evolution, or the laws of the universe, because if you did you'd realize how absurd your arguments are.

What I hope is clear to anyone who reads this thread is that you'd have to improve by double to get all the way up to just thickheaded. I've lost count of how many times I've said what I believe, but one, change in the universe is occurring because the universe is in constant motion. Evolution in the sense that species change (and have changed) is a theory that is generally accepted by biologists. It is not a law of the universe, and never was. Two, I've never wavered in my firm contention that the laws of the universe have never changed, and that is because they are irrespective of change due to genetic mutation or the motion of the universe, although such changes are in conformity with the laws of the universe.

Being able to quote hundreds of Bible verses from memory in no way qualifies one to comment on things they don't understand. And you clearly don't understand even rudimentary concepts of physics.

Oh, it does qualify me. Most especially, since you also appealed to the creation account to try to support your position. You're so in denial. Time was not created until all the celestial bodies were created on Day 4. The creation account is crystal clear on this. It's very telling that you have meticulously avoided the passage in vv.14-19, yet you pressed me to give you an answer on what the "light" was in vv.1-5. Now you, again, appeal to the phrase "In the beginning", erroneously thinking it means only in the "order of time" or "first in time". Yet, the Hebrew term Bree'shiyt (Strong's 7225) translated "in the beginning" has additional meanings. Now, permit someone who has infinitely greater knowledge of God's revelation, than you do, to explain this to you. Be still, infidel, and learn something of true spiritual value for once in your pathetic, masochistic life -- a life that apparently loves to be beaten down!

Verses 1-5 have deep theological-spiritual meaning (as do the texts that reveal what took place on Day 2 and 3). For example, there is a time coming when Christ will return to judge the world and after judgment day destroy this present order of things and create new heavens and a new earth. It could be said, in a theological sense, that that will be the "beginning" of eternity. Or it will be the "beginning" of the eternal, visible kingdom of Christ. Or that it is the "beginning" of something different...something new -- a beginning of a new order-- even though in the new heavens and new earth, Time will be non-existent. In other words, there is no "beginning" in terms of order of time of eternity. With this explanation as a backdrop, let's begin our journey on a word study of the aforementioned Hebrew term.

The Hebrew word for "in the beginning' above has multiple meanings. It can mean first in place, time, order or rank.. (Do you sense that you're already in trouble with all your ignorant whining about how "in the beginning" must only mean the order of time?) In Num 21:17, the NIV translates the term "first sign of his father's strength", talking about the father's firstborn son. Then in Deut 26:2, 10 the term is rendered twice as "first of all the produce". Deut 33:21 reads, "then he provided the first [part] for himself...". Num 15:21 translates the term, "from the first of your dough..." Num 24:20 teaches us that Amalek was "first of the nations", i.e. first in terms of primacy or rank. 2Chron 3:15 speaks of the "firstfruits of corn". In Job 8:7, the term is rendered, "though your beginning was insignificant..." (in other words your rank). Job 40:19 teaches that behemoth is "the chief of God's ways" (ASV) or "ranks first among the works of God" (NASB), etc, etc.

So, what we have in Gen 1:1 is a statement to the effect that "In the beginning [of the order of things] (the meaning of the opening phrase would not be changed at all if it read, "At the first, God created..."), not as you have naively assumed "In the beginning [of time]". This latter interpretation outright contradicts what Moses wrote when he got to Day 4 of Creation! And, yes, there is a theological reason why Moses wrote what he did in Gen 1:1 and then later in vv.14-19. In the case of the former, we should understand Moses subtly stating God's original intention or desire for a sinless, eternal order -- an eternal order that would, nevertheless, be postponed by the entrance of sin into this world (implied latter in vv.14-19), but will finally come to fruition when Christ returns to create the new heavens and the new earth. Even calling forth His eternal glory (light) to shine into the universe speaks poignantly to this original intent. This original intent will become a reality at the Second Coming of His Son. Implicit in this latter passage, conversely, is God's foreknowledge, based on his eternal decree, that sin would enter his pristine universe. How we can know this with certainty is by the creation of Time, since Time speaks only and strictly to temporality and, therefore, stands in sharp contrast to eternity. In fact, Time itself stands in stark contrast to an eternal, self-existing God.

This, sir, is the meaning of the opening phrase in scripture..."In the beginning". And not as your presupposition supposes. Time was created when all the celestial bodies were created on Day 4; for God ordained that these physical bodies would govern Time. In fact, this is emphasized three times in this passage. The greater light (the sun) would govern the day; the lesser light (the moon) would govern the night; and then finally that the stars, too, would give light to the earth and govern the day and the night. Even here, in this very passage, there is deep, profound, theological-spiritual meaning to this account of the creation of the celestial bodies. In fact, there is great significance to the number 3 in first 3 days of creation and to the number 4 in the 4th day. But I will not waste it upon you. In short, these celestial bodies would govern the changes of times, seasons, days, years and also act as signs. This is why temporal reality is not in view in v.1. It doesn't come front and center until the fourth day of creation.

You are dead wrong on what the "light" means (and what it's great significance is) in vv.1-5, and what the opening phrase means in v.1 because like all infidels you make no effort to understand these passages either in their immediate context or the larger context of all God's counsel.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

https://www.gci.org/god/elohim4

Now, get the writer over here so that I can dialogue with him. You're useless as a self-appointed wanna-be surrogate, since you're a self-confessed ignoramus, Mr. No Answers.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now, get the writer over here so that I can dialogue with him. You're useless as a self-appointed wanna-be surrogate, since you're a self-confessed ignoramus, Mr. No Answers.

Dialogue with what he wrote...which I presented you...from a NON-JEWISH site no less...no "JEWISH RABBIS" to be found...

In fact, the link I presented you is FROM YOUR KIND OF PEOPLE (EVANGELICALS):

https://www.gci.org/aboutus/gci-denomination

You're nothing but a fraud. A complete fake and a fraud who has no interest in doing anything but hear himself talk. You have no interest in what I or anyone else has to say. Whether they be Jewish or Christian...

Go to hell.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh, it does qualify me. Most especially, since you also appealed to the creation account to try to support your position. You're so in denial. Time was not created until all the celestial bodies were created on Day 4. The creation account is crystal clear on this. It's very telling that you have meticulously avoided the passage in vv.14-19, yet you pressed me to give you an answer on what the "light" was in vv.1-5. Now you, again, appeal to the phrase "In the beginning", erroneously thinking it means only in the "order of time" or "first in time". Yet, the Hebrew term Bree'shiyt (Strong's 7225) translated "in the beginning" has additional meanings. Now, permit someone who has infinitely greater knowledge of God's revelation, than you do, to explain this to you. Be still, infidel, and learn something of true spiritual value for once in your pathetic, masochistic life -- a life that apparently loves to be beaten down!

Verses 1-5 have deep theological-spiritual meaning (as do the texts that reveal what took place on Day 2 and 3). For example, there is a time coming when Christ will return to judge the world and after judgment day destroy this present order of things and create new heavens and a new earth. It could be said, in a theological sense, that that will be the "beginning" of eternity. Or it will be the "beginning" of the eternal, visible kingdom of Christ. Or that it is the "beginning" of something different...something new -- a beginning of a new order-- even though in the new heavens and new earth, Time will be non-existent. In other words, there is no "beginning" in terms of order of time of eternity. With this explanation as a backdrop, let's begin our journey on a word study of the aforementioned Hebrew term.

The Hebrew word for "in the beginning' above has multiple meanings. It can mean first in place, time, order or rank.. (Do you sense that you're already in trouble with all your ignorant whining about how "in the beginning" must only mean the order of time?) In Num 21:17, the NIV translates the term "first sign of his father's strength", talking about the father's firstborn son. Then in Deut 26:2, 10 the term is rendered twice as "first of all the produce". Deut 33:21 reads, "then he provided the first [part] for himself...". Num 15:21 translates the term, "from the first of your dough..." Num 24:20 teaches us that Amalek was "first of the nations", i.e. first in terms of primacy or rank. 2Chron 3:15 speaks of the "firstfruits of corn". In Job 8:7, the term is rendered, "though your beginning was insignificant..." (in other words your rank). Job 40:19 teaches that behemoth is "the chief of God's ways" (ASV) or "ranks first among the works of God" (NASB), etc, etc.

So, what we have in Gen 1:1 is a statement to the effect that "In the beginning [of the order of things] (the meaning of the opening phrase would not be changed at all if it read, "At the first, God created..."), not as you have naively assumed "In the beginning [of time]". This latter interpretation outright contradicts what Moses wrote when he got to Day 4 of Creation! And, yes, there is a theological reason why Moses wrote what he did in Gen 1:1 and then later in vv.14-19. In the case of the former, we should understand Moses subtly stating God's original intention or desire for a sinless, eternal order -- an eternal order that would, nevertheless, be postponed by the entrance of sin into this world (implied latter in vv.14-19), but will finally come to fruition when Christ returns to create the new heavens and the new earth. Even calling forth His eternal glory (light) to shine into the universe speaks poignantly to this original intent. This original intent will become a reality at the Second Coming of His Son. Implicit in this latter passage, conversely, is God's foreknowledge, based on his eternal decree, that sin would enter his pristine universe. How we can know this with certainty is by the creation of Time, since Time speaks only and strictly to temporality and, therefore, stands in sharp contrast to eternity. In fact, Time itself stands in stark contrast to an eternal, self-existing God.

This, sir, is the meaning of the opening phrase in scripture..."In the beginning". And not as your presupposition supposes. Time was created when all the celestial bodies were created on Day 4; for God ordained that these physical bodies would govern Time. In fact, this is emphasized three times in this passage. The greater light (the sun) would govern the day; the lesser light (the moon) would govern the night; and then finally that the stars, too, would give light to the earth and govern the day and the night. Even here, in this very passage, there is deep, profound, theological-spiritual meaning to this account of the creation of the celestial bodies. In fact, there is great significance to the number 3 in first 3 days of creation and to the number 4 in the 4th day. But I will not waste it upon you. In short, these celestial bodies would govern the changes of times, seasons, days, years and also act as signs. This is why temporal reality is not in view in v.1. It doesn't come front and center until the fourth day of creation.

You are dead wrong on what the "light" means (and what it's great significance is) in vv.1-5, and what the opening phrase means in v.1 because like all infidels you make no effort to understand these passages either in their immediate context or the larger context of all God's counsel.

Only you would know. If I spent the rest of my life trying to think up horseshit, I couldn't hold a candle to you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't deny the phrase "climate change" hasn't been around for a long time.
But the only reason it became more popular than the phrase "global warming" is strictly for political reasons, since none of the predicted disasters directly associated with "global warming" have ever come to past.

Remember the day when mass hysteria would hit the airwaves at the advent of every new hurricane season, and how this year was going to be the worst ever, and we could expect at least a dozen hurricanes, and at least 3 of them would be Cat 5's, etc., etc.? Doom and Gloom were predicted every hurricane season. And this went on for years. And then someone wised up and figured out that if they keep making bogus gloom and doom predictions, they're going to lose credibility. So...they quit doing that -- what...about 10 or 15 years or so ago?

Enjoy the Kool Aid. At least load it up with a lot of ice, so that you might get some practical benefit from it during the upcoming summer...and hurricane season, of course.

I know why the term climate change replaced global warming. I was there when it did. And it was not strictly for political reasons.

If you understood how hurricanes form and why, you might understand the genesis of any prediction. But since you don't understand physics or climate science, I wouldn't expect you to know why anyone would speculate about weather. And you didn't disappoint us. You don't. You ever try to predict the path a hurricane takes? Do you have any clue why some hurricanes make landfall and some don't? Do you understand how meteorologists predict weather (which is different than climate)?

In the last 11 years we've had two of the most destructive hurricanes in history find land in the United States. Sandy and Katrina. There is a critical phrase in there. Land in the United States. A hurricane that doesn't make landfall, doesn't really count does it. And if it doesn't hit the United States, it's really not our problem, is it. How about Matthew wiping out most of southern Haiti and killing hundreds in 2016? How about Ike leaving Galveston crippled in 2008. I could go on.

The great thing about being you is that information is all relative to what you already believe. Facts? You laugh at facts? Science? For fools.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Why isn't his fat ass riding the pine for a month in blessed silence?

Like the good Lord, I also work in mysterious ways...

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Exactly. To deny Ivar in his field of expertise is like denying me in my field of biblical theology. Good post.

His "field of expertise" is physics which is not close to expertise in weather and climate. His Nobel was for experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors. Again, nothing to do with paleoclimatology or climatology in general. By his own words he knew nothing about climate change until he spent half a day googling on the internet.

By that measure, we have dozens of experts on biblical theology right here on PA.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Only you would know. If I spent the rest of my life trying to think up horseshit, I couldn't hold a candle to you.

Then you should work really, really hard to cease and desist from thinking up your own horse manure. To tell us (no doubt with a straight face) that the universe did not evolve and is not evolving flies in the face of the Law of Identity, since this non-evolving universe somehow, someway found a way to act contrary to its nature by evolving biological lifeforms. But an entity cannot act contrary to its essence (nature)! Therefore, how could this non-evolving universe still manage to produce evolving biological lifeforms? (Is this your personal, naturalistic version of the "virgin birth"? A miracle really happened?)

Moreover, the dichotomy you have established between biology and physics is a false one because biology is an intricate part of the physical processes of the entire universe. Biology could not happen apart from these physical processes.
Biological life did not occur inside a vacuum. It occurred inside of and as a part of the universe. The universe, therefore, was quite amenable, supportive and sympathetic to biological evolution, since it itself evolved over a gazillion ages.