Religion II

[reckless]

Not sure if this is the correct place for this, but since the Speaker called this subject a 'Religion', we both feel this is an appropriate place.

The entire talk is worth your time but the first 4-5 minutes is especially enlightening -- except to the lunatics who might have another opinion:

YouTube

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by reckless

Not sure if this is the correct place for this, but since the Speaker called this subject a 'Religion', we both feel this is an appropriate place.

You're in the right place. Several have swallowed that Kool Aid and there is no arguing with them.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

You're in the right place. Several have swallowed that Kool Aid and there is no arguing with them.

Ivar Giaever, a prime example of fake news for Climate Change Denialists, just like the alt right nonsense that thinks everything but their claptrap is "fake"

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of Climate Change. One Nobel winner who is not a climatologist is pure cherry picking. And no this thread is not the appropriate place to compare Climate Change to religion.

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

...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

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.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Ivar Giaever, a prime example of fake news for Climate Change Denialists,

Glaever is talking about Global Warming.
That title mutated to Climate Change which is less debatable, since the Climate has always been changing.
People like yourself still believe in Global Warming, but don't pound that drum so much any more.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Glaever is talking about Global Warming.
That title mutated to Climate Change which is less debatable, since the Climate has always been changing.
People like yourself still believe in Global Warming, but don't pound that drum so much any more.

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

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

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

At least you're right that it probably belongs in a different thread as this one is more concerned with Spiritual matters.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by hcap

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

This issue demonstrates the fantastic power of deep pocketed special interest to shape the opinions of laymen. The tobacco companys used the same playbook for years to conceal the harmful affects of cigarette smoking.

These scumbags are all under oath. And internal documents later proved that they all KNEW they were lying and that cigarettes were in fact engineered to be additive.

YouTube

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Hank

This issue demonstrates the fantastic power of deep pocketed special interest to shape the opinions of laymen. The tobacco companys used the same playbook for years to conceal the harmful affects of cigarette smoking.

These scumbags are all under oath. And internal documents later proved that they all KNEW they were lying and that cigarettes were in fact engineered to be additive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08

But the "alternative-fact universe" is much worse.

Today in TRUMPLANDIA anything can pass as fact if the reality denying Dumpster dwelling anti-science crowd has a loud enough voice. Unfortunately there are a bunch here doing just that without making the PROPER effort to discriminates fact from fantasy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Of all the incredibly dumb arguments you've offered, saying the verses say nothing about the sun so we don't know if it was fixed, is perhaps the dumbest.
The New International Version (used by Liberty University) says

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So apparently Verses 1-5 did talk about light. I'd love to hear your delusional explanation for how light didn't mean the sun. (Oh, it comes later. You have your theological light and you other light, but at some point although Genesis doesn't use the word, the sun somehow came into existence.)

For this to mean anything other than the sun was in a fixed position and the earth was rotating on its axis would be a lunatic interpretation. Not only do I read far better than you could ever hope to, I understand far better than you could ever hope to. What was the light if not the sun? Was it like your bedroom light where the earth was still (which would make one side eternally dark and the other side light when he had the switch on). Completely dimwitted to even suggest there wasn't a sun (but there was some other source of light) and the earth was not spinning so that one side of the earth was always dark (we know how that works from THE MOON). The side that was light in YOUR version had the light blink on in the morning and late in the evening. Are you smart enough to figure out how dumb that sound?


It is another moronic argument. You don't understand what a law of the universe is, and despite multiple efforts to get you to understand it, your cognitive deficiencies prevent that from happening. Regardless of whether the universe was completed, by the time God was done, every law was in place and operational AND DID NOT EVOLVE as you suggest. Your attempt to dodge this issue by diverting the argument to day 4, is again without merit. Which law of the universe, according to your Bible, was not in effect on Day 1. What did the creation of light and the stars have to do with new laws of the universe? I already explained to you that the creating of matter and energy - which occurred in the beginning - explains the creation of the stars, and whatever else is in the sky. The ONLY possible explanation that works is that God did what only God can do - created more matter and energy as the days went on, thus violating the law of conservation of energy - energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed. This ridiculous assumption (yes, it's an assumption because your Bible does not make it in any way clear) makes less sense than the one I provided you, which works for both science and the Bible. You are grasping at straws. To not admit my explanation is consistent with the Bible simply amplifies your inability to comprehend. (The bullshit later notwithstanding.)


No, I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I've contended two things. One, that the laws of the universe were in place from the creation of the universe, and they have not changed since. And two, that contention is consistent with the Genesis version of creation.

I've asked you multiple times. Which law of the universe was not in place on Day 1? And moreover, all laws of the universe, even in your jumbled version, were in place before there was anyone around to notice, and they have never changed. Even in your illogical explanation, you contend that the laws appeared in some sequential manner, but not that there was a law in place that God changed from one day to the next. The Bible clearly gives you no clue about the laws of the universe, only the things that God created, and if God created them it only makes sense he made the laws that govern them.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. What I might believe about evolution is irrelevant to the argument at hand.



I'm hoping to stop laughing long enough to type. Time, as we know, was not a reality until Day 4? Really? We know that? The beginning didn't mean the beginning of the earth and the heavens? It was a time when only God existed? We have also proved that at the point at which the earth and the heavens came into existence, matter and energy were in an arena of time and space. There is also no logical explanation for the absence of time when a spinning earth existed in space. And you can't make it so.

Where in the hell did you come up with this? How could "In the beginning" mean something other than at the start of things? There was no spiritual or theological (a complete misuse of the word by the way) light. Genesis 1:2 says, "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Darkness. Doesn't that mean the absence of light over at the Creation Institute?

And this theological light shone on half the earth as the earth turned on its axis (well there's a big concession - the earth was spinning)? This theological light that broke the darkness Genesis 1:2 says existed?

You couldn't convince a five year old that your explanation even begins to make sense. If time is produced by physical, celestial bodies in motion, and the earth was spinning after it was created, you just contradicted yourself on the beginning of time. The fact that you can't see that you make no sense and contradict yourself, would embarrass someone with any self-respect. Lucky for you....


I'd honestly like to hear a consensus of Biblical scholars (not from the third standard deviation to the right part of the religious community) who would agree with this, because you really have to torture the words to make them mean something other than the plain and clear meaning.

In any case, you completely dodged the issue of which laws of the universe did exist "in the beginning." Even the creation of light or trees or whatever, did not have to occur as a result of the evolution of universal laws. Once God created matter and energy in an arena of time and space he had created - and even your Creation Institute agrees with this definition - a universe. Even your verses say he placed lights and stars and whatever in the space he had created. To try to have a ridiculous discussion about the type of light is only your feeble attempt to dodge the issue. Laws of the universe.

You have not come up with one law that "evolved" since the beginning. The best you have offered is that there must have been new laws on Day 4 or something. It only underscores your lack of understanding of laws of the universe, which I believe is something we've established quite a few posts ago.

Not a single one of your arguments proves your statement - your started the discussion - that the laws of the universe have changed over time. You couldn't offer any proof - even fake proof from the Bible - that anything in Genesis even implied a change in physical law. And even if you could possibly come up with such an explanation - and you can't - from the beginning of recorded history there has been no change in physical laws.

The metaphorical nature of Genesis is an entirely different issue. This isn't about the young earth. For you to believe something it had to be proven within the context of your book. I proved that Genesis is consistent with the statement, the laws of the universe have not changed since the beginning of the universe. The converse is also true. There is nothing in Genesis that contradicts the statement. Nothing you have offered has the slightest relevance to the contention the laws of the universe have not evolved. You have offered not one single piece of evidence - in fact you've regularly contradicted yourself - that that statement is provably false. Even light A versus light B has nothing to do with changing the laws of the universe. That statement in Genesis is perfectly consistent with the idea that the laws of the universe were in place and didn't change.

The fact that you can't see this stuff would be comical if you weren't so insistent the your ability to interpret plain language in whatever way you want could prove anything. You failed the test. You couldn't list a single law of the universe that evolved or continues to evolve.

In the words of fearless leader, what a loser.

There you go...you're becoming very uncivil, crass and socially-challenged. Typical of you when you can't face the truth of scripture. Tell me what you think these verses are teaching us. Would love to hear your interpretation.

Gen 1:14-19
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so. 16 And God MADE THE TWO GREAT LIGHTS, THE GREATER LIGHT TO GOVERN THE DAY, AND THE LESSER LIGHT TO GOVERN THE LIGHT; HE MADE THE STARS ALSO. 17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, A FOURTH DAY
NASB

So...it seems to me that on the FOURTH DAY, God created all the celestial bodies that would light up the universe in general and the earth in particular. Not on Day 1, as you are so desperately hoping for. But in addition to this, the passage clearly tells us that those celestial bodies are what actually GOVERN Time. Now, Shirley, you do believe that the physical laws of the universe are what GOVERN all activity and change in this universe, am I correct? So then...Mr. Halv, what don't you understand in the above passage? It clearly and plainly teaches us that ALL the celestial bodies were created on the fourth day and that God ordained that those bodies govern Time. Therefore, the laws of the universe that govern Time were not in place until Day 4.

Regarding vv. 1-5, I will provide only two clues as to what the light is in this passage. The light is God himself (1Jn 1:5). And the light in the passage is the same light spoken of in such passages as Isa 60:19-20; Rev 21:23; 22:5 that will illuminate the universe, generally, and the earth, particularly, after Christ returns and restores all things. So, yes, the "beginning" began in v. 1 when God shone his light into the universe -- but the beginning didn't begin with the sun, moon and stars in place in Day 1, all of which govern Time. The real meaning behind the light in vv.1-5 is spiritual in nature and speaks to the spiritual reality of two spiritual kingdoms in this world -- the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, which is precisely why God separated the [kingdom of] light from the [kingdom of] darkness. -- Live it, love it and learn it.

It must really suck raw eggs to be proved wrong time and time again every time you and I have a dialogue. You should really quit while you're only this far behind, unless of course, you have overwhelming masochistic tendencies. If so, who am I to deprive you of the beating for which you crave?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

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

It was the environmental whackos who started this word game when the data didn't fit the "warming" narrative. They changed it to climate change because that provides an infinitely broader playing field that the whackos can use to make their arguments sound feasible. If it's colder one decade, that's due to man-made climate change. If its warmer another decade, that's also due to man-made climate change. You know how this goes: Heads I win, tails you lose. In such a broad playing field any narrative can be made to fit.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It was the environmental whackos who started this word game when the data didn't fit the "warming" narrative. They changed it to climate change because that provides an infinitely broader playing field that the whackos can use to make their arguments sound feasible. If it's colder one decade, that's due to man-made climate change. If its warmer another decade, that's also due to man-made climate change. You know how this goes: Heads I win, tails you lose. In such a broad playing field any narrative can be made to fit.

Voila..right on cue, the poster boy for laymen with Zero scientific acumen or training rushes in to confirm his laughable ignorance.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[hcap]

Global warming vs climate change

More Boxcarian nonsense and denier folklore.

Global warming vs climate change

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...al-warming.htm

There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

Environmental wackos? I suppose you are referring to environmentalists and and anti-pollution supporters

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by reckless

Not sure if this is the correct place for this, but since the Speaker called this subject a 'Religion', we both feel this is an appropriate place.

The entire talk is worth your time but the first 4-5 minutes is especially enlightening -- except to the lunatics who might have another opinion:

His bona fides should have been clear at the point he said, I didn't know anything about climate change...so I spent half a day on Google.

The cultural and cognitive filters in human brains makes it easy for anyone to build a following and then go out and find a winner of a physics Nobel whose views mesh with their own on energy and climate challenges. And unless your perspective is "liberal" it isn't hard to find overwhelming support on PA for the kind of position Ivar Giaever promotes.

The point for most people here is that they may not have even as as much scientific knowledge as Giaever, but it doesn't stop them from being convinced they are completely right.

I'm not going to go through Giaever's arguments since that would have zero effect on people who have already come to a conclusion, and I've certainly learned from debating with boxcar that being right counts for very little in a discussion with the zealot. I think Andrew Revkin makes the point very well.

The predispositions within us, which are amplified these days by polarized media and politics, almost guarantee that even “perfect information” on climate will never magically galvanize the kind of response that would be required to decarbonize human energy choices even as human appetites and numbers crest.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There you go...you're becoming very uncivil, crass and socially-challenged. Typical of you when you can't face the truth of scripture. Tell me what you think these verses are teaching us. Would love to hear your interpretation.

Gen 1:14-19
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so. 16 And God MADE THE TWO GREAT LIGHTS, THE GREATER LIGHT TO GOVERN THE DAY, AND THE LESSER LIGHT TO GOVERN THE LIGHT; HE MADE THE STARS ALSO. 17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, A FOURTH DAY
NASB

So...it seems to me that on the FOURTH DAY, God created all the celestial bodies that would light up the universe in general and the earth in particular. Not on Day 1, as you are so desperately hoping for. But in addition to this, the passage clearly tells us that those celestial bodies are what actually GOVERN Time. Now, Shirley, you do believe that the physical laws of the universe are what GOVERN all activity and change in this universe, am I correct? So then...Mr. Halv, what don't you understand in the above passage? It clearly and plainly teaches us that ALL the celestial bodies were created on the fourth day and that God ordained that those bodies govern Time. Therefore, the laws of the universe that govern Time were not in place until Day 4.

Regarding vv. 1-5, I will provide only two clues as to what the light is in this passage. The light is God himself (1Jn 1:5). And the light in the passage is the same light spoken of in such passages as Isa 60:19-20; Rev 21:23; 22:5 that will illuminate the universe, generally, and the earth, particularly, after Christ returns and restores all things. So, yes, the "beginning" began in v. 1 when God shone his light into the universe -- but the beginning didn't begin with the sun, moon and stars in place in Day 1, all of which govern Time. The real meaning behind the light in vv.1-5 is spiritual in nature and speaks to the spiritual reality of two spiritual kingdoms in this world -- the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, which is precisely why God separated the [kingdom of] light from the [kingdom of] darkness. -- Live it, love it and learn it.

It must really suck raw eggs to be proved wrong time and time again every time you and I have a dialogue. You should really quit while you're only this far behind, unless of course, you have overwhelming masochistic tendencies. If so, who am I to deprive you of the beating for which you crave?

The fact that you continue to resist the point of the discussion - that the laws of the universe have not changed or evolved - really tells everyone who reads this that you were wrong and you knew you were wrong. You made a completely ignorant statement - that the laws of the universe have been evolving along with scientific theories. You have no leg to stand on with your position, and the fact that you avoid the proof - showing that any law of the universe has changed from the beginning to the end - is proof in itself that your opinion has no weight. It is a fantasy that exists only in your mind. The diversion about light does not prove anything about the laws of the universe. Moreover, the plain language in the NIV equally supports the idea that even if you are as big a bible thumper as you are, there is no contradiction between the creation of energy and matter in the beginning in an arena of space and time - a universe - and the rest of that chapter except in your mind. But even so, it has nothing to do with the laws of the universe evolving. In the beginning...what could be plainer?

I could care less what you think about Genesis. Never did care. I used it to prove you are wrong in your own arena. Until you come up with proof that any law of the universe has evolved - and believe me, nothing you've said about lights or stars or the fantastical idea that there was a "theological light" (to achieve the interpretation that "Let there be light" didn't mean the sun, but some fable of a theological light never plainly stated in Genesis) says anything about the laws of the universe.

You have been wrong every time you've had a discussion with me. The fact that I eventually give up the discussion is only reflective of the fact you have an inability to understand science or logic. This time is no different. I really have no respect for the willfully ignorant, of which you might be the most willful. This discussion is at an end because you've been given multiple opportunities to prove your premise about the laws of the universe and you've failed, with no likelihood you will ever come up with the proof.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Global warming vs climate change

More Boxcarian nonsense and denier folklore.

Global warming vs climate change

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...al-warming.htm

Environmental wackos? I suppose you are referring to environmentalists and and anti-pollution supporters

The change to Climate Change was strictly a calculated political move designed as a CYA maneuver for when we never get to see icebergs floating off our shores, or oceans encroaching on the Great Plains, plus the added advantage of broadening the narrative when don't see those things happen and attribute it to cooling of the planet, i.e. "[a] climate [under] change". As I said, it was a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy, a/k/a duplicity.