ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Science Conflicts With Bible

Is science in conflict with the Bible?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---Jerry6593 on 8/10/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Are you saying that 97% of the world's scientists are all doing it wrong, because they ALL have scientific methodologies that are so lax as to ignore important data, yet only the remaining 3% are doing it right?---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
The majority says?
I admit, that does seems to be the way to go, but that's just one of mans foibles, a character flaw of which we should be cautious.

My brother, there are many biblical instances where the majority was wrong. As a mater of fact, I don't think there is one biblical account where they were right.

Remember, it was the majority who crucified Christ. Many will also perish, and few will be saved. Caution my friend, when you side with the majority.
---David on 9/2/16


Samuel: CO2 is not a pollutant! It is necessary for life on our planet. It is used by plants to make oxygen for US. It is part of God's design for our survival.

We have laws in the US protecting our air and water quality. The Federal Gov. is the biggest violator of those laws. Taxing already overburdened citizens to reduce CO2 is a Gov. con to further enslave us.

If liberal whackos want to "save the planet" by reducing atmospheric CO2, they should stop exhaling!



---Jerry6593 on 9/2/16


/There is no scenario where one should give more weight to the conclusions of 3% than 97%.\-StrongAxe on 9/1/16
-What if the 3% are right?
-Again, majority or consensus does not equate to truth.
Hitler rose to power by majority and the minority suffered.
Most of our president's won having a majority behind them.
How many of those have you disagreed with?
White is the majority, but it does make them right.
---micha9344 on 9/1/16


Steveng:

You wrote: Have you not heard that wide is the crooked road to death and narrow is the straight way to truth? (,=)

That is about salvation, not science.

Besides, science can't even agree if coffee and eggs are good for you or bad for you.

If one trusts science, one should likely give more weight to the conclusions of 97% than of 3%. If one doesn't trust science, one should distrust them equally. There is no scenario where one should give more weight to the conclusions of 3% than 97%.
---StrongAxe on 9/1/16


The problem Steveng is that bad science is often reported as truth. It often takes a little digging and fact checking to find the truth.

The CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising. That is pollution. So are you arguing that pollution is a good thing?

Personally I like my air to be breathable.

Has the ocean risen and gotten more acidic. That is a fact.

I have problems with the Chicken little alarmist. And also with hide your head in the sand and it will go away leaders who profit from putting out pollution.

Think about the middle of the road. Let us reduce pollution and work to keep our planet livable.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/31/16




StrongAxe wrote: "When 97% of the world's scientists claim something that differs from the claims of the other 3%, their claims carry weight, and much more weight than that of the 3%'

Have you not heard that wide is the crooked road to death and narrow is the straight way to truth? (,=)

Besides, science can't even agree if coffee and eggs are good for you or bad for you.
---Steveng on 8/31/16


David:

You wrote: They don't use the 1000 year data, because if they did, many of their followers would see it as a weather cycle, not the end of the world.

Unfortunately, data hasn't been collected for most of the past 1000 years. Are you saying that 97% of the world's scientists are all doing it wrong, because they ALL have scientific methodologies that are so lax as to ignore important data, yet only the remaining 3% are doing it right?
---StrongAxe on 8/31/16


Global warming should be watched. Not with the hysterical ideas of some. But in never hurts to quit polluting the air we breath and the water we drink. ---Samuelbb7

Samuel
I agree.
Though I don't believe man can destroy the Earth, I do believe man can destroy it's beauty. As seen in the waters and air we have polluted.
---David on 8/30/16


Consider the United states is less then two hundred years old. They cannot use that for here. England they have some ideas. But in 1016 not many people were recording the Temperature.

Global warming should be watched. Not with the hysterical ideas of some. But in never hurts to quit polluting the air we breath and the water we drink.

Unless you like lead in your water?
---Samuelbb7 on 8/29/16


When 97% of the world's scientists claim something that differs from the claims of the other 3%, their claims carry weight, and much more weight than that of the 3%.---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
And there's the rub.
Global warming extremists are correct. But they broadcast the data for the last 100 years, not the last 1000 years.

The temperatures today, could be the hottest they have been in 100 years, but.....they are not the hottest temperatures in the last 1000 years.

They don't use the 1000 year data, because if they did, many of their followers would see it as a weather cycle, not the end of the world.
---David on 8/29/16




David:

You wrote: One thing I've learned about expert testimony, you can find one for every opinion.

This is why science is not based on single claims, but upon repeatability and peer review. The bible itself says truth is not established by a single claim, but by 2 or 3 witnesses.

When one person claims something unsupported by anyone else, he's a quack. When 97% of the world's scientists claim something that differs from the claims of the other 3%, their claims carry weight, and much more weight than that of the 3%.
---StrongAxe on 8/29/16


Does it hurt to work to keep the air clean and the water unpolluted? Both sides argue. But neither seems to be able to prove the other totally wrong.

Can excess pollution damage life on this planet. Yes.

So why should we advocate for pollution?
---Samuelbb7 on 8/28/16


StrongAxe,
If you want expert testimony, Google the article Twentieth Century climate, "Not so Hot".

It's a review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years.

One thing I've learned about expert testimony, you can find one for every opinion.
---David on 8/28/16


Allow me to throw in my two cents:

1. The temperatures of other planets are changing.

2. CO2 in the air is increasing, so is the foliage throughout the world to "breath" it in. Nature sure has a way to balance itself.

3. Global cooling began in the early 1970s when our solar system was entering a "space cloud" which reduced the sunlight from the sun. Scientists at the time said it would take forty to sixty years before exiting it.

4. CO2 is a whole lot minuscule than water vapor. We have more water vapor in the air now.

By these comments, this is not a winnable debate and it takes off our eyes from the gospel which also has different opinions on this site.
---Steveng on 8/28/16


Brendan: Good posts. You are right about the Ice Age of the 70's. I remember it. And who could forget the Ozone Hole Scare of the 80's that got R12 refrigerant eliminated. (Coincidentally, just as DuPont's patent on it ran out.)

We should be wary when a politician tries to use junk science as a tool to inflict burdensome taxation on the populace while himself grossly committing the sin he vehemently vilifies.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


---Jerry6593 on 8/28/16


StrongAxe said, "A few years ago, astronomers created a formal precise definition of just exactly what planet means. There was no such definition before. A planet is an orbiting body that clears out its orbit of all other bodies. Pluto doesn't quite meet that definition."

As Pluto's orbit is out of the plane of the ecliptic by 17 degrees, has anyone searched out the path of Pluto, instead of looking in the plane of the ecliptic? There might be room for adjustment.
---Monk_Brendan on 8/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


StrongAxe said, "The north polar ice cap is melting. Greenland is getting more green. The south polar ice cap is melting and falling into the sea. How about THAT evidence?"

S/A, I'm not sure you would remember this, but in the 1970's both Time and Newsweek ran articles on global cooling. The report told us that "scientists" predicting a coming ice age, and were suggesting spreading carbon black on the North Pole to make it melt and balance the temperature.

Now, it's "climate change." I don't know what to believe, so I stick to my position. I continue to love God and my neighbor, and leave the running of the planet to Him
---Monk_Brendan on 8/27/16


From 1766 until 2016 the average Earth's land temperature has risen an average of .00028deg C per month.
This is the upward part of a cycle that has been going on for centuries.
Research the little ice age bottoming near 1600ad and the medieval warming period peaking near 1000ad.
Given that the older the record, the less global the accuracy, I'd say human impact on Earth's climate as a whole is minimal.
Two things to note:
Stewardship: Psa 24:1, Gen 1:28
Worry: Mark 4:19, Luke 12:31-32
---micha9344 on 8/27/16


From 2008 to the present, the earth has cooled, while CO2 has increased. Explain that!
---Jerry6593 on 8/26/16

Simple, your data is incorrect. The earth has not cooled. Of course, I'm still looking for your data. Please direct me.

As far as CO2.. Im spending some time looking at the arguements, pro and con. I will be happy to respond to that in a bit..
---NurseRobert on 8/26/16


David:

You wrote: But then again, we still have Gods promise in (Genesis 8:22).

True, but Genesis 8:22 does not guarantee the quality of those seasons or harvests.
---StrongAxe on 8/26/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Because Revelation doesn't say what state the earth was in before it was destroyed. Perhaps God destroys it because it's already so badly damaged, that it's beyond saving?---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
Hmmm....you may be on to something (Revelation 11:18). But then again, we still have Gods promise in (Genesis 8:22).
---David on 8/26/16


Nurse: "by increasing the level of CO2 temperatures increase"

Ah, that's a supposition, and the heart of our disagreement. The combined spectral bandwidth of CO2 absorption is so small as to be insignificant as compared to water. Further, its concentration (a few hundred ppm) presents a minuscule absorptive cross-section as compared to the other atmospheric constituents. Add to that the fact that CO2 is heavier than air, and thus doesn't even enter into upper atmospheric effects and you have a non-existent culprit in CO2.

From 2008 to the present, the earth has cooled, while CO2 has increased. Explain that! Weathermen can't accurately predict the weather a few days out, let alone a hundred years out?

---Jerry6593 on 8/26/16


Jerry, even ignoring long term trends, 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2015 were hotter than 1998. Is your argument based on satellite records of atmospheric temperature? Some argue these records show warming since 1998. Focusing onglobal surface temperatures it shows that, when looking at temperatures across the entire globe, the warming trend for 1997 to 2015 is increasing.

China/Carbon Tax- Because they are being bad, we can be too? China's C02 emissions have peaked, or will soon (Komanoff, 2016).

I'm will admit I don't know everything about climate change/global warming, but thank you for making me spend some time learning. I don't agree with you. Temps are rising and CO2 has a lot to do with it.
---NurseRobert on 8/26/16


Jerry, even ignoring long term trends, 2005, 2010, 2014 and 2015 were hotter than 1998. Is your argument based on satellite records of atmospheric temperature? Some argue these records show warming since 1998. Focusing on global surface temperature shows that, when looking at temperatures across the entire globe, the warming trend for 19972015 is increasing.

China/Carbon Tax- Because they are being bad, we can be too? China's C02 emissions have peaked, or will soon (Komanoff, 2016).

I admit I don't know everything about climate change/global warming, but thank you for making me spend some time learning. I don't agree with you. Temps are rising and CO2 has a lot to do with it.
---NurseRobert on 8/26/16


Send a Free Valentine's Day Ecard


Yes, water is the dominate greenhouse gas, however, the concentration of water in the atmosphere rises and falls with the temperature. Higher temps, H2O concentration increases, temps fall H2O condenses and falls. CO2 remains a gas at a wider range of temps. If CO2 levels drop, the earth cools, water condenses and concentrations fall, however, by increasing the level of CO2 temperatures increase causing increased H2O levels, causing increased temps.

Mankind has little to do with the amount of H20 in the atmosphere. We have a lot to do with the increase of CO2.

1998 was one of the hottest on record, however, if you look at 1999 to 2008, there is a strong warming trend. You can't cherry pick your data.
---NurseRobert on 8/25/16


David:

Because Revelation doesn't say what state the earth was in before it was destroyed. Perhaps God detroys it because it's already so badly damaged, that it's beyond saving?


Jerry6593:

You wrote: The global temperature is now cooler than it was in 1998, but the atmospheric CO2 is much higher (thanks primarily to China). How does your model account for that? And why should WE pay carbon tax for China's pollution?

Because we have only one earth we all share. If two people are in a lifeboat and one person makes a hole in his side, should the other person say, "Why should I care about his half? My half is fine"?
---StrongAxe on 8/25/16


StrongAxe
Here's my point.

In the book of Revelation, starting at chapter 7, who does the bible say will destroy the earth? Is it man, or is it God? When does this all happen? Is it before or after Christ return?

Now if you come to the conclusion, as I have, that God will destroy the Earth after the return of Christ, why worry about mans predictions?
---David on 8/25/16


Nurse: Congrats on your explanation of IR greenhouse effect. Now go back and study the relative contribution of the greenhouse gasses water vapor, methane, and CO2. CO2 absorbs radiation in only two small IR bands as compared to the broadband IR absorption of water vapor. Water vapor is also a refrigerant, so don't neglect that.

The global temperature is now cooler than it was in 1998, but the atmospheric CO2 is much higher (thanks primarily to China). How does your model account for that? And why should WE pay carbon tax for China's pollution?


---Jerry6593 on 8/25/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Jerry, from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output."

"Direct changes in climate due to solar output.
The average increase in solar radiative forcing since 1750 is much smaller (~ 0.12 W m-2) than the increase in RF due to heat-trapping gases (~2.6 W m-2) over that same time period. The slight increase in solar absorption is, moreover, more than offset by natural cooling."
---NurseRobert on 8/24/16


Jerry, are you aware that I don't care about Al Gore? The fact is, the stats YOU posted regarding global temperatures are wrong.

I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is we get energy from the sun (visible light and ultraviolet radiation). The Earth emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases (CO2, Ozone, Methane and water) in the atmosphere absorb some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface. CO2, and other greenhouse gases, have keep the earths temperature high than if they were not present.

There has been a rise in CO2 in the last century, temperatures are trending up. I know a positive correlation when I see one.

---NurseRobert on 8/24/16


David:

You wrote: Who makes the clouds?

It doesn't matter - my point is that, through human influence, the weather is different than what it would have been without our influence - i.e. through our choices, we have controlled the weather. That doesn't give us the ability to create clouds, or atmosphere, etc. nor make us God.

That we can control it means must take responsibility for using that power. Making it rain over a wild fire is a good thing. Making it rain over Louisiana right now would be grossly irresponsible.


Jerry6593:

We may not be scientists competent to argue the merits, but we trust the 97% of scientists who ARE competent and say climate change is real.
---StrongAxe on 8/24/16


\\Who makes the clouds?
---David on 8/24\\

They are produced by the water cycle--a natural process set up by God Himself at the creation of the planet.

Or do you think God micromanages our climate?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


We CAN already control weather (e.g. seeding clouds to make rain),---StrongAxe on 8/23/16

Who makes the clouds?
---David on 8/24/16


Nurse: Are you aware that the global warming computer models used by Al Gore's UN friends did not include the effects of solar output variation? How can that be accurate? All of the predictions of this "consensus" model have not come true. Yet you still abide by it. Why?

I would still like for you to explain, in your own words, the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, and the mechanics of the man-made CO2 cause-effect relationship.


---Jerry6593 on 8/24/16


Meanwhile, the average global temperature has gone down since a peak in 1998
---Jerry6593 on 8/22/16

Im still not sure where you are getting your data.

NASA own data shows the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. NOAA (how are they "corrupt politicians?) shows a rise in temperature with a number of years in the 21st century higher than 1998. Yes, there are "peaks and valleys" but the overall trend is upwards.

Every place I look shows an overall rise CO2 in the last 100 years.

Is there a correlation?? When you look at the data, there is. How do you explain that?
---NurseRobert on 8/23/16


David:

You wrote: If man can cause Global warming, doesn't this prove man can control the weather?

The ability to take a sledgehammer to destroy a chandelier does not prove you can create a chandelier.

If man can control the weather, can this not be more proof that there is no God?

We CAN already control weather (e.g. seeding clouds to make rain). If that proves there is no God, why do you still go to church? -- Because it DOESN'T prove there is no God.

That's how the unbelievers are twisting it.

No, all I've heard is paranoid believers who put such words into non-believers' mouths, and then attempt to destroy the straw man they themselves have created.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Whether or not we are THE primary cause of it, or just a contributing cause, is irrelevant. --StrongAxe

StrongAxe
I disagree, it's quite relevant. You may think I'm a bit naive, but I believe "Global warming" is a tool of the Anti-Christ. A tool which can clearly help to prove there is no God. According to the book of Job, and other places in the bible, God controls the weather.

If man can cause Global warming, doesn't this prove man can control the weather? If man can control the weather, can this not be more proof that there is no God?

That's how the unbelievers are twisting it.
---David on 8/23/16


Nurse: The NASA data I saw showed peaks and valleys for global temperature going back thousands of years. Antarctic ice is at record highs. Polar bear populations are at record highs. Sea levels are unchanged. AL GORE WAS WRONG! Do you always turn to corrupt politicians for science? I don't recall the word "concensus" being mentioned as a part of the scientific method.

I would still like for you to explain, in your own words, the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, and the mechanics of the man-made CO2 cause-effect relationship.


---Jerry6593 on 8/23/16


Jerry, where are you getting your information?

According to NOAA 1998 is currently tied with 2009 as the sixth warmest year on record. Global temps have increased per decade since 1970. Average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was above average for the 20th century.
---NurseRobert on 8/22/16


David:

It hasn't happened since we've been recording weather. Whether or not we are THE primary cause of it, or just a contributing cause, is irrelevant. If a person has lung cancer, you tell him not to smoke, regardless of whether smoking caused the lung cancer, or if it was caused by some other factor.

since they call it "Global" warming, and I'm not feeling its effects, it's really not so Global, is it?

The globe, itself, on average, is getting warmer. That is no guarantee that EVERY spot on the globe is getting warmer. That's what average means.
---StrongAxe on 8/22/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


The north polar ice cap is melting. Greenland is getting more green. The south polar ice cap is melting and falling into the sea. How about THAT evidence?---StrongAxe

StrongAxe
If this is the case, isn't it possible that it could just be a weather pattern? A pattern in the weather that's been happening long before we have been recording weather?

El Nio is a perfect example of a weather pattern that effects some areas, but not all areas. And since they call it "Global" warming, and I'm not feeling its effects, it's really not so Global, is it?
---David on 8/22/16


Nurse: "Think globally, not locally."

OK. The entire globe is warmed by the sun. Solar output has been quite low for years now. Meanwhile, the average global temperature has gone down since a peak in 1998, while the worldwide CO2 output has increased . How then can CO2 be the culprit when Mars has also shown a decrease in temperature over the same period? How can more (greenhouse) heat cause cooling?

The environmental whacko god Al Gore predicted a significant rise in sea level (also global) by now, but it hasn't occurred. I was born in a coastal town (Tampa, FL), and the sea level is the same there as it was when I was born 73 years ago. How do you & Al explain that?


---Jerry6593 on 8/22/16


If there is Global warming, why isn't Georgia Experiencing more 100 degree days, than we did when I was a child?
---David on 8/21/16

David, thats like saying there is not world hunger because YOU had food.. Think globally, not locally.
---NurseRobert on 8/21/16


The same reason a frog does not notice the water slowly getting hotter. It is a slow process.

Should we give into fear and try to do something all at once. I don't think so.

But should we work to clean the air and not pollute the water. Certainly. After all we need the air to breath and the water to drink,

To modify an old saying. You don't use your house as the trash bin.

So cleaning the lead out of water and keeping the pollution down. Why be opposed to that?
---Samuelbb7 on 8/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


David:

You wrote: I love science, but not the science for which I must suspend a logical conclusion.

The hypothesis of Global Warming says that the earth, as a whole, is getting hotter. That does not imply that every specific part of it is. The Gulf Stream is an ocean current that carries hot water from the Gulf of Mexico up the east coast into the north Atlantic. Rising ocean temperatures have disrupted that, so areas warmed by the Gulf Stream may actually get COLDER.

The north polar ice cap is melting. Greenland is getting more green. The south polar ice cap is melting and falling into the sea. How about THAT evidence?
---StrongAxe on 8/21/16


I love science, but not the science for which I must suspend a logical conclusion.

For instance, your debate on Global Warming.
There are scientific "facts" which support both arguments, but I choose to use a lifetime of experience, with the weather, to draw my own conclusion.

Here in Georgia the summer temperatures balance somewhere 85 & 95 degrees, very rare is the 100 degree day. This has been true for my entire lifetime.

If there is Global warming, why isn't Georgia Experiencing more 100 degree days, than we did when I was a child? When I was a child they were warning of an impending Ice Age.
---David on 8/21/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: NurseBobby: ...

Why do you so frequently use insults? Does it make you feel good? If so, grow up. Do you think it strengthens the validity of your argument? It doesn't.

The answer to your chapter and verse question is found between Gen 1:1 and Rev 22:21.

This is like saying "The answer to your question is somewhere in the Library of Congress", which is totally useless. The Bible frequently says that truth is established by 2-3 witnesses - NOT by saying "there are 2-3 people somewhere on the planet that agree with me", which is just as useless.
---StrongAxe on 8/20/16


Ah, Jerry. always the one with the insults.

How is it that every single chart I have seen shows a positive correlation of CO2 to temperature rise? Perhaps you can direct us to one that shows an negative correlation of CO2 to temp? Save your gobbilty gook, just send us to the site.

You other answer tells us absolutely nothing. Basically, you have nothing..
---NurseRobert on 8/20/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


NurseBobby: "Jerry, how do you explain the increase in global temperature over the last century."

It's called "weather". I know you would like to call it "climate change", but you need a little common sense. Earth's climate has changed for millennia without mankind causing it. It still does, and the major causes are solar output variations and volcanic activity. I challenge you also to provide a cogent cause-effect construct of man-caused climate change.

The answer to your chapter and verse question is found between Gen 1:1 and Rev 22:21.


---Jerry6593 on 8/20/16


How do you explain the drop in global temperatures over the last 15 years while CO2 output (mainly from China) has skyrocketed? Solar output - not CO2.
---Jerry6593 on 8/16/16

Jerry, how do you explain the increase in global temperature over the last century. Looking at a short span of time (but the way, the 5 year averages show an INCREASE over the last 15 years) is akin to saying you've cured world hunger becuase you ate today.

Im still waiting for your chapter and verse ..
---NurseRobert on 8/16/16
---NurseRobert on 8/19/16


/Blog size limits prevent a detailed discussion. I leave that to experts - around 97% of whom agree with me and not you.\-StrongAxe on 8/19/16
-Consensus of opinion does not truth make.
---micha9344 on 8/19/16


Jerry6593:

My training and expertise are in scientific subjects. One thing science teaches is the discipline to accept thing that inexorably follow from established bases, even if they appear to violate common sense. (Faith is like that too - believing things common sense tells you can't possibly be true).

Blog size limits prevent a detailed discussion. I leave that to experts - around 97% of whom agree with me and not you. Argue with THEM.

Why is it that you left-wing radicals vehemently defend that which you know nothing about?

I trust experts with no axe to grind know what they are doing, rather than the few others in the pockets of Big Oil and other biased interests.
---StrongAxe on 8/19/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


MarktheAxe: You are a science and common sense denier. I challenge you to show a detailed technical cause and effect relationship between man's fossil fuel consumption and the average global temperature. The earth's climate has been changing for thousands of years without fossil fuels. Most of these changes are due to natural changes such as solar output and volcanic activity.

So come on, junior scientist, show us how CO2 causes a global greenhouse effect by performing a spectral convolution integral of CO2 absorption over the IR spectrum. Explain how temperature falls when CO2 rises. Why is it that you left-wing radicals vehemently defend that which you know nothing about?


---Jerry6593 on 8/19/16


Jerry6593:

No, you claimed, but didn't show anything. Please cite YOUR sources for statistics.

Google: scientists "climate change" statistics

Cook, et al (2016) cites 7 studies - not of Climate change, but of concensus about climate change among scientists. These show 100, 97, 97, 97, 91, 93, and 97% for. (My 99% was a rhetorical estimate, but close enough nonetheless).

I care about liberty vs. the Communist police state oppression that you embrace.

No. Communism is ridiculous, but Americans have a constitutional right to believe ridiculous things like Communism and Scientology and climate change denial.
---StrongAxe on 8/17/16


Nurse: Did you ever read Gen 1:1 and Exo 20:11? God did it - not random chance.
---Jerry6593 on 8/17/16

Neither of these are germane or explain your argument.

good try, though..
---NurseRobert on 8/17/16


MarkA: "Why is is that the MAJORITY of scientists today believe in climate change, and only a small biased minority oppose it? Are 99% of our experts wrong?"

More Communist disinformation! The majority of scientists do not concur with the leftist narrative. There are no scientific facts supporting Al Gore's fantasy, as I have shown. I don't care about large corporations - I care about liberty vs. the Communist police state oppression that you embrace.




Nurse: Did you ever read Gen 1:1 and Exo 20:11? God did it - not random chance.


---Jerry6593 on 8/17/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Jerry6593:

Bunk! It is obvious that you know nothing of atmospheric physics, but rather worship at the Communist alter of disinformation.

That is wrong, but I will stop arguing with you on this subject, since "your mind is made up, and you don't want to be confused by the facts". You worship at the altar of large corporations who want to exploit the earth as much as possible, while paying as little as possible for the right to do so.

Why is is that the MAJORITY of scientists today believe in climate change, and only a small biased minority oppose it? Are 99% of our experts wrong?
---StrongAxe on 8/16/16


How do you explain the drop in global temperatures over the last 15 years while CO2 output (mainly from China) has skyrocketed? Solar output - not CO2.
---Jerry6593 on 8/16/16

Jerry, how do you explain the increase in global temperature over the last century. Looking at a short span of time (but the way, the 5 year averages show an INCREASE over the last 15 years) is akin to saying you've cured world hunger becuase you ate today.

Im still waiting for your chapter and verse ..
---NurseRobert on 8/16/16


MarkAxe: "CO2 in the atmosphere affects how much solar radiation is absorbed rather than reflected back into space."

Bunk! It is obvious that you know nothing of atmospheric physics, but rather worship at the Communist alter of disinformation. CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas, being absorbed ONLY in two very narrow spectral bands in the IR spectrum. This combined with its low ppm count and its higher, ground-hugging density rule it out of consideration as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the only viable greenhouse gas. Would you ban it as well?

How do you explain the drop in global temperatures over the last 15 years while CO2 output (mainly from China) has skyrocketed? Solar output - not CO2.

---Jerry6593 on 8/16/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Oh really? Ever hear of carbon credits tax going to the UN? More taxes, more regulations, more government.

Which lobbyists funding Democratic re-election campaigns does that benefit? Big corporations with big bucks want LESS regulations, to reduce their overheads and increase profits - and such favor Republicans.

Where is the constitutional authority for such oppression and ceding of national sovereignty?

The part about negotiating treaties.

This is not true! Global temperature does not track man-caused CO2 output, but rather solar output.

CO2 in the atmosphere affects how much solar radiation is absorbed rather than reflected back into space.
---StrongAxe on 8/15/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Nurse: "Really??? According to whom?"
According to the Bible.
---Jerry6593 on 8/15/16

Chapter and verse?
---NurseRobert on 8/15/16


MarkA: "The left has no ulterior motive in the Global Warming debate"

Oh really? Ever hear of carbon credits tax going to the UN? More taxes, more regulations, more government. Where is the constitutional authority for such oppression and ceding of national sovereignty?



Samuel: "It is recognizing that humans are destroying the planet."

This is not true! Global temperature does not track man-caused CO2 output, but rather solar output.



Nurse: "Really??? According to whom?"

According to the Bible.



---Jerry6593 on 8/15/16


The former denies God His rightful title as Creator, and the latter seeks to exalt man as his own savior.
---Jerry6593 on 8/14/16

Really??? According to whom?
---NurseRobert on 8/14/16


I grew up believing evolution. But I came to know through study that it was false.

But Global Warming is not about guessing what happened millions of years ago. But measuring and cataloguing what is going on right now.

Trying to not destroy the planet. It is not trying to save ourselves. It is recognizing that humans are destroying the planet. Just like the Bible predicted men would do.

We are to be doing all we can to not destroy the earth.
---Samuelbb7 on 8/14/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Very true! Nowhere is this more apparent than in the leftist agendas of Evolution and man-made Global Warming- Climate Change-Weather.

The former denies God His rightful title as Creator, and the latter seeks to exalt man as his own savior.


Evolution does not exclude God - it doesn't say how life was created, merely how it developed once it was first created. Global warming doesn't make us own savior. It acknowledge our own stewardship of the earth, and our responsibility for not fouling it up.

The left has no ulterior motive in the Global Warming debate, but the right (that supports corporate profit, unfettered by annoying regulations) does. So who is being biased here?
---StrongAxe on 8/14/16


Mark the Axe: "Anyone who does science with an agenda of proving a particular viewpoint true, even before an experiment is performed, is biased - whether atheist or creationist."

Very true! Nowhere is this more apparent than in the leftist agendas of Evolution and man-made Global Warming- Climate Change-Weather.

The former denies God His rightful title as Creator, and the latter seeks to exalt man as his own savior.


---Jerry6593 on 8/14/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Moreover, REAL science is not conducted by concensus, but by the scientific method.

Very true. However, two important things in science are repeatability and peer review - like the biblical requirement that all truth be established by 2-3 witnesses. If you come up with a discovery, you publish it, and others can repeat the experiment to (hopefully) get the same results, and prove they are correct. If they cannot repeat them, your conclusions are suspect.

Anyone who does science with an agenda of proving a particular viewpoint true, even before an experiment is performed, is biased - whether atheist or creationist.
---StrongAxe on 8/13/16


Thanks Strongaxe for the information, I will try to keep an eye on Planet 9.

What a name! I guess it is a way stop claiming Pluto as the ninth planet if another planet is called 'Plant 9'
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/13/16


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


josef: Well said, exactly!


Cluny: I agree. Moreover, REAL science is not conducted by concensus, but by the scientific method.


Richard: "Horatio Then dream of in your Philosophy"

I'll bet that's "Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".


Most of the great scientists throughout history saw science as the unfolding of the mysteries of God's Creation in nature. Unfortunately, many of today's scientists (like many clergy) are influenced by money and politics.



---Jerry6593 on 8/13/16


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: I am still having a hard time figuring out if we have 8 or 9 Planets.
I believe they are still fighting about Pluto being a Planet.


A few years ago, astronomers created a formal precise definition of just exactly what planet means. There was no such definition before. A planet is an orbiting body that clears out its orbit of all other bodies. Pluto doesn't quite meet that definition. Pluto is still a in our universe, and still a planetoid, just not considered a full planet like the other 8. Also, there is another potential planet (tentatively called "planet 9") that was recently discovered, much further out, but it hasn't been confirmed yet.
---StrongAxe on 8/12/16


..scientists are constantly revising, rejecting, or adopting new theories, models, and hypotheses. This is the only thing to do when new information is found---Cluny on 8/11/16

Amen to that!

I am still having a hard time figuring out if we have 8 or 9 Planets.

I believe they are still fighting about Pluto being a Planet.

If still a planet the debate continues claiming she isn't in our universe to be counted with the other 8.
---Nicole_Lacey on 8/12/16


THERE are more things in heaven and Earth , Horatio Then dream of in your Philosophy - William Shakespeare
---RichardC on 8/11/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


In present day science, science goes a different direction than Bible accounts. But early scientists were often Christian, and these maintained their faith, and did not find contradiction between observations, discoveries, and scripture. So science should be broken up. There is atheistic science and Bible believing science. Some said the world was flat, but the Bible calls the earth a "sphere". The Bible did not get it wrong. More the Bible says that from dust we were made and to dust we will return. We are like the animals in that. Some science just tries to dodge the Bible.
---mike4879 on 8/11/16


True science does not, obviously.

But remember that scientists are constantly revising, rejecting, or adopting new theories, models, and hypotheses. This is the only thing to do when new information is found.

The Bible remains.

As an old proverb says, "The Bible does not say how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/11/16


"Is science in conflict with the Bible?"
True science, No. Dan 1:4
Science, falsely so called, Yes. 1Ti 6:20
---josef on 8/11/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.