It isn't global warming, it's called climate shift. The biggest dilemma in modern science assumes a 4.6 billion year old earth. Since the earth is only 6000 years old, the speed of change in weather patterns shows that it is actually proceeding at a normal rate and is expected within a young earth timeline.
27 comments
Why do they keep insisting that the age of the Earth is an assumption? Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Numerous different methodologies from various scientific fields that aren't interconnected show the age of the Earth to be roughly 4.7 billion years old (obviously, with varying degrees of error). That alone tells us it's more or less that age...
I'd like to see the, uh, math and the basis for asserting this is "proceeding at a normal rate and is expected within a young earth timeline ".
Also, a rewording of "speed of change in weather patterns " so that it doesn't appear to be baffle-gab from someone who hasn't the slightest idea of what they're talking about would be nice.
It's called whatever it's called at any given moment, and the climate doesn't care what you call it. And it is changing many orders of magnitude faster than it ever has before. That fact remains the same even if you try to cram the earth's timeline into that ludicrously short 6000 years.
.....and you might want to ask the Chinese about that 6000 years. I wonder I they had front-row seats to watch the creation of Adam and Eve?
Sure, in 6000 years we lived through the Deccan traps lava flows, major meteorite impacts, seas and deserts forming and disappearing, the upthrust of the Himalayas, and the continents whirling around like bumper cars. If weather-affecting events happened at the frequency your "model" requires, there wouldn't be much on the planet except bacteria.
@FELIX LÆTVS They insist because they worship an Irish bishop who relied on pagan sources as much as the Bible to calculate the age of the Earth. Although their holy book forbids them to add to the scriptures, they have elevated this cleric to the status of a major prophet.
This isn't a knife, Rick, it's called a digestion aid. So you won't mind having it poked through your gut a half-dozen times, right?
The biggest dilemma, for you, is that you're mentally still a child, and adhere to myths, legends and mythology, before you look at adult (a.k.a. real) science. I hope you don't live in California, New Orleans or Florida, or your property might be below sea-level in a decade or so.
The biggest dilemma in modern science assumes a 4.6 billion year old earth.
It's not a dilemma, it's established bloody fact. Fundie denialism is the only reason it comes up constantly and needs to be re-proven over and over again.
@ nazani14
Many fundies probably don't realize the 4004 BC date comes from an Irish bishop. It's just the traditional date. In the South, at least, Bibles that were used not that long ago would sometimes have handwritten notes next to the opening of Genesis that said "about 4004 BC." Besides, 6000 years is roughly the date you get if you work backward through Genesis, no matter what assumptions you make about the ambiguous points. The traditional Jewish age for the world is less than three centuries off from Ussher's calculations. (Eastern Orthodox tradition dates creation about 1500 years earlier than Ussher, but that's because the Septuagint version of the Genesis genealogies differs from that in the Masoretic Text, which Jews and western Christians tend to rely on.)
Climate change has shown itself to be real, rapid, and heavily influenced by human activity.
Althoug there is a natural cycle of change with its reality preserved in sediment and rock, this variant is far faster and it seems to be far more destructive for all that.
Holy hell, you just proved it to me! That's it, right there!
Proof that two wrongs, in fact, do not make a right!
Thanks for that!
Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC date can be calculated exactly from the Bible if you assume that the Jewish "sojourn in Egypt" started with Abraham's and Lot's entry into Egypt (instead of Jacob's 215 years later) and you use Ussher's date for the start of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II as 607 BC (modern historians put it as 605 BC). The calculation can't be done by Genesis alone; Ussher also used Exodus, 1 and 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and a Babylonian history known as the "Canon of Kings" by Claudius Ptolemy. He wasn't a complete fool except to think a book by a bunch of Bronze Age Arabs was actual history.
In one of his programmes, survival expert Bear Grylls was sheltering in a cave, and started drawing on one of the cave's surfaces using charcoal from the fire he'd made:
image
He explained how - as cave paintings are the earliest examples of creative expression by early Homo sapiens ; how anthropologists & archaeologists regard such as being a form of entertainment, as an aid to storytelling, and thus development of language & culture - the earliest cave art was tested, and found to be 40,000 years old.
The biggest dilemma is yours , I'm afraid. As Bear Grylls is a Christian .
Are you going to argue the toss with someone who is Chief Scout, and a former reservist with the SAS, (P)Rick...?!
What about a Young Earth scenario predicts climate change? (That's the actual terminology, has been for a long time)
Oh yeah. Nothing, I forget your crowd wants the assertion sound bite, not only enough for them but it defeats tons of evidence to the contrary.
@Dionysus
Both are science that fundies have been brainwashed into rejecting, one because it contradicts their creation myth and the other because the fundie hive mind has been co-opted to serve the agenda of the rich right who don't want to forgo any profits in the process of stopping global warming.
In the fundies minds both are atheistic America attacking socialistic sciency stuff.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
