Redstate

He'd always say

"Boy, get yourself an education, but be careful, you could educate yourself to be stupid!"

Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

So they need to move the goal posts out farther.
Remember:
The AGW promoters are lying.
They claimed to *know* that AGW was happening *NOW*. That storms were getting more frequent and stronger *NOW*.
That the oceans were warming and acidifying *NOW*.
That temperatures were going to continue increasing *NOW*.
They are wrong, as us on the skeptical side predicted.
They are simply rewriting their models to make sure they never have to visit their assumptions.
The biggest assumption they do now want to visit is that they actually knew what they were doing.

That we were supposed to have record landfall for Hurricanes on the American continent for the past two years...

I don't remember...did we even have one make landfall the year after Katrina?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

We have had something in the range of two Cat-1 storms hit the US.
There were some strong storms that hit Mexico/Central America.
Total storm count, and total strength, are both way down globally since 2005.
Taht obviously does not make a trend, but if climate is as chaotic as it appears, we should be happy for 2 years of good storm results.
AGW is in implosion mode.
If it becomes the popular perception in time for the election, it will help blow out the extremists who have been bs'ing the public for so long.
I hope McCain is nimble enough to read the writing on the wall irt the AGW scam.

2 in 3 years...and don't forget...2006 was predicted by the educated idiots to be the worse on record!

Hopefully McCain will change his stance on Cap & Trade legislation!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Maybe he can do something for the nuclear power industry first then move on.

apparently he's decided on eight because he's commented recently that it he couldn't balance the budget in four years after all that he would do it in eight

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

“Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,” Wood said. “If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.”

Global warming will win? sounds almost like this guy's at a ball game rooting for the home team doesn't it?

Thene theres the pasrt about letting the models run long enough...what he didn't say is if you put in the right data it will "win even quicker"

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

It will eventually land on its edge and stay there.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

n/t n/t n/t

Oh..and the Ice Caps melting that proved global Warming, you know the ones that went away and created a norther passage for shipping in the North Atlantic that proved we wewre warming at an alarming rate...It seems they're back and thicker than ever after one year...

But MMGW is real and we shouldn't be fooled when the next Ice age appears!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

wreaked on an innocent world by the execrable Cheney and his minions at Halliburton. It vaporizes water that then falls as increased precipitation on the ice caps.

So while the precipitation takes the form natural to that habitat, this just cleverly disguises the warming and provides fodder to hick charlatans like the ones on RS. As warming progresses, the unstoppable hockey stick will be manifest and put an end to life as we know it on this planet.

Inquiring minds know the score!

Don't forget GW Bush and his "Big Oil" loving Daddy!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

But it is also predicted to snow in NE Wyoming. I think we have about a foot of snow coming along with 50 mph winds and 70 mph gusts. It is going to be enough to shake my already weak confidence in MMGW.

"I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat

eight inches of snow in the last 48 hours.

Which proves that the climate is changing at a rapidly variable constant rate disproportionate to 350,000-year-old gas bubbles drawn from ancient ice cores as CO2 and methane deposits and glaciers melt and seas rise and fall and hybrids and fear and then more fear and then flooding and then ...

chaos.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

‘It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.’ - Charles Péguy

will it still be there when I arrive????

Get this...it's been in the 40s in south Texas the last two nights...If global worming heats us up any more...I don't think I can stand it!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

to just below freezing last night. Had to turn my heater on. It's MAY people! I'm supposed to have the A/C on!

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Is giving the rest of us guilt by association.

Thanks for not reading anything anyone said here and projecting your own ignorance on the discussion. I know this is a lot to ask but maybe maybe just maybe try to find fault with the point being made ?

I mean engage the Republican side of your brain and reason things through. Surely if we are being such morons you can actually come up with some kind of reasoned argument that will show us the error of our ways ?

If someone said if you invest in a dow jones index over 70 years, there may be a 10 year period where your profits are flat or maybe a 5 year period where you lose money, BUT over the long haul, the index will do better than your mattress, would you jump all over this? that all the factors that go into the stock market are complex, but trends emerge over time.

The article says GW is complex and not linear. This post seems to be saying the fact it's NOT linear and NOT simple enough to explain using two soda cans means that the scientist behind it are evil lefties trying to ruin us.

teh post was talking about the ability of the ocean to hold more CO2 as it cools vs. releaing CO2 as it heats and that CO2 increases may following warming not preceed it. You clearly have a hard time following a civil discussion.

ten year period. Of course it's already been ten years since we saw any temperature increase, so by the time the ten year period teh article is talking about ends, it will have been 20 years without warning. Then there will be the next short ten year period. At what point are you going to realize taht the computer models may be wrong?

Over the last ten years or so, we were told that things were going to grow RAPIDLY worse and that runaway GW would start showing its effects in highly visible and tragic ways soon.

Every time the facts show evidence against a rapid, destructive trend to warming, we get "But its a long term thing! You need to be patient to see it."

You can't have it both ways. Scare me with science or scare me with fiction. The latter belongs in the movie theater with Freddie and Jason, the other needs to be shown to me with facts.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln

That it was happening *NOW*.
Hansen has been peddling his doom and posing as a martyr for decades.
2005 was the start of the reign of killer storms.
The heat wave of 1998 was the start of never ending heat waves.
If there is actually anyone who McCain listens to, now would be a good time to get him to stop worrying about the AGW crisis.
And to start drilling some oil.

Thats going on 20 years now ? And CO2 output is the highest it ever has been.

What the post says is that there are whole lot of predictions that were flat out wrong

In particularly the good mr Hansen's predicitions

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...

"In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase."

and

"Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years."
.
Maybe 20 -30 years will be long enough for people to forget how bad their models were and they can recycle them.

people to give your religion the money it needs to grow and the Rev Gore and fellow "earthers" have been ginning up the masses for a good 10+ years now and the money is starting to flow....now would not be a good time for the "facts" to change for the Religion of Global Warming now would it?

Lets see over the 70 years of this index we have been warming, cooling, warming, and now cooling...I think my money would have done much better in my mattress because this trend would have given me what I started with....Earth...which is what my mattress would have given me!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Not bad for making a science movie the way Michael Moore makes documentaires.
Al Gore: The profiteer prophet.

You can scoff if you wish Lib Rep but the evidence is piling up to show these GW chicken littles to be the fools they are.

Starting with jackbenimble's post, you totally glossed over the fact that CO2 level increases lag warming trends so how is it possible that these increases cause Global Warming?

Secondly, there are a couple of recent studies that demonstrate a correlation between solar activity and GW as well as other studies that prove a correlation between ocean currents and GW. I haven't seen anything substantiating this but my instict tells me that the ocean currents that influence Global Weming/Cooling, can be proven to be influenced by the aforementiond solar activity.

Finally, you want us to act like there is no political motivation involved in the alarmists propaganda. How else do you explain the push to force the US to reduce CO2 emissions but allow China and India, (who are the worse polluters) to skate past it?

America is expected to increase the cost of doing business in our country to decrease CO2 emissions. Businesses move to countries with developing economies who are the worse polluters on the planet. This just happens to cause a redistribution of wealth from "those greedy Americans" to nations that are poorer and less fortunate than us, (which gives liberals orgasms). But we're supposed to believe the authors of this entire scheme and those politicians that use it to increase their own liberal inclinations have entirely altruistic motives? Can I sell you some ocean front property in Dallas?..I'm sure you'd love the views and the great deep see fishing you can do there!

I wish I could remember where I read it...it might have been a book review. Whatever the source, the story laid out the earlier activities of the MMGW alarmist leaders...funny thing...it seams these same "Respected leaders" were the most vocal in the late 60s and early 70s demanding the American economy be regulated lest all mankind become extinct in the coming global ice age!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

If natural factors can stop "man-made" global warming for a period of ten years by causing natural cooling, couldn't it be argued that natural warming was responsible for the warming we saw in the 1990s? Incidentally, it's stopped warming since 1998 and has been holding steady to slightly cooling since. I hate to burst your nihilistic bubble, but you and Al are all washed up in your desire to throw human progress under the bus. It's OK to love your car. God bless Big Oil!

Tim Schieferecke

But that would mean these "Experts" would have to admit the possibility that they could possibly be wrong about something.

Of course the prospect that they could ever be wrong is too much for their fragile egos to withstand! Besides, They've got to justify the years they spent and the small fortune they paid to know it all!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I hope it is argued.

This is a complex issue and hard to get your arms around. It could be a big nothing or the biggest issue of our day. Hard, at this point, to tell which.

The dumbest thing would be to pretend its not an issue because you don't like the politics of the scientists doing the research or the messiness of the debate.

This is just one more point...It smacks of the experts knowing they are wrong and trying desperately to come up with a way to get people to ignore the FACT that the earth is cooling and has been for 10 years

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Is whether or not we lose our heads and "ACT NOW TO SAVE THE WORLD AND OUR CHILDREN!!!!"

You responded to my list of questions with a simple "I don't know."
None of the rest matters right now until and unless those questions are answered. IF we need to act now, then answering those questions should be pretty simple and straight-forward.

But, no. The AGW cranks around here are too scared to pop in and drop an answer and the only one honest enough about it just doesn't know.

So, the only viable alternative is to sit back and allow the data to accumulate and keep the government out of the business of trying to solve a potentially nonexistent "problem".

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Can you give me the exact date and time of the next terrorist attacks?

Can you tell me exactly how many will be killed?

Any honest answer is "I don't know"

But that's no reason to pretend the threat doesn't exist and that nothing needs to be done.

recent data shows the earth has cooled for the last ten years an the so called scientists in this article says the earth will cool for another 10 years but don't believe there is no global warming based on the cooling...it's just not warming as much as it would have otherwise...meanwhile we are expected to pass global cap & trade legislation, expand the reach and scope of the EPA, wreck the American economy all on the "Possibility that GW might exist?

I don't think so!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

OK, let's play it your way. I warn you, it's going to make you look pretty stupid, though:

1) What is causing it? ie: How is this happening?

2) What will be the human cost if left unchecked? (ie: How many will die?)

3) What can we, as Americans do, to affect it?

4) Who else in the world will actually put their money where their mouth is and help us?

5) How much will the "solution" cost us?

6) What will that do to our economy?

7) What will be the human cost of implementing the solution (ie: How many will die?)

8) What can we do to adapt to the presence of constant terrorism if we can't eliminate it?

9) What will adapting cost us?

10) What will that do to our economy?

11) What will be the human cost of adapting? (ie: How many will die if we adapt?)

And now, the kicker:
12) What is best?
a. Letting the terrorists have their wayO
b. Attempting to kill all the terrorists we possibly can
c. Letting the terrorists continue what they're doing and just ignore them and adapt to their activities

Oh, and Quantify your arguments, if you please. "Lots will die." is not an acceptable answer.

I believe these questions have already been applied. Care to offer Your answers since you obviously feel the government was wrong?

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

or are you going to just make your typical off topic superfluous comments. Nothing in this thread about political leanings of researchers, just more data that their computer models are worthless.

lr,
Either start actually responding to the posts - or at least stop lying about what others say- or perhaps you should post elsewhere?
I have no idea of the politics of the scientists who wrote the study referenced above, nor do I care, what the politics of any scientist is. And I know quite a few.
I care about the integrity of the process.
If you think AGW is acting like well proven science, like Evolution or Quantum Mechanics, you are not paying attention.
If you think a 90% confidence level - the confidence level of AGW, even according to its promoters- is the level of confidence required for science- you are uninformed.
And if you think scientists are somehow immune or excluded from making very large errors, even as a group, then you are ignorant of history.
The data has diverged long ago from the AGW models. the promoters are rewriting the models and even, as the IPCC states openly, editing the science to fit the conclusion.
Skeptics are not part of a conspiracy.
Skpetics are not being paid off by some cabal of big bidness.
They are simply asking taht AGW proves its assertions, like any other thesis, and pointing out the fact that AGW has not done so by any reasonable standard.
Your pose as a Republican seems as insincere as your pose as an informed observer of the climate science issue.

I don't have a DR. before my name...but when I walk outside in San Antonio Texas in May and the night time temperatures are 40 degrees, and I know it's snowing a foot of snow in the north west this late in the year...GW looks less and less likely as a viable scientific theory...

Now those who believe so much that simply isn't true to demend that we not confuse them with the fact's is beyond ironic and becoming absurd!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

ice skating in April on the river there. They'll just say San Antonio freezing equals warming. Beware of ManBearPig!
Tim Schieferecke

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

It is an unproven and currently unprovable theory (also it is currently unfalsifiable). Making it no different from I.D.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

but evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence, from fossils to genetics to evo devo.
It can be falsified, and has been rigorously tested.
As a very active and faithful Chrisitan, I find myself puzzled by the conclusion that there is some sort of competition between Christianity and science.

You're right...this isn't the place...but there is plenty of evidence that would indicate that evolutionary scientists have accepted Darwin's theory and skewed the evidence to fit their assumptions.

As a Christian you should understand the incompatibility of Darwinian Evolution with Christianity since evolution would require death being present before Adam's fall which directly contradicts scripture and is a direst attack on the need for a savior since the concept of original sin would be eliminated.

and now...back to the MMGW discussion


CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I don't beleive scientists have skewed the evidence on evolution. I do not agree with your explanation that a particular interpretation of scripture requires ignoring the science. St. Augustine said long long ago that theological interpretation must follow reason and knowledge. Evolution is based on multiple lines of evidence, and frankly when I read books on Evolutionary Development, it is clear that we are not here by accident. I know more than a few PhD level biologists who are Christians and who are reconciled with Evoluion, and use it everyday in their work. My daughter is one of those people, in her undergrad major and her lab work. Evolution poses no threat at all to my faith or the the faith of the vast majority of Christians. God is much bigger than our science or any single interpretation of the Bible or our theology.
The focus on the failure of AGW as science is not equal to the disputes over evolution. AGW is one of many apocalyptic pop beliefs that have occured in history. It is yet another conclusion whose proponents have created models conciously or not, to prove it. This latest study, that it is going to get cold before we all roast, is just the latest implosion of AGW.
Evolution has never had a major tenet implode like this, and has been strengthened by the past, not contradicted, as has AGW.
Enough for now.
It is enough that we can agree on vital politics and climate issues.

He is not making science arguments.

That politics and religion are "two different worlds," then we can certainly say the same about science and religion.

However, ask your daughter how macroevolution leads to metamorphosis. Or bisexuality, for that matter.

I really don't want to get into a dragged out discussion on this here but I have in another thread recently so look it up. I will say there is plenty of evidence developed by numerous scientists that call into question many of the assumptions made by Darwinian evolution.

If you doubt me check out research by the following:
Dr. John Witcomb
Dr. Ken Hamm
Dr. Walter Brown
Dr. Robert Gentry
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
Dr. Larry Vardimon
Dr. Richard Walker
Dr. Emmett Williams
Dr. Andrew Snelling
Dr. Sean Kruger
Dr. Benjamin Aaron
Dr. Ross Anderson
Eddy Miller, Ph.D.
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D. Astrologist
Danny R. Falkner, Ph.D. Biologist
Russell D. Humphreys, Ph.D.Physicist
John D. Morris, Ph.D.

As for Christianity, The foundation was set in the Garden of eden with the fall of Adam. It was Adam's Fall that brought death into the world. It was Adam's fall that brought about God's condemnation of all mankind, (read original sin) which necessitated a savior to atone for the sins of all Mankind. The doctrine of original sin is based on the fact that man has fallen, that a perfect creation was perverted by man's fall and death cam about as a result of the fall.

If evolution is right...you can take the bible and everything it teaches and throw it out the window because it's foundation is a lie.


CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Neither evolution nor darwinism has an answer as to where life came from. Whether it be life on earth or life anywhere else. That still leaves open the opportunity for Eden.

Even if Evolution is eventually proven, it still doesn't eliminate the possibility.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Once again...If Death preceded the fall the doctrine of original sin is a lie...and Christianity as a hollow religion as a result. Darwinianism is a religion of Secularists the same as MMGW is a religion of the Green Weenies

Check out the scientists and other sources such as Answers in Geneses, the Creation Research Institute, and others...If you look through theirs data with an open mind, you'll see the enormous holes in Darwinian natural selection and evolution as well as come to an understanding that it's not necessary to twist and justify scripture to fit Evolution!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I think we should have a whole diary about this instead of just trying to cram some debate about Creation/Evolution and its relation to MMGW into the comments here. Unfortunately, to present the Biblical Creation framework and how all the evidence (the same evidence Evolutionists have) compliments it takes more space than is available here, and we risk irritating those who want to keep this strictly political.

For those who are interested in why intelligent and reasonable people (including a whole host of scientists) are saying that all the available evidence support the Biblical Creation model, you can find all the answers you ever wanted right here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

For those who are already sure they have all the answers, I suppose they won't bother...

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Not the place, etc, etc, but Ace is exactly right. Creationist and Evolutionist have the same evidence (fossils, rock layers, etc), but a different set of starting assumptions. In the biblical framework, all the pieces of evidence fall into place beautifully. I highly recommend the Answers in Genesis website for people who are interested Creation Science.

Frankly, the whole "Climate Change" hype is based on a model of history that assumes millions of years and cycles of climate change... ice age, tropical planet, ice age, etc. The Biblical Creation model has one ice age (due super warm oceans) after the world-wide flood. An understanding of the Biblical Creation model exposes MMGW for what it is: Bunk.

AGW/MMGW is not bunk because of one Christian community's interpretation of the Bible. AGW/MMGW is bunk because the science does not support it. The evidence for many ice ages is absolute, jsut like the evidence for an ancient Earth, plate tectonics, an ancient Universe, etc. AGW/MMGW is bunk because it confuses models for data. And Christians who confuse their interpretation of the Bible as the equivalent of the Word of God are making similar mistakes. Humans like apocalyptic stories. Like all other apocalyptic stories told throughout history, they do not happen. They are teaching stories, just like the two or three creation stories in Genesis. My Faith in Christ is not dependent on fundamental literalists who confuse the teaching of God as told by inspired people thousands of years ago with science.

And for those who think that if you do believe in the science of evolution, you cannot be a Christian, I can only offer my pity and hope that you are not judged as you judge.

I am active in the American Scientific Affiliation group that meets in my city.
http://www.asa3.org/
We meet every other month to study exactly these questions.

I'm not asking you to take what I say as fact...I'm willing to be proven wrong which should be a basic tenet of science because if we become too dogmatic...we'll not acknowledge truth when we see it.

If you are a scientist I encourage you to look at the sources I have given you up thread with an open mind. If you decide to stick with evolutionary theory at least you will be doing so based on all the evidence and not just accepting one side on faith while ignoring the evidence that supports the other

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

You've said there is a problem with MMGW because it's not observable, repeatable etc...how can you say Evolutionary theory is absolute truth when nothing in the theory is observed...

I can look at a body buried at the side of a mountain...A conclusion could be made that it was buried by another person or that it was buried in an land slide. Same evidence different interpretation.

A better example is...let's say you come to a faucet that is dripping at .5 gallons an hour and there is a gallon bucket that is full to the top. You know the water hasn't overflowed the bucket so you could assume that the faucet has dripped for around 2 hours. What you don't know and can't quantify is whether someone might not have turned the water on full blast and set it at it's current drip rate. you also have no way to know how much water was in the bucket when the dripping started if any. If there was no water in the bucket and someone put a half gallon in it before it started dripping at it's current rate that would mean it's only dripped for 1 hour not two...

So, what else can be said except that the assumptions of those scientists who are interpreting the only evidence available to them without being able to prove what's happened before they found the evidence are unprovable and that those who use it to allegedly prove evolution are doing so starting from a false premise just like MMGW proponents are now doing!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

the body in the hill- good forensics willshow the difference between landslid and burial.
With the bucket, if the dripping is actually a dripping that occurs worldwide, a lot of information can be inferred about how the dripping behaves.
If you think God is turning on and off the laws of physics to get things done, then there is no need for any science, wince it is just arbitrary.

I don't deny the validity of the scientific method as observed. Granted my landslide analogy is a simplification of what the evidence would be for the sake of discussion as is the dripping water...

Your answer to the dripping water is brilliant by the way and I knew the problems with both my analogies when I posted them. My answer to my water analogy however has an answer where the evidence for and against Evolution is conserved and that would be the global flood as described in the Bible. I would urge you to read the Genesis Flood by Dr John Whitcomb and I highly recommend Dr's Walter Browns theories on how the flood could explain the fossil record. His theory encompasses Geology explaining the fossil record as well as how the changes made by the shifting of the earth's tectonic plates could have occurred rapidly.

My main point tying this back to the original discussion however is that as with the theories of evolution as well as those put forth by MMGW alarmists have infinite problems based not on what the scientists know...but what they don't and can never know!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

BTW....I swore I wouldn't participate in the evolution discussion any more and you dragged me back into it...Thanks a lot.

LOL

:>)

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

If the bible is inspired then how can it contain lies hunter? you are violating one of the first truths of science by saying that which says that two opposite possibilities can not be true...one is true and one is not...

Either Genesis is is God inspired or it is not. Either it is true or it is not. If Genesis is not true...either God did not inspire it or God is a liar.

I'm not in a position to question your faith nor do I wish to do so...I'm only saying the same problems exist between MMGW scientists and Darwinian evolutionists...both theories are based on unprovable assumptions and must be taken on faith since neither can be duplicated so they can be observed.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and explaining things to nomadic pre-literate traders is different from engineering diagrams or statistical analysis, and using stories to illustrate wisdom is not lying.
Why do you seek to limit God?
Look how much explanation and dissembling and inference is required just to get around the biblical statement of 'pi'.
Genesis is true for what it is: A story to teach that humans are seperated from God by their own original sin, and that this has been around as long as people have been around. And it is clearly cobbled together from differing and conflicting sources.
It is not a book of geology. It is not a book of biology. It is not a book of cosmology. It is not a book of chemistry or physics. It is a book written from ancient stories that tells where God and man meet, and how he calls His chosen to Him, despite their many many imperfections and sins.
It was written by sinful imperfect humans inspired by God.
And none of this has to do with the failures of AGW as science.
BTW, here is a prediction made by evolutionary science that is completely true:
There are evolutionary traits in our genes that stretch from planaria to h. sapiens. These also correspond to the fossil record.
Read up on Evolutionary Development:
http://seanbcarroll.com/books/Endless_Forms_Most_Beautiful/
Now for me, the fact that the tools and switches you will read about exist, are a wonderful proof of the intervention of God.
There is no good reason at all for a bunch of chemicals to assemble, reassemble and evolve as life does.
Minerals do not do it. Cosmic sized structures do not do it.
Mountains form and then predictabily erode away.
Mineral crystals form and then stay locked away forever.
Life and life alone does what it does.
I see God's hand in that.

I have always looked upon the first part of Genesis as a series of allegories to help man understand the nature of God.

The earliest people in the book resemble myths and archetypes with long lists of begats by their name.

Only when you get to Abraham do you see what seems to be a real living, breathing man, with dreams and desires.

From Abraham on to some of the major prophets the Bible reads more like history, with the exception of the book of Job, which is clearly a parable.

Frankly, attempts to explain everything by a literal creation of six days bores me. There is nothing logical about it, and although God does want us to live by faith, I see no reason to believe that He does not also want us to use our understanding.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

either you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God or you do not.

You've acknowledges that Scientists can be wrong because they have accepted something to be true and stop looking at credible alternatives and/or can skew their research to achieve ideological ends by saying you think they have done so with MMGW. Isn't it possible that the same has been done with Darwinian evolution?

Again, I've given you plenty of material to research. If you want to be objective and study it, and make an informed decision based on knowledge of the subject, I am begging you to do so...if you want to take one side and ignore the evidence supporting the other side that's fine too...but don't say you are a scientist because the last time I checked, scientists "Say" they make informed hypotheses based on ALL the evidence.

I'm done with this discussion from here on because I wrote this to discuss MMGW, and I thank you for agreeing with me on that. The validity of what the Bible says and the role of God in writing it, and the validity of Creation Science isn't appropriate here because we don't have room to discuss three subjects that encompass so much information at once!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

It is very easy to believe that God showed the authors of the Bible what happened. Maybe even took them there in person to experience it. But that they were then unable to explain to their readers exactly what they saw.

Just as Science is an imperfect attempt by man to understand God's universe. So could the Bible easily be a collection of imperfect attempts by man to record the perfect visions given to them by God.

After all, Jesus didn't write the Bible.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

is theopneustos - while the common translation goes "inspired by God", it is literally rendered "God-breathed".

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

When I say inspired I mean God not only showed them...and explained it to them, he also told them what to write either consciously or by supernaturally guiding them speaking to them indirectly..

Luther was wrong in his statements because he had a misreading of scripture based on what he was able to know at the time. on the flip side history is filled with instances where scientific theory has been used to disprove the Bible and was later proven wrong. most have to do with Archeology but I will give a couple of instances from other disciplines.

First is where the Bible refers to the circle of the earth...had the Church of the day read the Bible completely in search of answers to Galileo they would have seen the truth of it.

The second and most compelling for me is the Bible talking about the mountains of the great deep. The great deep in scripture always refers to the oceans of the world. I haven't looked it up but I think the reference comes from Job wich is one of the oldest books of the Bible. It wasn't until the 1960s that we had the technology to map the Ocean floor with Sonar. When it was done it was discovered that there were great mountain ranges on the ocean floor that rival and dwarf Mt. Everest.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

references to the seas or the great deep are used in prophesies sometimes refers to the people or great masses of people.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

The other issue I have is:

Just as Science is an imperfect attempt by man to understand God's universe. So could the Bible easily be a collection of imperfect attempts by man to record the perfect visions given to them by God.

It could be...But the major problem with it is, once you throw out one book you basically throw out the whole Bible. If one part of it is a lie, how can we believe anything from the rest of it?

It's exactly why I have a problem with Justices reinterpreting the Constitution. They haven't suberted it's meaning in one fell swoop, they started by chipping away at it's foundation and relentlessly continued to chip away at it till it has no meaning today.


CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

If you can point that out to me, I'd appreciate it.
I also don't believe I said you should out Any of the books.

You see, we have a significant issue here. The Bible is the "Written Word of God"
Well, the written word is an imperfect medium used by imperfect people. Even IF God, personally, picked up quill and wrote the Bible, we're still talking about an imperfect description, because perfect communication, like all perfection is beyond man's ken, so God would have had to restrict himself to something we could read.

Furthermore, even if you use the King James Bible (still reputed to be the most accurate translation, by virtue of being translated from the translation of the 16th translation of the original Hebrew texts), you're still talking about writings that have passed through the imperfect efforts to translate between languages at Least 18 times, from Hebrew, to Latin to Greek to >>> until you reached the English.

All the other English Bibles are based on the 20-somethingth translation...

You see where I am coming from? It's an imperfect record. Period. Is it the Best record? Sure seems like it. Archeology certainly seems to support it on virtually every account (including the Flood). But is it a record of Exactly what happened, how it happened, when it happened, in the order it happened? Not even remotely possible.

But accepting this, in no way means that you do not believe in God or in his written word. The meanings of the stories still holds true, regardless.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

This discussion is interesting because the Koran is believed by Islam to be an accurate manuscript written by G-d and transcribed exactly. Likewise the KJV has its adherents that the words are the direct words of G-d. (Inspired translation) The Jews on the other hand have always believed the Bible was open to analysis and understanding, and that our understandings may change over time. G-d has after all given us minds to use in trying to understand Him. My belief is that our understanding will always fall short, after all, we are the created, not the Creator. Personally, I like the idea that we may learn from our studies and that this is another gift. Plus, it supports the idea that we can use tool such as the scientific method to better understand the world and the universe. This in my mind does not detract from the texts of the holy books, not in the least. This puts me at odds, especially with Islam, but also with everyone who claims that they know the truth. I don’t believe it is possible for man to know the truth.

the Bible was open to analysis and understanding, and that our understandings may change over time.

Sounds like you're describing the "Living Constitution" to me!

I've said it earlier...My discussion of the Bible and what I believe concerning original sin was in response to a question that was asked about why some Christians have a problem squaring Darwinian Evolution with Scripture.

My answer is to say, for me there are two things at issue here, It's the infallibility of scripture, and the other is the seeming willingness of Christians to accept the so called "Consensus" that Darwinian Evolution is the ONLY possible explanation of origins when there is ample evidence in existence that calls into question many of Evolution's basic assumptions.


CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Everything you put forth here pretty much comports with my own thoughts on most of this....we differ slightly in how accurate the translations are...and the reliability of those translations since I believe God directed those in the translation of the KJV. It helps as well to be able to go back to the original language and double check the alternative meaning of some word which have more than one meaning and I've learned that knowing the variations of some definitions can shed light on the original text and what God was saying through the writers.

I just have a problem thinking the 6 day description of creation can be ignored based on Man's fallible interpretation of evidence that could support Evolution...yet has another possible interpretation in Creation Science...especially given the proven fact that there is a concerted effort to suppress and ignore evidence that would tend to disprove the accepted scientific explanation of origins.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

"Once upon a time, the Lord say to Abram, Your children will be numerous as the stars in the sky. Look at heaven's glory, says the Lord"
He meant that he would have trillions of offspring or else He is a liar?
No. Yet you want to pick and choose what is literal and what is not, but deny me the right to do the same.
And in the same God breathed spirit, He was not telling a bunch of shepherds and farmers and traders that the world was created in six calendar days as defined by our atomic clocks.

The Weather Channel tells me every day what time the sun will rise and set. Is the sun really doing anything? No. The earth is spinning. Is the Weather Channel lying? No. They're employing the common use of words to convey a truth about daylight.

However, if the Weather Channel had a 2-hour special on how the tides were caused by millions of African Elephants taking a dip in the ocean simultaneously, THAT would be a lie, no matter how you slice it.

You seem to be assuming that the "shepherds, farmers, and traders" of the distant past were less intelligent than we today. I suggest to you that while they probably had less *accumulated* knowledge than we do now they were likely far superior to us in sheer intellect. To imply that they wouldn't have had the ability to understand Evolution is just silly.

Fair enough...How many descendents has Abraham had in 4000 years?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

in the millenia to come? This planet could keep going for millions of years.

Thank-you hunter, for saying exactly what I was thinking too. A digression into mysticism doesn't advance the debate on global warming.

Erasmus warned against conflict over dogmatic interpretation of the bible. He argued, when men disagree about these matters, the final answer cannot be known with certainty during our earthly lives. Paul said the same when he wrote "we see through a glass darkly".

Obviously learned christians disagree about these issues. The Pope has spoken in favor of evolution and pronounced fundimentalism to be heresy.

CS Lewis was very much aware of the limits of human consciousness and mind. And he had one of the best minds of the 20th century.

I would also point out that Christ himself as well as Paulwarned against taking anything away from Scripture...

I agree however that discussing what you call "mysticism" and I call God does not fit my intent in writing this post and we should take the discussion to another forum if you wish to engage in it!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

of what the writers were inspired to say and replacing the meaning with a selective literalism is taking away a LOT.

What you call "selective literalism" others call "reading the text as it is meant to be read". For example, the Psalms are poetry. The parables of Jesus are teaching stories. (No one thinks the "Prodigal Son" Jesus was talking about was a specific person.) The apocalyptic literature of Joel, Peter, and John (in Revelation) is just that. Apocalyptic Literature.

However, the History books of the Old Testament are actually written records of what people saw and wanted to convey to future generations. They're meant to be taken literally. If you look at Genesis closely, you can see where these records start and end. The very first record (Gen 1:1-2:4) is what God told Adam about Creation Week. The second record (Gen 2:4-5:1) is Adam's, the third (5:1-6:9) is Noah's, etc, etc. These records finally came into the possession of Moses who compiled them into what we now know as Genesis.

The written record in Genesis makes alot of very specific claims about the distant past, and none of these claims have ever been disproven. In fact, when archeological evidence comes to light, it is perennially confirming what the written record told us. If any OTHER written history were as accurate as Genesis, people would be considered fools for ignoring it.

We Young Earth Creationist simply find that when we start with the written record of Genesis as our framework, all the evidence unearthed by archeologists, geologist, and paleontologists fits in very nicely with the model. YEC also makes sense of things that perplex our friends on the other side of the debate, like Carbon-14 in diamonds and hemoglobin in T-rex bones.

We agree here...that's why I'm objecting to throwing out the book of Genesis as a book of legends from a bunch of ignorant nomads and desert tradesmen

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

And I responded.

I did not mean to suggest in any way that science and religion are competing. After all, Science is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand God's perfect universe.

As for your "multiple lines of evidence and rigorous testing" I have yet to even hear of a repeatable experiment where one species was changed into another even with direct genetic manipulation. Let alone just selective breeding or natural selection. Show me the experiment and I'll accept evolution as proven science. The lack of such an experiment, however, does not falsify evolution.

As I said, Evolution is a worthy theory. Not proven science. The same as I.D. (prove or disprove the presence of God or any other possible intelligence that could have created life on Earth).

And as has been said regarding AGW, "Consensus" has no place in science.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Well said Raven....I don't know which side of the Evolution/Creation devide you fall on but you're post is exactly the point that GW, Evolution, or Biblical Creation etc are more a religion than science because none can be proven by observation, (I would say Christianity is an exception but I can't explain why to someone who hasn't experience what I have...but I digress). What I'm saying is all require faith to believe them!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?

The medical advances of the future will be made by application of genetic science that is specifically dervied from evolutionary concepts.
St. Augustine warned that ignoring scientific and other advances because of a certain Biblical interpretation is wrong, and hurts the Faith and brings disrepute on the believer. In a sense it is tempting God.

Have advanced before on theories that were later either proven completely wrong or merely incomplete. At Best, the theory of evolution is incomplete right now.
Like I said, change one species to another and I'll accept it as proven. Oh, but you have to do it by using the mechanics for it included in the theory, don't forget. Doing it with genetic manipulation just says that we have gotten closer to mastering genetic manipulation.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

and geology and a few other fields have advanced thanks to AGW theory...

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

AGW takes away from other sciences.
AGW promoters muscle in on established science and claim it is all about CO2.
AGW seeks to suppress other areas of inquiry.
Whole fields of medicine, paleontology, chemistry, and other areas have prospered under Evolution.

We know more about how ocean currents affect climate, how cloud formations affect climate. We have taken more ice cores and documented what was found.

I'm nopt saying that there were Huge leaps and bounds in any science due to AGW theory. Nor am I saying that everything we learned trying to Prove AGW will be apparent right away. But the mere existence of the argument, no matter how it may be repressed by the establishment, advances the science in all related fields.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

I think the main conclusion of AGW is a false one, and I think the science does not support it.
I think evolution is supported, predictable, applicable, and is still under a Sovereign God's control.

There is an upside and a downside to everything. EVERY thing. Good and Bad.

AGW is false (most likely). That's certainly where I'll put my money, though I'm open to being wrong.
It is being used to forward the political ambitions and the desires for power of a Lot of people.
Does that about summarize the bad for you?

The good:
The effort to either deny or prove AGW has advanced several sciences in at least minor ways.
The effort to fight AGW or capitalize on its power benefits, has shown people who and what certain other people, usually politicians, really are.

Evolution:
The bad:
It's not proven.
It and it's close relative, Darwinism, has been used to forward Eugenics the world over, killing millions.

The good:
It's not disproven.
It and Darwinism has been used to forward many scientific disciplines and led to several medical breakthroughs.

You must learn to be objective. Step back and look at it honestly and weigh one side against the other(s). Of course, that requires you acknowledge the other side(s).
If you go back through my history, you will see that this is exactly what I do. My posts might even make more sense when looked at this way.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

for centuries. Just sayin.

The Vatican promoted geocentrism when it placed theological dogma and church politics ahead of the true nature of the physical universe:

1633 Letter resolves the legend about the Galileo case, says Vatican aide
ZENIT, August 21, 2003

"When, in 1610, Galileo published 'Sidereus Nuncius,' in which he upheld the centrality of the sun in the universe, he received the applause both of Johannes Kepler, the great astronomer, and of the Jesuit Clavius, author of the Gregorian calendar," Archbishop Amato told the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana. "He even had great success among the Roman cardinals," he said. "In fact, all of them wanted to look at the sky through his famous telescope."

"Those who opposed him were above all the philosophers, especially those of the peripatetic school of Pisa, who were inspired in Aristotle, and they started to bring sacred Scripture into play," the archbishop said. Because of these pressures, the Holy Office intervened.

On Oct. 31, 1992, John Paul II acknowledged these errors publicly. "Allow us to deplore certain mental attitudes ... derived from the lack of perception of the legitimate autonomy of science," he said before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

So you see, the Vatican has changed dramatically for the better (see The Pontifical Academy of Sciences Plenary Session on Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life (2008).

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Defeating the popular hysteria of AGW is important and does not require a fundamental literal interpretation of the Bible to accomplish.

What repeatable experiments have they conducted to prove it?

You will note that I am not Denying evolution. I happen to believe in it. But not that it occurred by random chance (thus my departure from Darwinism, a separate, though related theory). I am merely placing it in the correct place in the scientific process. It is not a law. Merely an unproven theory.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

if you design a logical system (e.g. Evolution) and you manipulate the variables (e.g. the envronment) in a determined way and let the system run its course to its eventual conclusion. How is that different from design? If you know how the system is going to react to specific inputs, you are directing the outcome to a specific, predetermined end.

My problem with evolution gets down to this. In asexual reproduction evolution would be easy to explain. One organism is somehow mutated, say gains an extra chromosome pair, and passes the new traits on by division and voila, a new species. When you get to sexually differentiated organisms you run into a problem. Say for instance a 46 chromosome human mutates into a 48 chromosome human....huh??

I guess that means sexually differentiated species can only mutate (i.e. gain chromosomes)at conception but that would imply having a male and female pair each having the 48 chromosomes trait. Pairing up a 46 chromosome human with a 48 chromosome human (and just how did that human get that extra chromosome pair?)would produce a fertilized egg (assuming fertitlity of both) with a full complement of 23 chromosome pairs (like in the normal 46 chromosome human) with one unmatched chromosome left over. This mismatch normally produces sterile offspring (e.g. hinnies and mules)who can't pass on the new traits.

We are now asked to believe that somehow, somewhere, somewhen this system of evolution was able to produce the different species through this mechanism!

So Sorry, I'm having trouble making that leap of faith!!

Humans have 23 pairs (46 chromosomes), horses have 16 pairs, donkeys have 15 AND CHIMPANZEES HAVE 24 PAIRS(48 CHROMOSOMES)!!!! Shall we start a new species????

I see God's hand in evolution very clearly.
As I see it across the >10 billion years of our Universe.
As I see it in Quantum Mechanics.

4 picoseconds after hitting the 'post comment' button!!! Even having read it 'post post', I wasn't sure I'd been clear enough.

The Bible makes it clear...how old the earth is by listing the genealogies of every single generation including how long each generation lived from Adam al the way to Christ.

Christ came 4000 years from Adam and it's been 2000 years since Christ died. that makes the age of the earth 6000 years old if you believe the Bible.

and again...I can only take your word for it that you are a Christian and wouldn't dare question that...That being said, I ask you to search your heart for the truth of what I'm saying...if the earth existed for Billions of years before Adam, and species were developed through thousands of years of natural selection which requires death as it's first premise...how can Adam's sin be responsible for bringing death into the world, and why was God required to come to the earth as a perfect man to atone for Adam's sin, (and ours by extension from Adam??

It was asked earlier why there is a conflict between Christian faith and Evolution. I gave the explanation why many of us have a problem with evolution as well as pointed you to study resources so you can see that it is not necessary to believe Genesis to be a lie...You are have your opinion based on your interpretation of available evidence and I have mine.

If you want to discuss this further with me, I would be happy to go to a blog you write and discuss it with you...I sense we have a lot in common and look forward to the debate...but let's please stick to the subject of my blog and end the hijack...that request goes to those of you on my side of this as well!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I'm not sure how you interpreted my post! I'd hoped that it was obviously anti evolution! My view regarding the above post does not go against the creation as told in the Bible!

Using my previous post as the start.

Having constructed that 'logical system', establish a starting point.(Fiat Lux) Populate your construct (Genesis). Having established your population, using the same logical system, extrapolate backwards and place what would seemingly be evidence of a very long existence. Now test your 'people': I created this in six days, believe Me or believe your eyes.

Postulating an infinitely powerful supreme being coupled with the fact that 'time' didn't exist before he said 'Fiat lux!' I have no problem believing Him.

Before anybody yells that God wouldn't deceive us by planting false evidence, the 'evidence' isn't false, it's part of the test.

In school, teachers construct test questions and place information in them that do not necessarily bear resemblance to any existant situations. That does not make the evidence false it's part of the test! It is this information that you must use to come to your conclusion. Is the teacher trying to deceive you? No!

The teacher, to determine your level of knowledge (belief), 'creates' a scenario to see if, using your knowledge, you can come to the correct conclusion!

As to my belief, I don't see anything out there that proves it wasn't done in six days! So I believe God.

To any philosphers out there: can you prove the existence of the universe prior to the awakening of your consciousness?

I've slept since my post and I don't remember if I posted it as a response to someone else or as a supplement to your's because I don't see anything in your post I disagree with.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

The Bible makes it clear...how old the earth is by listing the genealogies of every single generation including how long each generation lived from Adam al the way to Christ.

Can you show me such a list, with the length of the generations? Because I've looked. I tried to create one once but first had to fudge with Noah and then got completely stuck after Jacob.

Get out your Strong's concordance and see for yourself that the word "as" is not synonymous with "equals," in the context of the verse that says a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. Modern Hebrew and Arabic both use the the English word for "million." This is also why the Chronicles express large numbers in thousands of thousands.

This is also aside from the fact that the original Hebraic verb in Genesis 1:2 suggests the Earth became without form and void. There had to be an earlier age for the Overthrow to have happened.

Sorry to get all academic and theological but young-Earth creationism really doesn't win any new souls to Christ.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Gen Chapter 5:1-32 lists the generations from Adam to Noah.

These generations lved for nearly 1000 years for reasons best explained by Dr. Walter Browns Canopy theory and the length of their lives is recorded. Those Generations that followed the flood had life spans the more approximated those today.

Gen Chapter 10:1-32 lists the generations of Noah to the times of Abraham.

Gen Chapter 11:11-32 lists the direict lineage from Shem, Noah's son to Abraham.

Le lineages from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob through the tribe of Judah to David are there but I'm too lazy to look them up.

The genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, stepfather of Jesus, from the Gospel of Matthew 1:2–16 Traces Christ's line back to King David and from there on to Abraham;

The Genealogy of Jesus through Mary, Mother of Jesus, from the Gospel of Luke 3:23–38 traces the line all the way back to Adam.

Isaac Beget Jacob who begat the 12 tribes of Israel.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Again, if you insist on applying a selective literalism to the Bible, you are putting your faith at risk.
And please stop saying that unless I agree with your take on this that I am calling God a liar.
It is annoying and manipulative.
Again:
The definition of 'inspiration' no where equals that of 'transcription'.
And I have posted multiple examples of where the Bible cannot be literal- pi, Abram's children, and I think it insults God to pretend that their obvious intent as illustrative of larger points has to be convoluted into something a tiny group of believers can call 'literal'.

I'm sorry Hunter but that's the way I see it. you can believe it or not, that's up to you...my only reason for getting into this discussion is your statement that you didn't understand why people who believe as I do think there is a problem between Religion and Science.

I would be the first to tell you I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time...God is infinite while I have a finite mind with a finite understanding. ANYONE who says they know everything about God and everything there is to know is a fool.

I don't believe the age of the earth is something that God or the Bible is ambiguous abut...and I've given you sources of research that would back up what I'm saying that it's not necessary to hold to the millions of years of evolution! Your refusal to seemingly even look at the evidence I've pointed you is troubling to me but of little import to me. I'm just glad in talking to you that I've found a brother who will spend eternity in heaven with me and we can discuss what fools we were back in the day when we have God there to answer our questions...">)

I've stated my main objection to reading the Genesis account as legend and myth based on my belief, backed up by Paul and other new testament sources that it was Adam's fall necessitated Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.

I believe ou are correct...you don't have to believe the whole doctrine of original sin in order to recognize your sin and depravity and your need for a Saviour but it is my belief that it all flows from the Genesis fall and I believe the new testament agrees with my belief.

Does the Bible use allegory...absolutely...but where it does so, it is describing specific events and times to come, it isn't the basis upon which everything else revolves.

As to your example of Abraham's Children being as numerous as the stars...It could be interpreted either way as alegory or not...Abraham's seed already makes up most of the peoples that populate the middle east and the thousands of generations they are descended from, Some believe the European nations are descended from the Ten lost tribes which were taken from the land by Syria. (let me be clear here...one of the sources of this theory is from a very racist and anti semitic worlview and I do not subscribe to their theology, but the evidence they present is compelling). There is now way to know at this time if Adam's seed will or will not continue to multiply exponentially for the rest of eternity so the interpretation could be literal.


CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

this is a field that is over my head but if it is involving string theory...isn't that taken on faith?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

This is where your learning of evolution has failed you, but not evolutionary theory itself. In fact, adding or dropping pairs of chromosomes isn't the problem you make it out to be. Hypodiploidy is the term for having less than 46 chromosomes, and you may be surprised to learn that some people are born with as few as 24-28 chromosomes in total. The difficult part is producing a sub-population with the same, stable chromosome mutations.

The thing to keep in mind is that we "normal" 46 chromosome humans can have genetic conditions that perpetuate the same mutation over hundreds or thousands of generation (like Down's Syndrome). Eventually, stable mutations of chromosomes occur - these are called Robertsonian translocations or autosomal reciprocal translocations. It's actually fairly common. There are even documented cases of healthy babies born with 44 chromosomes [homozygous (14;21) translocation] from parents with the same translocation (one pair of chromosomes 14 and 21 fused together).

It's like trying to start a fire by striking stones. it doesn't matter how many times you fail to catch the spark. It only needs to happen once. When it comes to genes, we're misfiring all the time - 1 in 6 human pregnancies end in miscarriage during the first trimester, mostly due to genetic abnormalities.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

I said I was done with this discussion but I'm intrigued...What you are saying is compelling...The only question that remains in my mind is...has there ever been a documented case where available genetic information has increased from one generation to the next?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

that an omnipotent God can do pretty much whatever he wants. To disregard evolution per se, seems to me to be more damaging to God than accepting it.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Genetic information is really stable - that is to say, the number of genes we carry. What is more common are changes to specific genes, and most common are changes to gene switches. This is where evolution really occurs and its the kind of "information" you're looking for.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

lead to variation within a species. The tenet that Darwin espoused. Changes in 'gene switching' can't explain species jumping! Even minor variations within a species only promulgates a greater variation within that species over time (e.g. new breeds). Although there can be variants in the number of chromosomal pairs, it is an indication of an abnormality. Using your prior examples of human babies born with less than the 'normal' 46, are they 'not' human? I posit that they are. They are just born with a genetic abnomality.

If we can't use the 'golden mean' number of chromosome pairs to determine species within flora and fauna what can we use. By extension if we posit a wide range of possibiliites within a species do we not overlap?

In my example I use chimpanzees who have 24 pairs. Two of the pairs are smaller than the others. It's been noted that fused together these two pairs resemble a 'normal' sized chromosome (consistent with the others in the sample). Were these two chromosomes to fuse resulting in a hypodiploidy episode, would the resulting offspring(with 23 pairs, just like a human) of two chimpanzees result in a human?

Although variants in genetic information within a species can occur it can't really account for a change in species.

If then, we can't define what 'species' is by a quantitative method, falling on a qualitative method causes greater problems. Who,then, is to decide how much lion there is in that lion? How much 'lionness' is required for that creature to be called a lion? What traits constitute a different species, kingdom, phylum, class? Is 1 major difference in traits enough to constitute a new species? Or does it require more? Would 20 minor differences constitue a different species? The dark extreme to that scenario is: who decides what is and isn't human? You?? Me?? A Senate Select Committee? The Supreme Court?

Since we now can manipulate genetic information with various techniques (e.g. 'gene splicing' et. al.) where does one species end and another begin. Cross species genetic manipulation has already occured. When this begins to be done to humans at what point do they lose their humanity? The question becomes: How do you differentiate between one 'species' and another?

Or maybe, we are all just one species with widely differing traits.

Scientists have been using D. Melanogaster to study genetics for years and have documented thousands upon thousands of generations. They have documented and, quite frankly, proven the tenets of genetics beyond any doubt. Yet all their documentation only proves variations within the D. Melanogaster norm. There is no documentation anywhere that states that within a population of D. Melanogaster that there ever resulted an offspring of a different species!

Had that occured it would have been shouted from the rooftops of every evolutionist's home on the planet! You would also hear them shouting 'God is dead'!

Genetics is proven, Evolution is not!

Granted, lack of evidence does not disprove existence. That's why it's still a theory. However, to state categorically that 'Evolutionary Theory', as unproven as it is, even taking into account the tons of 'paperwork' and fossil evidence that seem to point to validity does not make other lines of inquiry invalid. It's not there yet! No one, no one has any evidence that proves or disproves the theory and in all probability never will.

The scientific community automatically ridiculing 'other' ideas hobbles true science. Major changes in scientific thought were caused by radicals thinking outside the conventional wisdom box. Einstein's Theories were so outside the realm of conventional physics that even now there are some aspects that haven't been completely explored. Yet Einstein's once radical theories now constitute 'the box'! Young physicists are now going outside the box and postulating radical new ideas to explain the problems encountered with Einstein's theories.

moderich, to me there are just too many holes in the 'Swiss Cheese' evidence of 'Evolutionary Theory' to begin lending great credence to it! Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I don't have enough faith! So I'll place the faith I do have elsewhere!

I will neither deny you your right to place your faith in it nor will I denigrate you for believing it!

Presumably arising from 45 chromosome parents, it would only take a handful of people with 44 chromosomes (41:21 translocation) to start a split in the human species.

Certain families have a high incidence of Roberstonian translocations. Should a small group of families become highly inbred, the chances of producing children with stable 44 chromosomes of identical translocations increases - as well children with 45 (like their parents.)

The 45 chromosome people are the key here, because they can mate with normal 46 chromosome humans, and presumably, the new 44 chromosome humans. This keeps the 44s from dying out, because 44s and 46s wouldn't be able to cross-breed. At some point though, there are enough 44s that they are self-sustainable.

Culturally, 44s and 46s might choose to separate themselves because of the infertility problem - why risk your son or daughter falling in love with someone from the "wrong family" and not be able to produce children? With distinct populations, the 44s and 46s would accumulate different sets of mutations over time and become visually recognizable as distinct species.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

at what point do they lose their humanity? Do they always retain it or can they lose it? Are they a new species or a new breed? Chihuahuas and Great Danes differ in traits yet they are both dogs. How much difference does it take to define a creature as a new species? With genetic manipulation available we need to decide pretty quickly.

even if it is the single most diverse species in nature.

I've heard that Neandertal man had a larger brain and a higher muscle-to-bone ratio than Homo sapiens. It's also been found that they were probably as intelligent as we, with evidence that includes musical instruments and javelins made with their center of gravity at 1/3 length. We can only speculate about why they disappeared but I wouldn't rule out genocide because they were smart enough to adapt to changes in habitat.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Were Neanderthals "human" or close enough to matter? A scientific discussion of Species will not answer philosophical/moral questions, but it can enlighten you on the mechanics of evolution.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

according to some. I'm not qualified to definitively say if the two species were close enough to do that.

From your question, I thought of what Kirk told Spock in "Star Trek VI:" "Everybody's human."

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Or should that be spelled "Cling-on" as in "cling on to your guns and your religion"!! I guess I'm a "Cling-on", maybe I'll make a t-shirt! "This 'Cling-on' is voting for McCain"

Interbreeding would lead to new breeds not new species.

"What is a species?"

The most accepted definition is a group of animals able to breed fertile offspring.
Thus, Horses and Donkeys are not the same species because a mule is not fertile. And thus, according to Star Trek, all the humanoid species are the same species...

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

that would depend on how you, as an evolutionist, would define 'human'!

Your mechanics of evolution predicates that a series of minor differences accumulated over time eventually differentiates one group as a new species. Again, evidence? Everything shown can be interpreted differently without shattering anyones illusions of 'truth'.

If you are trained to interpret data only one way, given ten similar sets of data, your conclusions will always come out the same. If ten people are trained to interpret data one way, given the same set of data they will each come to a similar conclusion. Evolutionists, as all scientists, start their discussion with a set of assumptions and build their argument from there. Evolutionists, however claim their basic unproven assumptions as absolute truths! Assumptions are only a basis to begin constructing a theory, a foundation if you will. If you begin with just one incorrect assumption your completely logical argument always ends up as false.

True scientific inquiry begins with questioning the validity of the basic assumptions. What if? Speculation, leads to postulation which leads to inquiry which generates data which either supports the assumption or if it fails to support it leads to another round of speculation... until at some point the data completely support the revised set of assumptions. Interpreted by the currently held as absolute truth assumptions, evolutionists will invariably come to the same conclusions.

If I accept your assumptions and follow them logically, then of course I'll come to the same conclusions.

I'm not questioning your logical arguments, I'm questioning your unprovable assumptions.

Just for a few minutes look at the basic assumptions of evolution. Instead of looking at them as graven in stone and unalterable, assume for 1 minute that just one of those assumptions is wrong. Now follow your logical argument. If you did it correctly the 'evolutionary theory' falls flat.

Note I did not say disproven!

Any theory begins with a set of basic assumptions, 'assumed' to be true, not proven! Given those assumptions, any conclusions arrived at logically are valid relative to that set of assumptions.

Since you haven't proven the assumptions to be true your argument remains a theory. Until such time that a preponderance of your assumptions have been proven to be fact, acceptance of your theory is not automatic. Evidence may seem to point to validity but it still doesn't confirm it. Only until you can prove the validity of all your assumptions can you go from theory to law.

With all due respect, evolution has not yet reached the tipping point because there are still too many unproven assumptions.

The biggest problem I have with 'evolution theory' proponents isn't their science! It's their belief that it's been absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a shadow of a doubt and that there can be no other possible explanation!

Einstein made his leap by questioning the then 'conventional thinking' in Physics. What are evolutionists so afraid of that they unquestioningly squelch any 'outside the box' thinking? If the Theory of Evolution is to go beyond its current status of dogma its proponents have to open their minds to alternate lines of inquiry. If the data supports the theory great! Keep digging! If it doesn't support it, try a new line of inquiry! If you don't question, test and revise your assumptions until they're no longer assumptions, nothing changes.

Until all your assumptions are proven true and accepted as fact, don't tell me your theory is the truth.

You must define "species" in an unalterable way.
The mechaincs are pretty simple, natural selection (though, the actual working of natural selection gets pretty complex the deeper you go into it, just like anything else). The problem is that "natural selection" does not explain the jumps across species boundaries.
So, question 1:
What is a species?
If it is, as is taught in school -- a group of animals capable of breeding fertile offspring -- then it doesn't account for jack. In case you were unaware (we'll use dogs because they are so diverse and so well documented in their breeding histories over such a length of time that... well, you get the idea), no matter how much or for how long or for whatever traits you breed a breed of dogs separated from every other breed in the world, Once you bring your breed back into contact with another, you can interbreed yours with another and have fertile puppies. So...
Now what?
Dogs are supposedly extremely closely related to bears and pigs. How do you get a bear or a pig from a dog? How do you go the other way around?

Thus, as I was saying to Hunter above, evolution is unproven, unprovable (at this time) and unfalsifiable. Furthermore, it has HUGE, gaping holes I could drive my HET through.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

If you're not following evolutionary theory being tested in molecular biology and genetics, of course your understanding of evolution will be insufficient to answer your questions.

Looking at an animal's genes tells us that "species", as defined in Charles Darwin's day, is too simplistic to account for what we have learned from DNA. For example, interbreeding between species does occur. And our genes/gene switches can mutate within our bodies during our lives - so that identical twins can end up as adults with slightly different DNA. We even know that our bodies can retain pocket of cells with DNA from our mothers, and mothers can house cells of their children. So there are many avenues for mutation. And as I mentioned previously, Robertsonian translocations are just one means species diverge.

For example, Geoffroy's cat, the Margay and Ocelot have 36 chromosomes whereas the wild and domestic cat has 38 chromosomes. And then there are the Canids: the Gray Wolf and the Coyote have 78 chromosomes, the Maned Wolf 76, the Hoary Fox 74, the Bat-eared Fox 72, the Gray Fox 66, the Fennec Fox 64, the Kit Fox 50, and the Red Fox 36.

So how do different types of cats (suborder Feliformia) or dogs (suborder Caniformia) - have members of the same "kind" with different numbers of chromosomes? Because all of these animals (along with many other mammals) belong to the order Carnivora where their ancestor (see African palm civet) had 38 chromosomes.

The Ancestral Carnivore Karyotype (2n = 38) Lives Today in Ringtails, Journal of Heredity 2008 99(3):241-253

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Problem Number 1: Define species.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

IDers make a bold claim that animals within a species can mutate and yet are somehow prevented from becoming another "species." However, ID does not define what is a "species" and thus their claim has no value. So how does ID reconcile its view with genetic taxonomy? It doesn't.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

IDers make a bold claim that animals within a species can mutate and yet are somehow prevented from becoming another "species." However, ID does not define what is a "species" and thus their claim has no value. So how does ID reconcile its view with genetic taxonomy? It doesn't.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

you're closer to being 500,000th cousins 200,000 times removed

for our first contacts with other sentient beings, even as we struggle to understand other intelligent species on own world. We talk about things like "Star Trek" because our imaginations guide us we discover the unknown.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Has there ever been an observation of an organism being able to add information into the gene pool creating a higher life form from another which evolution says happened in going from a simple single celled organism and grew into every living thing we see around us?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I guess that means the Vatican would be wrong in my opinion...what do they say about MMGW?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

n/t

And this from a guy whose reinterpretation of scripture turned the world of his day on its head.

more on you that the Vatican.

An obscure Pope wrote pretty extensively on the subject.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Pope taps Princeton water expert, believer in global warming for science academy
National Catholic Reporter, January 10, 2008

A Venezuelan-born Princeton scientist who is a strong environmentalist and believer in global warming was appointed today to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s chief “think tank” on scientific issues, by Pope Benedict XVI.

Ignacio Rodríguez-Iturbe, 65, is also a believer in evolutionary theory, who says that Darwinian evolution poses no conflict with religious faith and that the rival school of intelligent design has been “completely rejected” on a purely scientific basis...

A practicing Catholic and a lay member of Opus Dei, Rodríguez-Iturbe argues that the church faces a moral responsibility to speak out on climate change.

“From a scientific point of view, there is overwhelming evidence of serious anthropogenic impact related to global warming,” Rodríguez-Iturbe said. “This implies an enormous responsibility with regard to the consequences for peace and prosperity for the world, and for future generations.”

“I do not share the view of those who say we should keep out of it,” he said. “If we accept the science, if we believe [global warming] is here and that human activity is a leading cause, then the church, the Vatican, should be involved.”

More broadly, Rodríguez-Iturbe said, he’s encouraged by Benedict XVI’s growing advocacy of sustainable development, especially as it relates to his own interest in water, which he described as “a keystone to human survival and development.”.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Holy See: Planet is everyone's responsibility
Zenit.org, February 14, 2008

Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, affirmed this Wednesday during the 62nd session of the U.N. General Assembly titled “Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work.”

"The ongoing debate on climate change has helped put into focus the inescapable responsibility of one and all to care for the environment, thereby building consensus around the common objective of promoting a healthy environment for present and future generations," he noted.

In this effort, he affirmed, "the Holy See assures of its collaboration." In particular, Archbishop Migliore noted the work done personally by the Holy Father...

"Indeed, the challenge of climate change is at once individual, local, national and global. Accordingly, it urges a multilevel coordinated response, with mitigation and adaptation programs simultaneously individual, local, national and global in their vision and scope."

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

And they are just trying to cover themselves.

Thanks to skanderbeg for the image.

The theory sounds like it could hold water. You really could absorb a lot of energy by converting H2O from solid phase to liquid. SO it can't be put on ice just yet.

the obvious question for me is...should we seriously be discussing Kyoto and Global Cap & Trade, or incredibly overarching and potentially destructive public policy on these increasingly questionable GW assumptions?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

There are an awful lot of questions that need to be answered when discussing policy. See my list:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/raven/2008/apr/25/lets_just_assume

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Which means the environment is sucking heat out of the water so its even more damning.

Shame on you...

You shouldn't confuse those who know so much that isn't true with facts!

I'd think you'd know better!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

The AGW faithful treat temperature as if it were a chemical additive or something.

And I will show you someone who thinks cold is a quantity.

LOL..happens to me too...I messed up and talked about Worming earlier...I don't know what worming is...but spell check doesn't think it's a misspelling so it must be a sport or something!

:>)

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

and involves medicine.

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

...

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Worming is what happens when said cat or dog eats its own feces...

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

"climate change" .. Makes it easier to fit uncooperative data.
Correlation,
Causation, or
Coincidence
The only thing that matters is that you 'care'
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

"We can use the helium to make Al Gore sound like a duck."
What -- he doesn't annoy you enough already?

-streu-
Insert relevant witticism here

is to stop the oil and still born the American nukes, while ignoring how effective they are everywhere they are used.

After the interview, Lanny Davis said that in his view, Hillary would not be opposed to Nuclear Power (even tho she opposed it in 7 votes) if the facts show that it can be successful. (Very interesting) This seems to say that Hillary will not let McCain have this issue without some poaching.

Lanny Davis's job description is weasel. I wouldn't believe him if he told me it was day out.

Hillary will just move the goal posts of what 'proof' means, sort of like the meaning of 'is'.

n/t

It gets worse...most of the chicken littles who were screaming about our eventual extinction from a global Ice age as caused by human activity are tooting their horns twice as loudly on the Global Warming scare!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

population bomb
silent spring
ozone to Freon
nuclear winter
new ice age
killer bees
no bees
ebola/hot zone
swine flu
bird flu
global warming
peak oil
Y2K
mad cow
global climate change

There is an endless stream of people trying to scare you to death. Ignore them.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

World shattering, MUST! ACT! NOW! issues? no. But potentially devastating in their respective areas.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Is it a mere coincidence that every one of the scares you list requires some form of Federal Intervention and regulation of our economy?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”