Snow is Evil and so is weather below 50 degrees

[going_home]

Its going to get down to 37 tonight here in the Tampa area.
What in the world is up with that ? I noticed all the news reports about global warming have vanished this week. Wonder why ? :tard:
What a bunch of morons Al Gore and the global warming end of the world wackos must think we are ! If everyone in the world jumped up and down at the same time do you think it would change even one bit of the earths orbit ? If everyone in the world blew as hard as they could southward do you think it would speed or slow the earths rotation even one fraction ?
Neither can man be the cause of the "so called" global warming.
Their perception of the general public is they are weak minded plebes, and this is just another attempt to control the weak minds with their superior upper crust socialist minds.
Ok my rant is done. I guess really all I had to say is...snow is evil, and so is weather below 50 degrees.
:wow:

[bentothejam1n]

actually if global warming did occur on a big scale it would send us into an ice age
/discovery channel ftw

[RogueFactor]

To think that "Global Warming" strictly means it gets hotter, means you dont understand Global Warming or its overall effects.

On a macro scale, the earth warms. By single digits(1 degree overall can have an adverse effect on polar ice caps.)

On a micro scale(such as your local weather), weather patterns can and will change.

[mag_lover05]

To think that "Global Warming" strictly means it gets hotter, means you dont understand Global Warming or its overall effects.


duh....silly boy

[MoeMag]

I got sunburned in 80 degree weather today. :headbang:

[olinar]

THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH clears alot up. i reccomend it to anyone who hasnt seen it. its pretty good and kinda pushes you in the direction of believing. idk if i do tho

[going_home]

To think that "Global Warming" strictly means it gets hotter, means you dont understand Global Warming or its overall effects.

On a macro scale, the earth warms. By single digits(1 degree overall can have an adverse effect on polar ice caps.)

On a micro scale(such as your local weather), weather patterns can and will change.

One degree is what they say the earth has warmed.
Its the end of the world according to Al Gore.
He's the one who invented the internet remember, so I mean we can believe him right ?
:tard:

[RogueFactor]

duh....silly boy

Youd be surprised what people dont know:tard:

There is a direct correlation between high concentrations of carbon gases in the atmosphere, and ice ages.

To think that 5 billion people on a planet have no effect on their surroundings would be silly. Add to that the carbon gases we have put into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Its doing something. What its doing hasnt been agreed upon.

[RogueFactor]

One degree is what they say the earth has warmed.
Its the end of the world according to Al Gore.
He's the one who invented the internet remember, so I mean we can believe him right ?
:tard:

Its not a matter of warming, its a matter of how fast it warms.

I dont have the numbers, so this is an example only to demonstrate my point.....To warm 1 degree in 100 years is normal. To do that in 20 years time isnt.

Dont get me wrong, Im no fan of Al Gore. But I dont make decisions based upon my opinions of the messenger. Its my belief there is truth in nearly everything. Just a matter of finding it.

Funny about the internet too. Anyone remotely informed on that knows the advent of the internet predates the Gore/Clinton administration.

[Pneumagger]

There is such a thing as global warming - and it doesn't require your beliefs to exist. There is a great statistical evidence that proves we have impacted the eath's warming as well. Global warming just means a change in the earth's overall average temperature. It doesn't mean that weather patterns can not change and be cooler for a season in one arera. :tard:

It would be silly to think that man cannot cange the world for the worse if we so intended. One simple rebuttle to that statement would be the known aftermath of a Global nuclear war - something entirely cause b humans..

[going_home]

The fact of the matter is that global warming and cooling are just natural cycles that have been happening since the dawn of time.
The junk science that the "end of the earth global warming wackos" have based their year long "so called" news blitz is just that. Junk science, and very skewed so they get the results they desire. Thats why you have several highly renowned meteorologists out there right now disclaiming the whole "man is the cause of global warming" thing. And the wackos are beside themselves with anger and are trying their best to silence them.
So you go ahead and believe the media, they can be trusted cant they ?
Yeah, just like Al Gore can be trusted. After all its the media thats carrying Al Gores water for him. :tard:

[acecl22]

you guys honestly think that burning millions/billions of tons of oil into the atmosphere is going to have no adverse affects? we are human, we are at the top of the food chain, and we've done so by changing our environment. we have an undying desire to improve our quality of life, often disregarding negative side effects.

we dont know the exact weather patterns over the past 5billion years, thats a given. we have recently (VERY RECENTLY) discovered that our atmosphere is made up of many different gasses, and the very precise density of said gasses have made life possible on this planet for millions of years. the planet has formed an ecosystem, feeding off of itself. then humans come along and seperate themselves from the rest of nature, no longer are we one with nature, but we are one feeding on nature. we dont give back to the environment as every other species has done so far, we simply use it in ways that suit our 'needs'. we are the only animal on our planet that exhibits these characteristics (aside from viruses, which very accurately represent us).

we are different, we change things, and all that change has led us here, to the point of burning the blood of the planet into its atmosphere. all that oil got there after billions of years of settling carbon, and all that carbon was probably part of the atmosphere at one point in time(while the earth was a molten hot ball of fire and gas), to suck it all out of the middle of the ground and use it for nothing more than modern luxeries is plain idiotic in the grand scheme of things. we may not be destroying the planet itself, but we are making it less habitable for life to evolve, then again, maybe we are the epidemy of evolution on this planet, maybe we are meant to take over the planet, use all its recources in an attempt to further our knowledge of the universe around us, and move on to another habitable planet.

[Lohman446]

Poor you

/38 would be pretty nice :)

[Phillips]

Read some scientific journals, there is no little debate about global warming, even the Bush administration admits it.
Anyway back on topic, at least it's not boiling hot, I can't stand heat at all.
Better to be cold and wrap up warm than be hot and sweat it out.

[billybob_81067]

Read some scientific journals, there is no little debate about global warming, even the Bush administration admits it.
Anyway back on topic, at least it's not boiling hot, I can't stand heat at all.
Better to be cold and wrap up warm than be hot and sweat it out.

Meh... I'd rather sweat it out... :)

[Lenny]

The fact of the matter is that global warming and cooling are just natural cycles that have been happening since the dawn of time.
The junk science that the "end of the earth global warming wackos" have based their year long "so called" news blitz is just that. Junk science, and very skewed so they get the results they desire. Thats why you have several highly renowned meteorologists out there right now disclaiming the whole "man is the cause of global warming" thing. And the wackos are beside themselves with anger and are trying their best to silence them.
So you go ahead and believe the media, they can be trusted cant they ?
Yeah, just like Al Gore can be trusted. After all its the media thats carrying Al Gores water for him. :tard:
Speaks truth.

The climate cycles every thirty years.

Look, from the 1940's to the 1970's, they were affraid of "global cooling". WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)

[Pneumagger]

Speaks truth.

The climate cycles every thirty years.

Look, from the 1940's to the 1970's, they were affraid of "global cooling". WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)

I'd say a few cycles in the past century is statistically insignificant compared to the billions of years the earth has been around.

[Lenny]

I'd say a few cycles in the past century is statistically insignificant compared to the billions of years the earth has been around.
I meant on average. The earth's temperature cycles from cold to hot, hot to cold, about every thirty years.

...Or so says the History Channel.

[RogueFactor]

The fact of the matter is that global warming and cooling are just natural cycles that have been happening since the dawn of time.
Agreed. There are cycles. No argument in that. The debate is whether we have an effect on those cycles, and are speeding up the process.

To that end, the cycles arent reversible in short time. Pandoras box kinda thing.


The junk science that the "end of the earth global warming wackos" have based their year long "so called" news blitz is just that. Junk science, and very skewed so they get the results they desire.
Bah. Theres wackos on both sides.

You must also believe that cigarettes dont cause cancer...all that junk science, right? :rofl:


Thats why you have several highly renowned meteorologists out there right now disclaiming the whole "man is the cause of global warming" thing.And the wackos are beside themselves with anger and are trying their best to silence them.
Which highly renowned meteorologists are you referring to? References please. Id like to know who you are referring to when making that claim.

[Lenny]

Which highly renowned meteorologists are you referring to? References please. Id like to know who you are referring to when making that claim.
Dick Goddard! :p

[SlipknotX556]

Im loving the weather in FL right now, haha. People whip out the down coats when it gets to be 60 in South Florida. I still have NY blood I guess, I am out in shorts and a t-shirt today and it was like 45 here. To bad this weather is ending tomorrow, I am gonna miss it :(.

And if global warming happens, I hope all of FL is under water, I hate FL with a passion. :mad:

[Lenny]

Im loving the weather in FL right now, haha. People whip out the down coats when it gets to be 60 in South Florida. I still have NY blood I guess, I am out in shorts and a t-shirt today and it was like 45 here. To bad this weather is ending tomorrow, I am gonna miss it :(.

And if global warming happens, I hope all of FL is under water, I hate FL with a passion. :mad:
Dude, it's like four degrees here in Ohio and all I wear is a zip-up hoodie.

[trevorjk]

i was driving around looking for a new car tonight. while driving around i had my windown down going 70 on the freeway. man it was beautiful in wisconsin today. i think it hit like 35 degrees today to :D

[Dubstar112]

The town I live in was the national low for temp two nights ago. -35 no wind chill factor. Beat that :) Plus just a short drive from here there is over 12 feet of snow in some areas, we prolly have 3 or 4 here.

I LOVE NY!

[turbo chicken]

Yes very evil :argh: ...

that's why i live in texas ... it barely gets below freezing :D

[going_home]

And if global warming happens, I hope all of FL is under water, I hate FL with a passion. :mad:

Then get the heck out, take I-95 north.
I get so sick of hearing "how we did it up north".
Blasted yankees moving here to the tune of a thousand a day.
Must have been better up there with Hillary.
:rofl:

[skife]

OMG 37, you have to take off your hawiian shirts and hula skirts.

:P


try -20 some time with 2 feet of snow.
when that happens, then you have a right to complain about the weather.

[RogueFactor]

Thats why you have several highly renowned meteorologists out there right now disclaiming the whole "man is the cause of global warming" thing.And the wackos are beside themselves with anger and are trying their best to silence them.

Which ones going_home? Id like to know who they are.

[Lenny]

OMG 37, you have to take off your hawiian shirts and hula skirts.

:P


try -20 some time with 2 feet of snow.
when that happens, then you have a right to complain about the weather.


Dude, it's like four degrees here in Ohio and all I wear is a zip-up hoodie.
Yeah, I still win. :cool:

...And yesterday there was 4' at the end of my driveway.

[skife]

Yeah, I still win. :cool:

...And yesterday there was 4' at the end of my driveway.



dude, your like an hour from me :P

we have almost the same weather.

[Raven001]

The fact of the matter is that global warming and cooling are just natural cycles that have been happening since the dawn of time.
The junk science that the "end of the earth global warming wackos" have based their year long "so called" news blitz is just that. Junk science, and very skewed so they get the results they desire. Thats why you have several highly renowned meteorologists out there right now disclaiming the whole "man is the cause of global warming" thing. And the wackos are beside themselves with anger and are trying their best to silence them.
So you go ahead and believe the media, they can be trusted cant they ?
Yeah, just like Al Gore can be trusted. After all its the media thats carrying Al Gores water for him. :tard:

It seems clear that noted and reputable experts disagree with you and your conclusion.
You can findsome of their reports here,

http://www.ipcc.ch/
You can also find further info here
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/model/co2/seedsci.html
and here
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
and because I like to see both sides of the story, you can find what passes for credible information supporting your opinion here
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm

have fun and do remember, opinions are like you know what, everyone has one.....

[Mikey B]

Lol, 37 is a heat wave :)

All last week we didn't get any higher then 0, and 0 was a good temp. Now for some reason we are having our usuall nice week in the 30s-40s before plumiting back down to 0. Yay Minnesota! :clap:

[Muzikman]

you guys honestly think that burning millions/billions of tons of oil into the atmosphere is going to have no adverse affects? we are human, we are at the top of the food chain, and we've done so by changing our environment. we have an undying desire to improve our quality of life, often disregarding negative side effects.

we dont know the exact weather patterns over the past 5billion years, thats a given. we have recently (VERY RECENTLY) discovered that our atmosphere is made up of many different gasses, and the very precise density of said gasses have made life possible on this planet for millions of years. the planet has formed an ecosystem, feeding off of itself. then humans come along and seperate themselves from the rest of nature, no longer are we one with nature, but we are one feeding on nature. we dont give back to the environment as every other species has done so far, we simply use it in ways that suit our 'needs'. we are the only animal on our planet that exhibits these characteristics (aside from viruses, which very accurately represent us).

we are different, we change things, and all that change has led us here, to the point of burning the blood of the planet into its atmosphere. all that oil got there after billions of years of settling carbon, and all that carbon was probably part of the atmosphere at one point in time(while the earth was a molten hot ball of fire and gas), to suck it all out of the middle of the ground and use it for nothing more than modern luxeries is plain idiotic in the grand scheme of things. we may not be destroying the planet itself, but we are making it less habitable for life to evolve, then again, maybe we are the epidemy of evolution on this planet, maybe we are meant to take over the planet, use all its recources in an attempt to further our knowledge of the universe around us, and move on to another habitable planet.

After that rambling of the fingers I bet you still drive a car to the mall, have electricity powering your big screen TV, a fridge keeping your beer cold, whole house A/C to keep you cool, indoor plumbing, a tank that uses natrual gas to heat that water so you can take a warm shower and a grill out back burning propane to cook your choice of meats.

[Gunther_mag_user]

Yeah, I still win. :cool:

...And yesterday there was 4' at the end of my driveway.
I have been rocking shorts every day this year, and it has been a cold winter.












I R TEH PWNZEWRZ!

[acecl22]

After that rambling of the fingers I bet you still drive a car to the mall, have electricity powering your big screen TV, a fridge keeping your beer cold, whole house A/C to keep you cool, indoor plumbing, a tank that uses natrual gas to heat that water so you can take a warm shower and a grill out back burning propane to cook your choice of meats.

Haha, absolutely, without a doubt. Why wouldn't I enjoy the luxuries that our forefathers have worked so hard to create? I realize that our collective actions have consequences, and there is really no way to tell what those consequences will be. We can, however, make rational assumptions about our actions. We can assume that if oil consumption continues, either the oil will run out, or the atmosphere will become toxic. Scientists are making the steps necessary to convert to alternate forms of power though, so I think that we don't have to worry about the end of the world just yet (aside from nuclear warfare).

[going_home]

Which ones going_home? Id like to know who they are.

As if you really wanted to know...but here is just one group.
You want more, just let me know.
Although you know how to google just as good as I do,
if you really wanted what you were asking for. Which I doubt seriously.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists Group to Refute Global Warming Claims
Monday, 1 May 2006, 10:08 am
Press Release: Centre for Resource Management Studies
Media Release - Immediate

A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.

The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:

- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

- Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

- Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com

- Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist

Also involved are other New Zealanders concerned that only one side of the climate change debate is being brought to public attention.

Mr Owen McShane, of Kaiwaka, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies, who is convenor of the establishment committee, said that the coalition's three main roles will be:

- To publish and distribute papers and commentaries produced by members of the Coalition.

- To audit statements by other organizations, both in New Zealand and overseas, which are published in New Zealand, or are expected to influence New Zealand public policy and public opinion.

- To audit the forthcoming IPCC report, either on its own, or through the Asia Pacific Climate Science Coalition, or equivalent organization, if one has been established in time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More Hot Air on Global Warming

Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Jan. 22, 2007

ABC TV meteorologist James Spann has sparked a cyber-excrement storm for having the unpardonable gall to be honest.

Actually, he didn't start it.

The escalation of angst was frankly started when a Weather Channel twit suggested that anyone not conforming to the gospel according to Al Gore should be decertified and silenced.

Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it." Apparently the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen believes "If you don't agree with me, you should be silenced, censured, and ostracized."

The central point to all this brouhaha is the debate over global warming. And there in is the essence of the problem.

It remains a debate.

Notwithstanding the grandstanding of Nancy Pelosi and Arnold Schwarzenegger to pander to the eco-wacko lobby, global warming remains a question.

[RogueFactor]

Thats why you have several highly renowned meteorologists out there right now disclaiming the whole "man is the cause of global warming" thing.And the wackos are beside themselves with anger and are trying their best to silence them.


As if you really wanted to know...but here is just one group.
You want more, just let me know.
Although you know how to google just as good as I do,
if you really wanted what you were asking for. Which I doubt seriously.

Which of those you listed are considered the "highly renowned"? And is that really the best you got?

Here, so we are at least on the same page: The IPCC 4th Assessment Report(Climate Change 2007) recently released this month was compiled from:

* 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
* 850+ Contributing authors
* 450+ lead authors
from over 130 countries, contributing for the last 6 years.

So, if you seriously want to refute their data, your gonna have to do better than a quick google search of 6-7 intellects from New Zealand & 1 TV weather man who disagree. Seriously. :tard:

I want more. And let me know what your definition of "highly renowned" is. Hopefully it doesnt mean "those who agree with your opinion". :rofl:

And so you are aware of this reports claims, here they are:




The Working Group I report was published on February 2, 2007[7]. Its key conclusions were that[8]:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[10]
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%
* World temperatures could rise from anywhere between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 to 11.52°F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59cm (7.08 to 23.22in) [table 3]
o It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
o It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.

[trevorjk]

guys it was 40 degrees and sunny yesterday (thursday) so i promptly took the motorcycle out of the shed, changed the oil, charged the battary and went for a nice ride. it was beautiful! cabin fever is gone, but damn i want to go again now and its suppose to rain and snow and stuffs this weekend :(

[going_home]

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.


Now its my turn :rofl:

now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years ?

They have the data from the last 650,000 years ? :rofl:
What you posted is hilarious.
Now why dont you post the name of the renowned scientists that were there
and gathered the data from 650,000 years ago. :rofl:
Like I said before, their stuff is junk science.
Based on guesses. Cant be proven at all.
It is just to be believed. Well I dont have that much faith brother.

[Raven001]

Of course it's hilarious. Everyone knows the earth is only 6000 years old. :tard:

No wonder the US is in decline :(

[MANN]

Of course it's hilarious. Everyone knows the earth is only 6000 years old. :tard:

No wonder the US is in decline :(

I thought it was only 2007.2037735849 years old :confused:

[RogueFactor]

Now its my turn :rofl:

Now why dont you post the name of the renowned scientists that were there
and gathered the data from 650,000 years ago. :rofl:

Here is your "conservative" logic fellas :tard: He cant list his renowned scientists, but would rather claim nothing can be proven because scientists werent there! :eek:

They study the ice. The ice that was there, and has been there. They are called Ice Cores. Youd know that if you did something more than a quick Google Search.

Here ya go, "son"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

And I'll even quote it for ya, "son":

"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."




Like I said before, their stuff is junk science.
Based on guesses.

Nah, whats worse is someone who claims to be a conservative, but doesnt do their research to back up their position. A lazy conservative, that has an opinion, and jumps to a conclusion because its what they want to hear.

The same kind that said cigarettes dont cause cancer 20 years ago. :rofl:


Cant be proven at all. It is just to be believed. Well I dont have that much faith brother.

Just because your an agnostic, doesnt mean its junk science.

[RogueFactor]

going_home:

For your reading and educational pleasure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Just cuz I know you wont actually read it...

"The EPICA core in Antarctica was drilled at 75°S, 123°E (560 km from Vostok) at an altitude of 3,233 m, near Dome C. The ice thickness is 3,309 +/-22 m and the core was drilled to 3,190 m. Present-day annual average air temperature is -54.5 °C and snow accumulation 25 mm/y. Information about the core was first published in Nature on 2004/June/10. The core went back 720,000 years and revealed 8 previous glacial cycles."

[going_home]

going_home:

For your reading and educational pleasure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Just cuz I know you wont actually read it...

"The EPICA core in Antarctica was drilled at 75°S, 123°E (560 km from Vostok) at an altitude of 3,233 m, near Dome C. The ice thickness is 3,309 +/-22 m and the core was drilled to 3,190 m. Present-day annual average air temperature is -54.5 °C and snow accumulation 25 mm/y. Information about the core was first published in Nature on 2004/June/10. The core went back 720,000 years and revealed 8 previous glacial cycles."

I gave you a whole list of degreed doctors.
I knew you didnt want the names of scientists and doctors that have disproved your belief.
Oh and I'm not an agnostic.
I know there is a God. His Word says that men have been here for just over 6000 years.
Its the scientists that seek a way around Him.
They dont want Him and seek to prove He is not, like saying the world is 650,000 years old.
They have failed miserably. As you have.
Good luck in your faith.

[acecl22]

I gave you a whole list of degreed doctors.
I knew you didnt want the names of scientists and doctors that have disproved your belief.
Oh and I'm not an agnostic.
I know there is a God. His Word says that men have been here for just over 6000 years.
Its the scientists that seek a way around Him.
They dont want Him and seek to prove He is not, like saying the world is 650,000 years old.
They have failed miserably. As you have.
Good luck in your faith.

faith is only what you make it, scientists arent trying to disprove the existence of God. they have worked in order to gain a better understanding of the things and forces at play around us. through this process of scientific experimentation, there have been tremendous devolopments in not only technology, but our understanding of the universe. All of the data collected so far does not reason out the existence of a God, but it presents some interesting evidence that the description of the formation of earth is not as it is described in any holy book. instead of simply believing that everything said in a book is the devine and holy word of an intangible creature, we should do our best to either confirm or disprove His existence. maybe our idea of god is completely wrong, just like any idea. The idea that the earth was the center of the universe was widely accepted for thousands of years, it made sence because we thought we were special, we thought we were different than all of those other starts and objects floating around space. We have learned that we are no different from them, and even in our own solar system, one of the moons on saturn has a similar atmosphere and chemical makeup as the earth did about 3-4 billion years ago. when that planet develops to the point of being able to sustain life, do you think that god is going to magically pop another inteligent lifeform there, no. we are probably going to be the ones that plant the seed of life when the time comes to move off of our planet and into the universe. The fact that, even in our own solar system, there are planets and moons which have all of the ingredients for life to form can not be ignored. Somewhere else in the universe, life has formed, i have no doubt about that. Intelligent life? maybe, maybe not, but most likely. How would the holy books explain the existence of other life in the universe? Only a few years ago the church officially admitted that the earth does revolve around the sun, how in the world would the Son of God not know the workings of the universe, he wouldve known everything, and he can't lie, so he wouldve told people that the sun is the center of the solar system, and there are other planets revolving around it, he wouldve had the kind of answers that would make him a credible character, because thats all he is, a character in a science fiction book

[wjr]

I gave you a whole list of degreed doctors.
I knew you didnt want the names of scientists and doctors that have disproved your belief.
Oh and I'm not an agnostic.
I know there is a God. His Word says that men have been here for just over 6000 years.
Its the scientists that seek a way around Him.
They dont want Him and seek to prove He is not, like saying the world is 650,000 years old.
They have failed miserably. As you have.
Good luck in your faith.

Young Earther alert! I've a question for you that I've always wanted to ask: Explain the dinosaurs. Did the scientists make those up? I've always wanted to know.

Back to the main point...

You know, there was the whole scientific convention consisting of hundreds of scientists concluding that global warming was indeed caused by humans. Only a small fraction say it's false. So...

[RogueFactor]

I gave you a whole list of degreed doctors.
I knew you didnt want the names of scientists and doctors that have disproved your belief.

LMAO. Are you serious?

#1- You originally stated "highly renowned". You havent provided, or proved they are as you stated.
#2- Youve provided nothing thats refutes or even disproves anthropogenic (man-made)global warming. Moreso, youve provided nothing from the list of 6 that disproves anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.
#3- The only thing you did provide was a list of 6 that make up a coalition "aimed at refuting" the IPCC. No facts. No data. Show me something in the way of data, or facts that back up your position, and I will gladly read them.

If you seriously think a quick google search of a list of merely 6 is somehow going to refute the work of 2500+, you arent cooking on all burners "son".



Oh and I'm not an agnostic.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
--->
Well I dont have that much faith brother.

Yeah, huh?




I know there is a God. His Word says that men have been here for just over 6000 years.
No where in the Bible does God tell us the exact year of Creation. The theory you believe is an extrapolation from genealogical calculation.



Its the scientists that seek a way around Him.
They dont want Him and seek to prove He is not, like saying the world is 650,000 years old.
They have failed miserably. As you have.
Good luck in your faith.

I now know why you must believe as you do. The science cant be right, because you have a belief based on blind faith.

I am saddened for you, "The Bible does not call us to blind faith. The Bible calls us to faith in evidence. We submit that various truth claims, including Christianity, should be evaluated on the evidence."

You havent, and wont consider evaluating the evidence. Whether your belief is right or not is of little importance to you. To consider anything else would destroy your basis of blind faith.

Those who have failed miserably are the sheep. The ones that follow blindly. Good luck in your faith.

[going_home]

Are you serious?



Deadly serious.
Evidence based on junk science and carbon 14 tests, which has been proven
decades ago to be unreliable, is not evidence at all.
You can believe what you want.
You have yet to prove anything at all.
I apparently have proven nothing to you.
The same sheep thing applies in your case, so yes I feel for you also.
So good luck with your faith in global warming.
I just dont have that much faith, as I said before.
Since you're a much younger man than I, and you feel the need to have the last word,
go for it. I'm done.

[MANN]

Alright Alright. Break it up.

We all can agree that the earth is changing. There is neither concrete evidence for or against global warming. Yes there is evidence for both man made changes and natural cycles, but again nothing concrete. We could all argue about global warming/earth cycles untill cows come home, but in the end it really doesnt matter. Lets just be friends :D :cheers:

[Mikey B]

Lets argue about more important things, like Anna Nichole... ;)

[RogueFactor]

Young Earther alert! I've a question for you that I've always wanted to ask: Explain the dinosaurs. Did the scientists make those up? I've always wanted to know.

Agreed. Kinda hard to get around those, isnt it?

But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible...they dont exist. Thats junk science. Why? Because it cant be true, since there is no mention. Those dinosaurs being dug up were put there by those who try to get around His words. It must have been Hillary Clinton or Al Gore who put them there. :rolleyes: :rofl:

It's sad. Really is. According to going_home, global warming doesnt exist because:

1) The liberals say it does; he doesnt like liberals, so he must take the opposite stance.
2) Because the bible alludes to the earth only being 6000 years old; somehow that precludes the possibility that we are doing damage.
3) Because 6 scientists dont agree with the IPCC. Not that theyve proven anything. Just that they exist.

See the pattern? His opinion is based on everything other than evidence. Not one shred of it. He substantiates his opinion with non-sequitirs--- conclusions that cannot be reached from the presented information.

Going_home would argue that the earth is flat too... The Flat-Earth Bible (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) .

On top of that, it doesnt move either. It is immovable, according to scripture.

So now, according to going_homes logic, Astronomy is junk science. Physics is too. As they both believe that the earth is round, and moves. The evidence its round and moves isnt evidence at all, since it was derived from junk science. And its junk science because the evidence cant be true according to his belief:spit_take

[billybob_81067]

IBTL! :D

[going_home]

Agreed. Kinda hard to get around those, isnt it?

But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible...they dont exist. Thats junk science.

Please Shawn show me where I said dinosaurs arent mentioned in the Bible.
You wont be able to post that because I never said it, because they are mentioned
in the Bible sir.
Want me to post the scriptures ? I would be very happy to.
:D

[wjr]

^ I'll post if for you how about.

According to a PM I got from going_home, he says the bible mentions dinosaurs: Behemoth and Leviathan.

So... humans and dinosaurs were on earth at the same time.

[RogueFactor]

^ I'll post if for you how about.

According to a PM I got from going_home, he says the bible mentions dinosaurs: Behemoth and Leviathan.

So... humans and dinosaurs were on earth at the same time.

Ive heard his position. Problem is, there is no evidence of this. Religion requires explaining dinosaurs to fit the 6000 year theory. Because its irrefutable to deny the existence of dinosaurs. Which is the reason they clutch at the Behemoth and Leviathan examples.

Youd think if they walked side by side(man and dinosaur), that the discovery of fossils would include humans next to dinosaurs as they all perished in the Great Flood. Have we found that? Nope.



Please Shawn show me where I said dinosaurs arent mentioned in the Bible.
You wont be able to post that because I never said it, because they are mentioned
in the Bible sir.
Want me to post the scriptures ? I would be very happy to.
:D

LOL. Now all of a sudden youre willing to post, when you think you have something. :D Thought you said you were done. Alan, its like leading a horse to water :D ...

It always makes me chuckle, when religious zealots require conclusive proof of science, but will accept surmisions of interpretations from translations of ancient hebrew. :rolleyes:

Actually, what Id like you to do, since you suggest humans stood side-by-side with dinosaurs, the kind we find fossils of...is to provide any writings other than the bible that corroborate your assumption that Leviathan and Behemoth are dinosaurs.

As youve suggested that scientists from 650,000 years ago must provide written accounts of weather, I will ask you to provide any evidence(written of course) other than the biblical references, that describe Behemoth and Leviathan as dinosaurs. Since humans were alive at the time, and those humans were capable of the written word, this should be a simple task for you.


Youre gonna have a hard time doing that though, since Christian scholars cannot conclusively agree that Behemoth and Leviathan were dinosaurs:

"Behemoth can be interpreted as a mythical animal. However, some have attempted to identify it with real-life animals.

In the book of Job, both Behemoth and Leviathan are listed alongside a number of mundane animals, such as goats, eagles, and hawks, leading many Christian scholars to surmise that Behemoth and Leviathan may also be mundane creatures. Suggested animals include the water buffalo and the elephant, but the most common suggestion is the hippopotamus.[1] Some readers also identify a hippopotamus in Isaiah's bahamot negeb or "beasts of the south" (30:6). Indeed, one of the Russian words for hippopotamus is "behemoth," which does not carry the same mythical connotations in Russian. Although the animal's tail "moves like a cedar" (40:17), an unlikely description for any of these animals, "tail' could be a euphemism for an elephant's trunk. [2] Moreover, some suggest that "tail" is a euphemism for male genitalia. Support for this is based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones" (the Vulgate uses the word "testiculorum"].

Others disagree, pointing to the fact that Behemoth is called "chief of the ways of God" (40:19), indicating that it is not a mere animal.

Another proposal is that the Behemoth is a dinosaur. Some sort of sauropod is usually proposed since large sauropods had tails "like a cedar". Adherents to this viewpoint hold that it is more consistent with the literal application of the text. However, critics usually point out that according to paleontology, sauropods, unlike Behemoth, were tree-browsers that became extinct 65 million years ago, predating the appearance and rise of people or grasses. Additionally, opponents of this theory argue that the text is probably allegory at best.

There are modern rumors of a sauropodlike animal called Mokele-mbembe living in Africa. As both creatures are rumored to be dinosaurs, some believe that Mokele-mbembe and Behemoth may be one and the same."

Even Christian scholars dont agree that Behemoth and Leviathan are dinosaurs. So whose faith is right? Yours or the Christian scholars? Does that mean you consider their religion junk religion?

Only the closed minded want to pit science against religion. When its more likely(to surmise) that they are more similiar than not.

[acecl22]

i think religion is believing in things that people interpereted a long time ago. science is the active process of figuring out the world around us with the goal of realizing the purpose of our own existence, if there is any purpose at all. the problem with religion is that they do not make an attempt at explaining what can not currently be explained, it was only a few years ago that the church 'officially' recognized that the earth does revolve around the sun, while scientists like Copernicus knew that everyone was wrong hundreds of years ago.

the fact is, we dont know what religion is right, we dont know if science is right, but we do know that science is actively trying to find a solution to the ultimate problem.

[Pneumagger]

I hate to break up the beautiful love going around - but I believe this is the exact reason religious or political topics are prohibited.

/Just Sayin'

PS - WWJD?

[acecl22]

any argument is basically an endless argument anyway, so why be prejudice against religious and political argument, they are obviously the most important topics overall

[going_home]

LOL. Now all of a sudden youre willing to post, when you think you have something. Thought you said you were done. Alan, its like leading a horse to water ...


The reason I posted again is to point out that you posted something untrue
about me.
You claimed I said something that I never did.
Now thats the truth.
You cant post it because you know I never said it.
You know, the Bible/dinosaur thing remember Shawn ?

[acecl22]

if there was a book explaining everything, i would believe that book, but no such book exists, not the bible, not the koran, none of those other holy books can explain everything. their best explanation is that something made it, but they dont know what, theyve never seen it, theres no evidence of it, it is just an idea. God is an word used to explain what we cannot explain, but when we can answer more questions about the universe, i think that we will see that a supreme being defies logic. its a hard viewpoint to grasp, but then again, so was the viewpoint that the earth isnt actually the center of the universe.

[maxama10]

I was under the impression that the title of this thread was "Snow is Evil and so is weather below 50 degrees" not "global warming debates never end!" :D




Seriously though, I WANNA SEE SOME SNOW


/pics or shens :)

[RogueFactor]

The reason I posted again is to point out that you posted something untrue
about me.
You claimed I said something that I never did.
Now thats the truth.
You cant post it because you know I never said it.
You know, the Bible/dinosaur thing remember Shawn ?

Sure you said it, implicitly.Let me break it down, logically, for you...

Scientific discovery of existence of dinosaurs proves they existed millions of years ago...
You say (allegorically mind you) nothing existed beyond ~6000 years ago

therefore...

Dinosaurs didnt exist.

You get it? Probably not.

Just because youve said afterwards that you believe a theory that the names of 2 creatures in the bible, who arent even conclusively believed among Christians to be dinosaurs, are dinosaurs doesnt mean you didnt say it.

Now thats the truth.

[going_home]

Sure you said it, implicitly.Let me break it down, logically, for you...

Scientific discovery of existence of dinosaurs proves they existed millions of years ago...
You say (allegorically mind you) nothing existed beyond ~6000 years ago

therefore...

Dinosaurs didnt exist.

You get it? Probably not.

Just because youve said afterwards that you believe a theory that the names of 2 creatures in the bible, who arent even conclusively believed among Christians to be dinosaurs, are dinosaurs doesnt mean you didnt say it.

Now thats the truth.

The truth is that I never said what is posted below sir, you made it up .



But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible...they dont exist. Thats junk science.

And if you go back and read the post, what I did say is that humans have only been on the earth about 6000 years, according to scripture.
You are a very angry young man arent you. :tard:
Mercy goodness.

[RogueFactor]

The truth is that I never said what is posted below sir, you made it up .

And if you go back and read the post, what I did say is that humans have only been on the earth about 6000 years, according to scripture.
You are a very angry young man arent you. :tard:
Mercy goodness.

We both know what youve said implicitly and explicitly. You can attempt an end-run around your own words all day. Youve provided nothing to back your position.

Wisdom has escaped your age. At least youth allows for the avoidance of such foolishness.

[trevorjk]

can this thread please die now?

[going_home]

We both know what youve said implicitly and explicitly. You can attempt an end-run around your own words all day. Youve provided nothing to back your position.

Wisdom has escaped your age. At least youth allows for the avoidance of such foolishness.

Ok out right now, you are wrong about what you said that I said.
I never said it at all nor did I imply it at all.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you havent lied, but you just misunderstood
what I said.

Because I never said it and you werent able to post where I said it.
The post in question is still in this thread unedited for all to read.

Dinosaurs fit perfectly in scripture. In fact heres another one for you .
There are very possibly still some here alive on the earth now.
My whole point was this, men have only been here for a little over 6000 years.
I never said the earth was that old.
Scripture says God created the earth in 6 days, but it also says a day is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years is as a day, to God.
But the "scientists" are only just guessing when they say, in your so called
650000 year old "evidence", that the earth is warming.
And that man is causing it. Because there were no men there to gather the data.
And carbon 14 has been proven unreliable decades ago.

So like it or not, your so called "evidence" is only merely just a guess, and not anything
other than a guess. Not a shred of it can be considered evidence.
But is has been great fun chatting with you Shawn. :D

I just dont like people putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Had to get that straightened out.
Good luck to you sir and all that global warming end of the world stuff.

[Lohman446]

Sure you said it, implicitly.Let me break it down, logically, for you...

Scientific discovery of existence of dinosaurs proves they existed millions of years ago...
You say (allegorically mind you) nothing existed beyond ~6000 years ago

therefore...

Dinosaurs didnt exist.

You get it? Probably not.

Just because youve said afterwards that you believe a theory that the names of 2 creatures in the bible, who arent even conclusively believed among Christians to be dinosaurs, are dinosaurs doesnt mean you didnt say it.

Now thats the truth.

Some people have argued that carbon dating is not reliable. There have been a couple vaunted oopses in doing it (though it was user error). That being said, it is pretty hard to prove that carbon dating works.

[RogueFactor]

Ok out right now, you are wrong about what you said that I said.
I never said it at all nor did I imply it at all.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you havent lied, but you just misunderstood
what I said.

Because I never said it and you werent able to post where I said it.
The post in question is still in this thread unedited for all to read.

No need for benefit of the doubt. You said it. Omission of your position doesnt mean you didnt make the implication. Only that your now attempting to end run your words by defining what you said(after the fact). Even with your new explanation(thousand years is a day), your still only saying that the Earth is 10,000+ years old. Making no difference in the implication.

Ive shown where you implied it. It cant be shown where you posted it, because it wasnt explicit. Ive made this clear.


But the "scientists" are only just guessing when they say, in your so called
650000 year old "evidence", that the earth is warming.
And that man is causing it. Because there were no men there to gather the data.
And carbon 14 has been proven unreliable decades ago.

Nature. The greatest record-keeper of all. Created by God, and without bias. It is god-given evidence. Your blind faith and myopia keeps you from seeing this.


I just dont like people putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Had to get that straightened out.
Good luck to you sir and all that global warming end of the world stuff.

Then Id suggest not implying things you dont intend to. Make your position, and make it clear. As previously stated, youve provided nothing. Youve proved nothing.

By all accounts, youd bibilically be considered a fool. Its how you started and ended this wonderfully "educational" thread. By providing nothing, but contention. Proverbs 18:6.

To that end, they say never to argue with a fool. They will only lower you to their level and beat you with experience. That is certainly the case here. Youve won the foolishness game. You are certainly an expert at it ;)


Some people have argued that carbon dating is not reliable. There have been a couple vaunted oopses in doing it (though it was user error). That being said, it is pretty hard to prove that carbon dating works.

Ice Cores arent radio-carbon dated. Go back and re-read the links to the info on Ice Cores. Youll find that Ice Cores are accurate to many 100,000 of years. Radio-Carbon dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years.

[wjr]

Some people have argued that carbon dating is not reliable. There have been a couple vaunted oopses in doing it (though it was user error). That being said, it is pretty hard to prove that carbon dating works.

Wikipedia says it's been proven. Keep in mind this was just the first test that popped up. I'm sure there's been more then just one.


These effects were first confirmed when samples of wood from around the world, which all had the same age (based on tree ring analysis), showed variance from the expected per minute decay frequency, assuming they had the same 14C ratios. This meant the dating of the samples varied by as much as 700 years. Calibration techniques and tree samples continue to increase the accuracy. Samples are accurate to 'as worst' 700 years.[7]

link to entire wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating)

Edit: Pay no mind to the fact that this is my 666th post. :ninja:

[going_home]

No need for benefit of the doubt. You said it. Omission of your position doesnt mean you didnt make the implication.

I hope none of the kids that look up to you as an innovator and a leader in the Mag community read your last 3 posts in this thread, especially that last one.
So you are saying you are a mind reader and knew what I implied ?
And there is no need for me to give you the benefit of the doubt ?
(otherwise it would just be a pine blank lie)
And now you resort to name calling because you cant prove that I said what you claim I said?

The point is post where I said it or retract it.
Or if you cant do that then you have just flat out lied.

But then people do get the most angry when they get caught in a lie dont they Shawn ?
It doesnt matter to me one way or the other, and I would just leave this thread die,
but you just keep on personally attacking me when it was you that lied, not me.

I can agree to disagree on the global warming thing, not a big deal,
but you in your last 3 posts are personally attacking me, and now name calling.
Its really not worth it to your reputation sir to vent your anger in that manner.
A lot of kids in here look up to you, you should think about that.
You are the famous one in the Mag community, not me, I'm nobody.

[bentothejam1n]

I can agree to disagree on the global warming thing, not a big deal,
but you in your last 3 posts are personally attacking me, and now name calling.
Its really not worth it to your reputation sir to vent your anger in that manner.
A lot of kids in here look up to you, you should think about that.
You are the famous one in the Mag community, not me, I'm nobody.
dont worry, not a whole lot of people like him after the whole triangle fiasco

[RogueFactor]

I hope none of the kids that look up to you as an innovator and a leader in the Mag community read your last 3 posts in this thread, especially that last one.
I hope they do. All of them. I say what I believe, and I stand by it.


So you are saying you are a mind reader and knew what I implied ?
One doesnt need to be a mind-reader to read what you implied. You really are obtuse to what implicit means. Please look it up. Ive made my position clear.


And now you resort to name calling because you cant prove that I said what you claim I said?
I call a spade a spade. Its not name calling. Its calling it how it is.


The point is post where I said it or retract it.
Or if you cant do that then you have just flat out lied.

Been there, done that. You dont believe it, nothing I can do. Everyone that reads this silly thread you started can make up their own mind. At least my position is backed by evidence. Yours is merely backed by your opinion, attacks on those who dont believe as you, and your personal interpretation of scripture.


But then people do get the most angry when they get caught in a lie dont they Shawn ?

Some get angrier when they are inappropriately called a liar, Alan. Fortunate for me, Ive been around long enough to know that you speak with a split-tongue---so Ive yet to be angry at your words. A liar calling me a liar doesnt invoke my anger.

Anyone here long enough has seen your eBay auctions. You mis-represent your auctions by calling Red & Blue ULE bodies "rare"(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16048&item=320084306235), hoping someone believes that lie and buys it, as there is nothing rare about them. The title of your RT Pro rail auction calls it "ULE Automag Rail" when in fact there is nothing ULE about it(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36285&item=320083947604). You call an item "AGD ULE body" in the title, when in fact its a Stainless Steel body, but make no mention in the subject line or details that its stainless steel(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36285&item=320078881146)

You prey on the weak & uninformed, out of greed. You gouge every customer you can, while simultaneously attempting to rape others by buying the same items at half what they could get. Smart business, maybe? One without integrity.

The only thing to be angry about is that a man professes to be a god-fearing religious man, while doing the things you do. For me, its not anger but passion. A passion to show others that with knowledge, you can expose those such as yourself who are sliver-tongued snake-oil salesman who speaks half-truths. Your auctions speak to your character.


It doesnt matter to me one way or the other, and I would just leave this thread die,but you just keep on personally attacking me when it was you that lied, not me.

Is that your mantra? Say it to yourself enough, and it becomes true? Now I know how you come to your conclusions :rofl:


Its really not worth it to your reputation sir to vent your anger in that manner.A lot of kids in here look up to you, you should think about that.
You are the famous one in the Mag community, not me, I'm nobody.

Thanks for the advice, but I think its most certainly worth my reputation. I need not vent anger, as there is none to vent. I am merely calling it how I see it.

If kids here look up to me, hopefully they see that I provide evidence and fact to back my position. Not to let someone who is less-informed, but older use that fact alone to establish their position.

You sir, are a charlatan. Hopefully you know what that means so you dont think I am calling you names, as it fits appropriately here.

[going_home]

I say what I believe, and I stand by it.


Still cant post where I said what you claim I said huh.
You have proven my point.
Even when you lie, you believe what you said and stand by it. :tard:

[RogueFactor]

Still cant post where I said what you claim I said huh.
You have proven my point.
Even when you lie, you believe what you said and stand by it. :tard:

Already have. More importantly...


A liar calling me a liar doesnt invoke my anger.

Is that your mantra? Say it to yourself enough, and it becomes true? Now I know how you come to your conclusions :rofl:

[going_home]

Already have. More importantly...


What you didnt do was post what you claimed I said.



But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible...they dont exist.


Did you forget what you claimed I said ?

You have posted about 6 or 7 times since I called you out on it,
and wonder of wonders, you still havent posted where I said it yet ! :D

And you wont be able to either because you just made it up.
You would be a good politician, you should run for president !
Hey that was a great idea ! :clap:

You would probably be a better one than the last 3.
Hard to be better than Reagan, but Carter, Clinton and the Bushes
wouldnt be a problem for you. :D

[RogueFactor]

What you didnt do was post what you claimed I said.

Sure I did, post #62...

For stating your apparent old age in relation to others so often, I feel like I am having to explain complex human communication to a 5-year old with you. Hopefully, you can follow...


Sure you said it, implicitly.Let me break it down, logically, for you...

Scientific discovery of existence of dinosaurs proves they existed millions of years ago...
You say (allegorically mind you) nothing existed beyond ~6000(updated to ~10,000+ after going_home clarification) years ago

therefore...

Dinosaurs didnt exist(implied: millions of years ago).

You get it? Probably not.

This statement stands on its merits with all your claims made before and after.

Now, onto another...


Since you conveniently leave out the remainder of my statement, so as to mislead and take it out of context, here is the more pertinent and complete version...


Agreed. Kinda hard to get around those, isnt it?

But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible(that existed millions of years ago)...they dont exist. Thats junk science. Why? Because it cant be true, since there is no mention. Those dinosaurs being dug up(and proven to have existed millions of years ago) were put there by those who try to get around His words.

My previous statements provide for the implicity of the above. The only thing I have done incorrectly was to assume a man of your claimed age could hold an adult conversation with all the complexities of implicit and explicit statements.


Where did you imply that there wasnt anything 650,000 years ago?--->
They dont want Him and seek to prove He is not, like saying the world is 650,000 years old.
They have failed miserably. As you have.

There it is. Black and white. Let me know what your mantra speaks to you now. :spit_take

[going_home]

But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible...they dont exist. Thats junk science. Why? Because it cant be true, since there is no mention.


Let me post this again because obviously your young mind just cant grasp it.

You have not posted where I said that dinosuars arent mentioned in the Bible. :nono:

I never said it because they are mentioned there.

And its definately not in post 62 or any other of your posts.

The meanest terrible two's two year old has nothing on you,

he wouldnt admit when he's wrong either.

Like a mule looking at a new gate. Mercy goodness.

:(

[RogueFactor]

Let me post this again because obviously your old mind just cant grasp it....


What you didnt do was post what you claimed I said.

Sure I did, post #62...

For stating your apparent old age in relation to others so often, I feel like I am having to explain complex human communication to a 5-year old with you. Hopefully, you can follow...


Sure you said it, implicitly.Let me break it down, logically, for you...

Scientific discovery of existence of dinosaurs proves they existed millions of years ago...
You say (allegorically mind you) nothing existed beyond ~6000(updated to ~10,000+ after going_home clarification) years ago

therefore...

Dinosaurs didnt exist(implied: millions of years ago).

You get it? Probably not.

This statement stands on its merits with all your claims made before and after.

Now, onto another...


Since you conveniently leave out the remainder of my statement, so as to mislead and take it out of context, here is the more pertinent and complete version...


Agreed. Kinda hard to get around those, isnt it?

But, according to going_home, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible(that existed millions of years ago)...they dont exist. Thats junk science. Why? Because it cant be true, since there is no mention. Those dinosaurs being dug up(and proven to have existed millions of years ago) were put there by those who try to get around His words.

My previous statements provide for the implicity of the above. The only thing I have done incorrectly was to assume a man of your claimed age could hold an adult conversation with all the complexities of implicit and explicit statements.


Where did you imply that there wasnt anything 650,000 years ago?--->
They dont want Him and seek to prove He is not, like saying the world is 650,000 years old.
They have failed miserably. As you have.

There it is. Black and white. Let me know what your mantra speaks to you now. :spit_take

[Army]

Sorry children, but you have failed basic AO 101.

Closed