You don't believe in Global Warming? Which really has nothing to do with religion, it falls under propoganda many goverments feed people, kind of like the church. The biggest contributer to the green house effect is carbon, do you know that our current carbon levels are almost 5x larger then they EVER were in the history of our planet (well since there was ice).
"Its ironic though that these same evolutionists are the ones behind the global warming craze." Would you care to present some FACTS showing that everybody that believes in evolution believes in global warming? I know at least 3 people who don't... "Here is a nice little site that offers a couple of audio facts (less than three minutes) about different creatures that proves evolution wrong. Here is an example. http://www.creationmoments.net/radio/volume.php?v=36" I couldn't find a single thing proving evolution wrong (I wasn't expecting to to be honest, as evolution is fact), care to point out what I'm missing?
So what if global warming is real, according the the evolutionist, we will evolve eventually anyway. Go ahead, call names and insult my in superior mind, tell me i got it all wrong.
So Global warming will cause us to change into a totally different species. yet believing in God is laughed at.
SB, you asked a question about whether one needs to worry, given global warming and evolution, which was answered. Now, you are comparing the relative merits of being convinced by evolutionary theory v. divinity. Will you please indicate what your actual question is?
If you will review my post i never asked one at all, i merely made a statement. I was basically saying "So What." then i made a sarcastic remark about the lie of evolution
I guess in my world a question mark indicates a question and not a statement. Hence, it was answered some time ago, and answered again when you raised the question again tonight. Evolution as "lie" is fair enough. It is a statement of faith, not investigation, and faith cannot be argued by reliance on empirical evidence, as it relies on the unseen.
That was like 10 pages ago, please show me where i raised the question again, as i said before it was a sarcastic statement i was making not a question.
I'm not sure why you are distinguishing 10 pages ago, when you asked a question and I provided a sincere answer, and tonight made a statement merely reaffirming your earlier question. If the answer is uncomfortable to you, that's fine, but it seems a bit disingenous to ignore the answer and then reaffirm your point again.
Your answer Sounds like something from a science FICTION movie. And my point was, that as far fetched as your answer is, Those of us that believe in God are the ones that get laughed at. There is only one answer to creation. There is only one answer to life. It is the only reasonable solution.
You lack even the most basic understanding of evolution, if global warming is real and it's an imminent threat, we aren't going to have tens of thousands of years to evolve and adapt, are we? Of course you get laughed at, the best you can come up with when asked to present proof is, "well if lots of other people believe it then it must be true"....
Ive not only posted scientific evidence, i have disproved scientific theory, by exposing its flaws, it just inst accepted because it doesn't agree with and your brethren.
Sb, if you'd like to be heard, and respected for your opinion, perhaps you should do more than toss out ridiculous lines like this whenever confronted with something that apparently either simply confounds you, or cannot be heard as it is too much of a threat to your established views. I do not intend to belittle you nor malign your faith. You asked a question about global warming and evolution, and I answered. You then re-issued he viewpoint and I noted you had asked the question. I say again, that it is not possible to discuss alternatives if you will not entertain they may exist. I have said it before - if a Divine Creator does exist, I would hope he'd, she'd or it would want us human beings to use everything at our behest to untangle the Creator's secrets, not just a blind statement of obeisance and faith.
You really aren't reading very carefully, it seems to me: = (part "2" in answering what kind of species we'd evolve to, under global warming). In other words, not sure why you'd believe this statement lies in some sort of contradiction to Phate's. They're the same, in essence.
I have entertained plenty, enough to know, that science is flawed and full of imperfection. Its a galaxy of guesses and assumptions and flawed formulation that are based on flawed, assumed, and imperfect variables.
Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Since solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating. The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Please provide evidence. These are broad assertions without any evidence, while you say you have posted scientific evidence and disproved scientific theory on this thread.
It is disingenuous to merely cut and paste an entire article without referencing the source. Your article comes from Dr. Kent Hovind: http://www.drdino.com/print.php?type=article&spec=73 Now, did you mean to say you've cut and pasted others' work? And may I ask why you are relying on (someone else's) discussion of carbon dating to make your argument when there are plentiful other methods available as well?