• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Global Warming, What's your twist?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

olderroper

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
South Dakota
Since this forum is warmed up this sat, lets discuss another controversial topic. Fact or no fact based on what.
http://www.nesara.us/doverpts08/January_30_2008.htm

Everybody is trying to tell us that Global warming is man made because scientists are studying the ice in Antartica claiming it to be information from billions of years ago.
TV had some coverage on it about a week ago, don't remember what channel.
It all boils down to wether you believe in creationism or evolution.
The bible says the eath is only 6-7000 yars old, so that sure blows a hole in their scientific theories.

I recently read where there are volcanoes under Antartica that are creating heat that rises, causing the melting of ice. Now why would anyone not beleive that.?
There are volcanoes on every other continent, heat rises don't it?

Who has the real facts?
 
We don't understand "global warming" enough to be making any drastic moves...I kind of go along with the theory that it is cyclical- and warm ages and ice ages come and go over the millions of years with shorter period miniextemes in between...

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use every reasonable technology available to cut down on emissions and pollution if for no other reason than just out of kindness to this good earth......
 
Red Robin said:
I don't know if the earth is warming or cooling, don't care.
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

Its warming up according to my therometer in my house. Earlier this week about every morning around 8 it said 40 degrees. Last two days it says 50 degrees. When it says 60 degrees, I'll know that either the fire didn't go out overnight or spring is here.:lol:
 
Oldtimer said:
We don't understand "global warming" enough to be making any drastic moves...I kind of go along with the theory that it is cyclical- and warm ages and ice ages come and go over the millions of years with shorter period miniextemes in between...

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use every reasonable technology available to cut down on emissions and pollution if for no other reason than just out of kindness to this good earth......
My post was mostly smarty pants tongue in cheek,but your so right OT,theres not a darn thing wrong with being pro-active and looking after our Earth. Yesterday in the city I was thinking about all the un nessasary emissions coming from vehicals sitting in the huge line-ups at the drive through at Tim Hortons. Greg and I are big on leaving our land in the shape it started for our future generations
 
Oldtimer said:
We don't understand "global warming" enough to be making any drastic moves...I kind of go along with the theory that it is cyclical- and warm ages and ice ages come and go over the millions of years with shorter period miniextemes in between...

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use every reasonable technology available to cut down on emissions and pollution if for no other reason than just out of kindness to this good earth......

Agreed.
It just makes good economical sense too. I have always used an additive in my tractors and cars. You know how those 2010 John Deers used to carbon up so bad they didn't want to shut off when you turned the key off.
Cars did that too. Put an additive in and it cleaned the system out and everything worked better and I got further on a tank of gas. I use power service in my diesel stuff and am trying out a new product for my gas outfits. Got a 97 chevy 4 X full size pickup getting 22 miles per gal driving 65 miles an hr...summer driving weather.
 
Red Robin said:
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

No, it isn't. In fact, when the Dover/Harrisburg, PA school district tried to teach what they called "Intelligent Design" in their science classrooms, the science teachers rebelled. It wound up in court and they could come up with absolutely nothing to back up their claims about "intelligent design." It's a belief. If you want to believe it, fine. But I'm going to object if the local school system uses my tax dollars to teach something based on faith as science.



A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Eleven parents in Dover, a growing suburb about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, sued their school board a year ago after it voted to have teachers read students a brief statement introducing intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.

The statement said that there were "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they should examine.

Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

The six-week trial in Federal District Court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing since the movement's inception about 15 years ago, and was often likened to the momentous Scopes case that put evolution on trial 80 years earlier.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.

But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.

Judge Jones's decision is legally binding only for school districts in the middle district of Pennsylvania. It is unlikely to be appealed because the school board members who supported intelligent design were unseated in elections in November and replaced with a slate that opposes the intelligent design policy and said it would abide by the judge's decision.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said at a news conference in Harrisburg that the judge's decision should serve as a deterrent to other school boards and teachers considering teaching intelligent design.

"It's a carefully reasoned, highly detailed opinion," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "that goes through all of the issues that would be raised in any other school district."

Richard Thompson, the lead defense lawyer for the school board, derided the judge for issuing a sweeping judgment in a case that Mr. Thompson said merely involved a "one-minute statement" being read to students. He acknowledged that his side, too, had asked the judge to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design, but only because it had to respond to the plaintiffs' arguments.

A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

The scientists who have put intelligent design forward as a valid avenue of scientific research said they were disappointed by Judge Jones's ruling but that they thought its long-term effects would be limited.

"That was a real drag," said Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who was the star witness for the intelligent design side. "I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say."

Dr. Behe added: "He talks about the ground rules of science. What has a judge to do with the ground rules of science? I think he just chose sides and echoed the arguments and just made assertions about our arguments."

William A. Dembski, a mathematician who argues that mathematics can show the presence of design in the development of life, predicted that intelligent design would become much stronger within 5 to 10 years.

Both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski are fellows with the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

Mainstream scientists who have maintained that no controversy exists in the scientific community over evolution were elated by Judge Jones's ruling.

"Jubilation," said Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University who has actively sparred with intelligent design proponents and testified in the Dover case. "I think the judge nailed it."

Dr. Miller said he was glad that the judge did not just rule narrowly.

Jason D. Rosenhouse, a professor of mathematics at James Madison University in Virginia and a fervent pro-evolution blogger said: "I was laughing as I read it because I don't think a scientist could explain it any better. His logic is flawless, and he hit all of the points that scientists have been making for years."

Before the start of a celebratory news conference in Harrisburg, Tammy Kitzmiller, a parent of two daughters in the Dover district and the named plaintiff in the case, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, joked with other plaintiffs that she had an idea for a new bumper sticker: "Judge Jones for President."

Christy Rehm, another plaintiff, said to the others, "We've done something amazing here, not only with this decision, but with the election."

Last month, Dover, which usually votes majority Republican, ousted eight school board members who had backed intelligent design and elected the opposition that ran on a Democratic ticket.

Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, who helped to argue the case, said, "We sincerely hope that other school districts who may have been thinking about intelligent design will pause, they will read Judge Jones's erudite opinion and they will look at what happened in the Dover community in this battle, pitting neighbor against neighbor."

The judge's ruling said that two of the most outspoken proponents of intelligent design on the Dover school board, William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, lied in their depositions about how they raised money in a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," to put in the school library.

Both men, according to testimony, had repeatedly said at school board meetings that they objected to evolution for religious reasons and wanted to see creationism taught on equal footing.

Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."

Mr. Bonsell did not respond to a telephone message on Tuesday. Mr. Buckingham, a retired police officer who has moved to Mount Airy, N.C., said, "If the judge called me a liar, then he's a liar."

Mr. Buckingham said he "answered the questions the way they asked them." He called the decision "ludicrous" and said, "I think Judge Jones ought to be ashamed of himself."

The Constitution, he said, does not call for the separation of church and state.

In his opinion, Judge Jones traced the history of the intelligent design movement to what he said were its roots in Christian fundamentalism. He seemed especially convinced by the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, that the authors of the "Pandas" textbook had removed the word "creationism" from an earlier draft and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

Opponents of intelligent design said Judge Jones's ruling would not put an end to the movement, and predicted that intelligent design would take on various guises.

The Kansas Board of Education voted in November to adopt standards that call into question the theory of evolution, but never explicitly mention intelligent design.

Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said in an interview, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum like the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."

Even after courts ruled against teaching creationism and creation science, Ms. Scott said, "for several years afterward, school districts were still contemplating teaching creation science."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/21evolution.html
 
ff said:
Red Robin said:
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

No, it isn't. In fact, when the Dover/Harrisburg, PA school district tried to teach what they called "Intelligent Design" in their science classrooms, the science teachers rebelled. It wound up in court and they could come up with absolutely nothing to back up their claims about "intelligent design." It's a belief. If you want to believe it, fine. But I'm going to object if the local school system uses my tax dollars to teach something based on faith as science.
Where did I address intelligent design? Intelligent design, Evolution, Creation as described in the Bible where God told us how it happened are all differing viewpoints on creation. The age of the earth is a stand alone argument.

* Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
* Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
* The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
* Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
* Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
* Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, a possible indication that it is still hot. Why hasn't it cooled down?
* Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
* The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
* Earth's rotation is slowing down. We experience a leap second every year and a half. If the Earth is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. Besides the problem of extremely short days and nights, the increased "Coriolis Effect" would cause impossible living conditions.
* In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.

Most of these are limiting factors . If I find a coin dated 1982 then the date inscribed on the coin limits the coin from being produced prior than 1982. It takes very little thought to realize that the earth is much younger than Millions or Billions of years old.
 
Red Robin said:
ff said:
Red Robin said:
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

No, it isn't. In fact, when the Dover/Harrisburg, PA school district tried to teach what they called "Intelligent Design" in their science classrooms, the science teachers rebelled. It wound up in court and they could come up with absolutely nothing to back up their claims about "intelligent design." It's a belief. If you want to believe it, fine. But I'm going to object if the local school system uses my tax dollars to teach something based on faith as science.
Where did I address intelligent design? Intelligent design, Evolution, Creation as described in the Bible where God told us how it happened are all differing viewpoints on creation. The age of the earth is a stand alone argument.

* Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
* Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
* The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
* Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
* Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
* Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, a possible indication that it is still hot. Why hasn't it cooled down?
* Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
* The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
* Earth's rotation is slowing down. We experience a leap second every year and a half. If the Earth is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. Besides the problem of extremely short days and nights, the increased "Coriolis Effect" would cause impossible living conditions.
* In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.

Most of these are limiting factors . If I find a coin dated 1982 then the date inscribed on the coin limits the coin from being produced prior than 1982. It takes very little thought to realize that the earth is much younger than Millions or Billions of years old.

Intelligent design or young earth, it's all a push from the religious right.

4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.

Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.

First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:


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



Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years
Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years
Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years
Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years
Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years
Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years
W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years
Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years
Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years

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


Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.

The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:

Many of the listed metals are in fact known to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.

Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a true upper limit, we must calculate the maximum upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.

In addition, even if we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and even if these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation must "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."

The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.

These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19 million year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42,000 year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.

These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.

There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creationist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like.
One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, p. 16)
Morris (1974, pp. 153-156)
Morris & Parker (1987, pp. 284-284 and 290-291)
Wysong (1976, pp. 162, 163)

Conclusion
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.

A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)

Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-38)
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-158)
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#ocean

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
 
Red Robin said:
I don't know if the earth is warming or cooling, don't care.
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

Genesis 1 verse 2 leads me to beleive that the earth could be very old.
 
Frankk said:
Red Robin said:
I don't know if the earth is warming or cooling, don't care.
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

Genesis 1 verse 2 leads me to beleive that the earth could be very old.

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

My interpretation would be that the earth's "time" didn't start counting until it was formed. The dinosaurs couldn't walk on it until there was firm ground to walk on.
 
I don't believe in global warming until you start addressing chemtrails and weather modification........... do a search on those and you will have days worth of reading. This can cause global warming because we're messing with it.

All the CFR and United Nations want is a global tax - if you use excess carbons you will have to buy extra credits from another country.... now you tell me how we're going to get extra carbon from Africa.......... no, its just a gimmick to get money.


Also has anybody research the NASA Lucifer Project...... now what do we need with 2 suns and when they don't know what that might do to earth?
 
Faster horses said:
oldroper, what's the additive? I have a Yukon I would sure like to get better mileage with it.

I put a Tornado Air device in my 97 Expedition. Mileage went from 13 mpg to 18 mpg. I would recommend them.

www.tornadoair.com

or available through your NAPA store.
 
Faster horses said:
Thanks loomix guy. I get 16-18 depending on how fast I drive. Do you think it will increase that to better gas mileage? Can you install it without affecting the warranty?

It all depends on how you drive. In some instances, your mileage may not improve as much as mine did, but it will improve, nonetheless.

There is nothing to wear out, rust, or keep adding to. All it takes is a screwdriver and 2 minutes or less, and will not void your warranty in any way shape or form. Check the website out.
 
Soapweed said:
Frankk said:
Red Robin said:
I don't know if the earth is warming or cooling, don't care.
I agree with your young earth assessment old roper and it's very provable scientifically.

Genesis 1 verse 2 leads me to beleive that the earth could be very old.

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

My interpretation would be that the earth's "time" didn't start counting until it was formed. The dinosaurs couldn't walk on it until there was firm ground to walk on.

I agree the earth as we know it is young but it was formed out of some maybe very old materials. The Lord only knows how long it was formless.
 

Latest posts

Top