Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Evangelicals Launch Fight Against Climate Change

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

Evangelicals Launch Fight Against Climate Change

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to reduce global warming, 86 evangelical
Christian leaders are calling for federal action to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions.

Signers of the Evangelical Climate Initiative include the Rev. Rick Warren,
Wheaton College President Duane Litfin, and leaders of World Vision and the
Salvation Army.

All maintain that humans cause global warming and can help stop it, and that
doing so is a way to care for God's creation and save the world's poor from
an increase in natural disasters.

Other evangelical leaders refused to join the campaign, including Southern
Baptist leader Richard Land, Focus on the Family's James Dobson, Prison
Fellowship founder Charles Colson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral
Ridge Ministries.

They've signed a separate letter that says Christians "disagree about the
cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue."

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Evangelicals Launch Fight Against Climate Change

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to reduce global warming, 86 evangelical
Christian leaders are calling for federal action to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions.

Signers of the Evangelical Climate Initiative include the Rev. Rick Warren,
Wheaton College President Duane Litfin, and leaders of World Vision and the
Salvation Army.

All maintain that humans cause global warming and can help stop it, and that
doing so is a way to care for God's creation and save the world's poor from
an increase in natural disasters.

Other evangelical leaders refused to join the campaign, including Southern
Baptist leader Richard Land, Focus on the Family's James Dobson, Prison
Fellowship founder Charles Colson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral
Ridge Ministries.

They've signed a separate letter that says Christians "disagree about the
cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue."

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Has anyone ever stopped to think about the big films that have hugh explosives in their film, and the impact they have on the climate? Movies like Die Hard and Apocalypse now send tons of carsenogyns to the atmosphere.

Posted by: fossten

Let's listen to the evangelicals and the Hollywood crowd. After all, they all know more about global warming than scientists do.

Posted by: barry2952

Are these the same scientists that you say have evolution wrong? Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Are these the same scientists that you say have evolution wrong? Can't have it both ways.

Your lame question has no substance, evidence, or conclusion, only assumptions. Therefore, I can't even answer it.

Not that you'd be able to understand the answer anyway.

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Your lame question has no substance, evidence, or conclusion, only assumptions. Therefore, I can't even answer it.

Not that you'd be able to understand the answer anyway.

Wow, your a bitter person.

Get the chip off your shoulder.

Posted by: StankinLincoln

why do people use somewhat fancy language giving the notion that they are smart but then truly believe the people are too dumb to understand. i would actually look at our depletion of trees on alot of the air problems. cars arnt good for it but trees are good. and people keep cutting them down to build over priced fake brick or vinyl homes. that should be a crime. not driving a great car with real history.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbslmo

Wow, your a bitter person.

Get the chip off your shoulder.

You don't know me, nor can you discern tonality in written word. You have never debated me on this forum, only attacked me. Your only contribution is a ridiculous fringe theory that Bush is somehow 'running' Osama bin Laden as some sort of terror agent, which theory I doubt anybody else on this forum with any sense would bother lending any credibility to. That puts you in a rare category: Conspiracy wacko. As far as I'm concerned you have zero credibility. I was here long before you started posting your parroting thoughts, and I'll still be here after you run out of things to say, which shouldn't be long. As far as I'm concerned, you are nothing. Until you can debate on a civil and intellectual level, you will be ignored.

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Dude, you attacked me personally last week. Remember? Or is your thought process clouded by your hated of others who don't share your point of view?

As far as Bin Laden and Bush in bed together, well BuSh is a friend of the Bin Laden family, (close ties with Saudi Arabia, can you say "OIL"). Wouldn't look good for BuSh to kill their family member.

If you choose to not debate me, all the better, because your full of rhetoric, you're parroting the righteous. The only reason I started posting was in response to your

, in that I saw you attacking individuals whom you disagree with. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and should not be attacked in the way you do.

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Are we still of the oppinion that global warming exists? lol

Posted by: barry2952

The arguement on the Right seems to be that there is global warming but man is not the cause. The left thinks that man is the cause of all evil.

IMHO, it doesn't matter who is at fault. The real question is what do we do about it.

On the surface, planting trees seems like the best idea. I'm willing to go forward with that, even though it may not be the best or most permanent answer. Put our friggin' prision population to work reforesting old farmlands or put them to work restoring brownfields.

Yes, global warming is real. Some will point to the freezing weather in Russia and scoff at the thoery. The vast majority of scientists agree that it is real, they just can't agree on the cause.

There's not much I see eye to eye with Evangelical Christians but I like what I am hearing from them because it is consistent with their pro-life views. The interview I saw clearly conveyed that the churches didn't want to be viewed as one-trick ponies for focusing on abortion as their only concern.

This group wants to firmly address all pro-life issues like AIDS and poverty and old age issues. Their most important stand is to be pro-environment. The statement that struck me as most poiniant was "God gave us the Earth as our home and we are responsible for it's health", or something very similar.

I believe that this should be an issue that both extremes can agree on.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

The arguement on the Right seems to be that there is global warming but man is not the cause. The left thinks that man is the cause of all evil.

IMHO, it doesn't matter who is at fault. The real question is what do we do about it.

On the surface, planting trees seems like the best idea. I'm willing to go forward with that, even though it may not be the best or most permanent answer. Put our friggin' prision population to work reforesting old farmlands or put them to work restoring brownfields.

Yes, global warming is real. Some will point to the freezing weather in Russia and scoff at the thoery. The vast majority of scientists agree that it is real, they just can't agree on the cause.

There's not much I see eye to eye with Evangelical Christians but I like what I am hearing from them because it is consistent with their pro-life views. The interview I saw clearly conveyed that the churches didn't want to be viewed as one-trick ponies for focusing on abortion as their only concern.

This group wants to firmly address all pro-life issues like AIDS and poverty and old age issues. Their most important stand is to be pro-environment. The statement that struck me as most poiniant was "God gave us the Earth as our home and we are responsible for it's health", or something very similar.

I believe that this should be an issue that both extremes can agree on.

Much better to pull together for the common good, instead of persistantly allowing one's hate to drive a wedge between people like some others would prefer to do.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Let's listen to the evangelicals and the Hollywood crowd. After all, they all know more about global warming than scientists do.

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Much better to pull together for the common good, instead of persistantly allowing one's hate to drive a wedge between people like some others would prefer to do.........

Very well put!

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

That doesnt change the fact that global warming doesnt exist.

let me ask you, why do YOU say global warming exists. Please back up your falicy with graphs and scientific "data"

Posted by: pbslmo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWilson

That doesnt change the fact that global warming doesnt exist.

Huh????!

Posted by: barry2952

You'll get used to him.

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

You'll get used to him.

i hear gums flapping, but no factual evidance that global warming exists.
Im attributing your innability to find any facts to the fact that global warming doesnt exist.

Posted by: fossten

I think that what Mr. Wilson's trying to say is that the claim that humans are RESPONSIBLE for what we know to be global warming is FALSE.

By the way, trolls, there is a thread already devoted to global warming. In case you people don't understand posting, I suggest you turn on your speakers and click here:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

Posted by: barry2952

It's a new story, Duh! Are you the new Moderator?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

It's a new story, Duh! Are you the new Moderator?

You're just angry because I spoke the truth. Wow you're bitter.

Go take an anger management course.

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I think that what Mr. Wilson's trying to say is that the claim that humans are RESPONSIBLE for what we know to be global warming is FALSE.

By the way, trolls, there is a thread already devoted to global warming. In case you people don't understand posting, I suggest you turn on your speakers and click here:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

Perhaps we may be looking at global warming diffrently. I am not either saying that it is a man made or caused by other factors, i am simply saying that global warming is not real. Mabey my thought of global warming is what some people consider manmade global warming, but i do not believe so.

Posted by: fossten

The earth goes through periodic changes in temperature, both cooling and warming. Right now we are in a warming phase, but scientists have predicted that a cooling phase is on the horizon. There is as yet no conclusive proof that humans are causing either phenomenon.

Posted by: mach8

Global warming does exist, thank GOD, or we'd all be living in an Ice Age.

Does man cause Global Warming? Well I don't think man had anything to do with the end of any of the periods when ice covered large portions of the globe, which all came to an end due to Global Warming.

Some of the major souces of pollution affecting short term global temps are caused by nature. Maybe we should blow billions of dollars to find ways to prevent volcanos from erupting, spewing huge amounts of gases and solids into the atmosphere and fouling the oceans, or find what type of matter we should be launching into the sun to regulate its output to suit our needs and desires.

Or maybe we should all realize we live in an environment which is constantly changing instead of thinking all around us is set in stone for all time, kind of how many wish to remain immature ("young") their entire lives, and live our lives accordingly.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by mach8

Global warming does exist, thank GOD, or we'd all be living in an Ice Age.

Does man cause Global Warming? Well I don't think man had anything to do with the end of any of the periods when ice covered large portions of the globe, which all came to an end due to Global Warming.

Some of the major souces of pollution affecting short term global temps are caused by nature. Maybe we should blow billions of dollars to find ways to prevent volcanos from erupting, spewing huge amounts of gases and solids into the atmosphere and fouling the oceans, or find what type of matter we should be launching into the sun to regulate its output to suit our needs and desires.

Or maybe we should all realize we live in an environment which is constantly changing instead of thinking all around us is set in stone for all time, kind of how many wish to remain immature ("young") their entire lives, and live our lives accordingly.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by mach8

Very good point......The last ice age ended a bit over 10,000 years ago; I also doubt humans had anything to do with that. Not the mention the earliest documented ice age occurred between 400-600 millions years ago. Heating and cooling does seem to be a natural cycle, but people suggest that massive pollution can throw off this naturally occurring cycle

Posted by: MAllen82

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbslmo

I can't be the only one to recognize the lunacy in this statement, can I? Please tell me that you guys were just ignoring it or something.

Posted by: MAllen82

By the way 95DevilleNS, I dig your avator.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Here's my 2 cents. Put it in a penny stock and watch it soar.

I think that solar activity also plays a major part in the heating and cooling of the earth. So does magma flows within the earth.

Posted by: mach8

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

There have also been "Little Ice Ages" recorded in europe several times since about 1100, along with records of their effects on crops and disease. Warmer is better, for the most part.

Those who suggest massive pollution may affect normal cycles may be correct, but their past history makes their "facts" very questionable.

All we know is based upon a very small span of time, but even in that short span we see one of the major polluters in the world is mother nature. There seems to be a bias on the part of environmentalist against anything man made. Is there anything actually that terrible about any inert substance on the ground (say an aluminum can) just because it was manufactured VS falling from the sky or being spit out of a volcano? It's OK for a volcano to wipe out half an island but horrible for man to drain a swamp?

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

The earth goes through periodic changes in temperature, both cooling and warming. Right now we are in a warming phase, but scientists have predicted that a cooling phase is on the horizon. There is as yet no conclusive proof that humans are causing either phenomenon.

Yeah, thats about on the lines where i am. I suppose i should retract my previous statements and replace it with this.

The earth does go through cycles of heating and cooling, which could be concidered global warming, but it is the term "global warming," and what it has become known as, that does not exist (the effect man has on this cycle) My first question to anyone that believes otherwise is...how long has the earth been here? My second question is, how long have so called scientists been studying global warming. My third question, with question one and two's answers in mind, do you feel that you have enough of a factual basis to support the theory of man made global warming?

Posted by: fossten

Evidence for a young world

[snip]

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

*

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.
*

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.
*

Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.
*

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.
*

The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).
*

Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the AiG pamphlet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.

Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’ Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

Posted by: MrWilson

While all interesting little snipits, i do not see how it could be true that many of those statements couldnt be explained away. As of now, they are theories. If they were science fact, that is what would be taught. If you are saying that they ARE true, you are also claiming a mass conspericy to misslead the world.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWilson

While all interesting little snipits, i do not see how it could be true that many of those statements couldnt be explained away. As of now, they are theories. If they were science fact, that is what would be taught. If you are saying that they ARE true, you are also claiming a mass conspericy to misslead the world.

If it looks like a duck, waddles, and quacks...

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWilson

Evolution and Society

http://answersingenesis.org/creation...creationII.asp [snip]

To return to our observations: When we look at the Western nations today, we see an increase in homosexuality, increase in support for abortion, increase in people not wanting to obey authority, increase in people not wanting to work, people abandoning marriage, abandoning clothes, increase in pornography, to name but a few. We also note the following—the Church is not as effective as it used to be. Christians are fighting to retain their freedom, whereas a few years ago this wasn’t so. Evangelists don’t get the same response today that they used to get. People don’t automatically send their children to Sunday School like they used to. The education system is no longer considered Christian. Churches by and large are either struggling to hold their numbers or are running down—very few are increasing dramatically. Moody, in his day, could add thousands to his Sunday School, but this does not happen today. What has happened in society to bring about this change? Why is it that many people today just scoff when you talk about Christ and don’t seem to be open to the Gospel?

It wasn’t long ago that creation was the basis for society. Creation was taught through the schools and universities. A creation basis meant there were absolutes—God the Creator had a right to set the rules and had told us what was right and wrong. People automatically sent their children to Sunday School because they would learn about these Christian absolutes. People who weren’t Christians by and large respected and obeyed these laws based upon the Bible. Homosexual offenders were put in jail—abortion was considered murder. But what happened? Along came a man called Charles Darwin. He did much valuable work on natural selection and variation, but he then deliberately applied the evolutionary ideas he had learned from his grandfather to try to tie all the facts together and come up with a theory concerning the past. Darwin then popularised his evolutionary theory, promoting it as science to give it ‘respectability’. However, it was not science, and people were misled into thinking it was. Christians today are still hoodwinked into thinking it is. It is a belief. The Church was caught out as they did not know how to handle the situation. Because many were deceived into thinking evolution was science, it began to permeate our society. Now keep in mind that men are sinful. They are biased against God because they are humanists at heart. Men love darkness rather than light. ‘As a man thinketh in his heart so is he.’ Thus we are more likely to accept that which is wrong than that which is right. You can ascertain that easily enough if you put a Playboy magazine and a Bible on a table, and watch which one people pick up and read.

Over the last hundred years, people who were not Christians have readily accepted the evolutionary view, as a belief system which said there was no God, at any rate not the God of the Bible. People were and are the result of chance, i.e. no-one owns you—you own yourself. This means that you are under obligation to no-one. As this view became established in society, people started to ask questions such as—‘If evolution is true, and there is no God who is Creator, why are there laws about marriage? Why are there laws against deviant sexual behaviour? Why are there laws at all? Why can’t we take off our clothes if we want to? Why can’t we carry out abortions-after all, killing a baby by abortion is like getting rid of any animal that is not needed or wanted, isn’t it?’ In other words, the belief system of evolution provided a basis for the humanistic morality which said that you could do what you wanted to because nobody owned you—there was and is no right or wrong.

The fundamental clash we see in our society at present is the clash between the religion of Christianity with its creation basis and therefore absolutes, and the religion of Humanism with its evolution basis and its relative morality that says, ‘anything goes’.

These two systems cannot exist beside each other for very long, for in the end one must dominate and totally suppress the other. When creation was the basis in society, it was the abortionists and pornographers, etc., who were put in jail, i.e. those who disobeyed the absolutes. Now that evolution has become accepted in our society as the basis—who will be the ones jailed in the future? It is likely to be those who say you must obey the absolutes from the Bible! This is not over-emotionalism—there are several legislative trends at present which make it a distinct possibility if there is no change in the direction of our society.

In Australia’s Christian newspaper, ‘New Life’, Thursday, April 15, 1982, Josef Ton, who was a pastor of the largest Baptist Church in Romania, and is now living in exile in the U.S.A. stated, ‘I came to the conclusion that there were two factors which destroyed Christianity in Western Europe. One was the theory of evolution, and the other, liberal theology … Liberal theology is just evolution applied to the Bible and our faith’.

It is also worth noting the comment in the book, ‘By Their Blood-Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century’ (Most Media) by James and Marti Helfi, on page 49 and 50: ‘New philosophies and theologies from the West also helped to erode Chinese confidence in Christianity. A new wave of so-called missionaries from mainline Protestant denominations came teaching evolution and a non-supernatural view of the Bible. Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Northern Baptist schools were especially hard hit. Bertrand Russell came from England preaching atheism and socialism. Destructive books brought by such teachers further undermined orthodox Christianity. The Chinese Intelligentsia who had been schooled by Orthodox Evangelical Missionaries were thus softened for the advent of Marxism.’ Evolution is destroying the Church and society, and Christians need to be awakened to that fact!

Posted by: MAllen82

Why almost all scientists believe in evolution:

It is impossible to prove that the theory of evolution is absolutely true. The theory maintains that plant evolution, animal evolution and the major geological changes to the earth unfolded over billions of years. Thus, the full theory cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory. Processes like the rise of mountains and erosion are simply too slow to be observed during one person's lifetime. Elements of the theory (e.g. species evolution of fruit flies in the laboratory and of Tilapia fish in East African lakes) have been observed. But nobody was on hand to observe what the world and its life forms looked like hundreds of millions of years ago.

However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology.

horizontal rule
Why almost all conservative Protestants believe in creation science:

Their acceptance in creation science is based mainly on two fundamental beliefs:
bullet One of the most fundamental assumptions held by conservative Protestants is that the Bible was inspired by God and thus is without error, as originally written. Since the book of Genesis clearly describes that God created the universe, then it must be true. No other possibility exists.

The Answers-In-Genesis 1 web site explains this clearly in their statement of faith, Section D, sub-section vi: "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." 2 Thus, if some observation, some fossil, some measurement, or some theory seems to supports the theory of evolution, then it is automatically false and is to be rejected. There is no possibility that significant numbers of believers in creation science will accept the validity of any evidence in the future that contradicts the Bible.
bullet A second belief is that, unless otherwise indicated, biblical passages should be interpreted literally. Thus, when the Genesis creation story or stories state that God created the world in six days, it is normally interpreted to mean six literal, 24 hour, days. Using various genealogies and intervals of time in the Bible, it can be concluded that the creation week happened sometime after 8000 BCE. The earth is young. That is, that God created the world, the various forms of life on the earth, and the rest of the universe less than ten thousand years ago. Since the universe was created recently, there could not possibly be enough time between creation and the present time to allow species to evolve by purely natural forces. That would take many hundreds of millions of years. Thus, they believe that evolution -- whether caused by natural forces, or directed by God -- over 4.5 billion years of earth's history could not have happened.

horizontal rule
Can evolution be proven to be wrong?

Evolution is fragile, like all other scientific theories. A single finding could prove that at least part of the theory is false. For example:
bullet A single observation which proves beyond doubt that the earth has been in existence for less than, say, 1 billion years would greatly weaken the arguments in favor of evolution. There simply would not have been sufficient time for all of the natural geological and biological processes to produce the complexities of the present world.
bullet The discovery of an unmistakable fossil imprint of a human foot inside a dinosaur footprint would form a really good indicator that dinosaurs lived on earth when people were alive. Quite a few footprints of this type have been claimed to have been found. However most have been shown to be pious forgeries created by some very enthusiastic and devout believers. The rest are heavily eroded footprints that resemble human footprints, but were made by a non-human species.

The theory of evolution has always been in a state of flux; it is not currently correct, nor is it complete. It will always remain an incomplete approximation. Each new major fossil discovery has the potential of showing that some part of the theory is wrong. When this happens, scientists revise their theories slightly to accommodate the new finding. We can thus expect that timings and minor details of the theory will change in the future. However, the broad scope of evolution is well established and accepted. According to about 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists, the world did coalesce many billions of years ago. Species of life have evolved and died out over billions of years, leaving behind fossils in rock layers which demonstrate the gradual development of simple forms of life into more complex forms.
This essay continues below.

horizontal rule

Click below to visit one of our sponsors:

horizontal rule
Why most biological and geological scientists believe in an old earth:

Most systems of creation science teach that the earth is young -- that the earth and universe were created 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Essentially all scientists reject this belief.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, scientists make the assumption that the fundamental workings of nature are occurring today much like they were in the past. For example, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the charge on the electron, etc. have not changed much, if at all, during the entire history of the universe -- at least since the first second of the big bang. 3 This leads to a consistent picture of the earth having existed over billions of years. But these assumptions are not necessarily true. True scientists must always hold the possibility open that one or more of their initial assumptions is wrong and that their whole set of conclusions must be completely reorganized. This concept of falsification assures that, on the long haul, scientific theories become progressively closer approximations to reality.

Scientists are sometimes able to estimate the age of an object by using two unrelated methods. When their estimates agree, their belief in the accuracy of both estimates improves. So too does the credibility of their initial assumption of the relative constancy of certain fundamental factors of nature.

Consider two methods of estimating the age of some fossils which gave the same approximate result:

1. Scientists note that the world's rotational speed is gradually slowing down, because of frictional losses produced by the oceans' tides. Clocks are set ahead by one "leap second" -- usually at the end of some years -- in order to compensate for the slowing of the earth. Some fossils of rugose corals have been found which show both daily and yearly growth patterns. They indicate that when the coral was alive, there were about 400 days in the year; i.e. each day was about 22 hours long. Scientists assume that the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is more or less constant; there really is no obvious way in which the deceleration rate can change. They can estimate that about 350 to 400 million years ago, the day would have been only about 22 hours long. Thus, the corals are approximately of that age.
2. These same corals were embedded in rock that was measured by radioisotope methods to be 370 million years old. This technique assumes that the rate of radioactive decay has been more or less constant during the past. Again, the corals were estimated to be 350 to 400 million years of age.

The agreement of these two figures gives scientists a degree of confidence that the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is constant, that the rate of radioactive decay is constant, that radiometric techniques to estimate the age of rocks is valid, and that the rugose corals are about 375 million years old.

Consider two methods of estimating the age of the moon which also produced near identical results:

1. Scientists placed impact sensors on some satellites to measure the rate of accumulation of space dust in the region of the earth and moon. They were also able to measure the thickness of dust on the surface of the moon by direct measurement. Assuming that the rate of collection of dust was constant, they estimated that the age of the moon was on the order of four billion years. (The rate of accumulation of space dust is not a fundamental property of the universe. However, this measurement did provide an alternate method of estimating the age of the moon).
2. Scientists measured the age of moon rocks using radioisotope methods. They estimated the age of the rocks to be about four billion years. This measurement assumes that the rate of radioactive decay has been more or less constant over billions of years.

Again, the agreement of these two measurements gives scientists confidence that the rate of accumulation of space dust has been more or less constant, that the radioisotope method of dating rocks works, and that the moon is about four billion years old.

By finding consistent agreement among many diverse pairs of measurements which are made with unrelated methods, scientists have built up confidence in the measurements themselves, and the stability of various factors in the universe. It all fits together into a consistent picture.

On the surface, the coral measurements would seem to be conclusive proof that the corals were alive hundreds of millions of years ago. But the argument makes two assumptions. A creation scientist could legitimately ask the question: what if the rate of radioactive decay was a few hundred thousand times faster in 4000 BCE that it is today. And what if the earth's deceleration rate was also a few hundred thousand times greater at the time of Adam and Eve. Under these conditions, the analysis would show that the coral was alive circa 4000 BCE. Similarly, the creation scientist could suggest that the rate of space dust accumulation was 200,000 times greater in 4000 BCE. Again, the measurements would show that the moon would then be only 6,000 years old.

And so we have a problem:
bullet If we assume that the fundamental processes of nature (rate of radioactive decay, speed of light, gravitational constant etc.) are fixed or change little over time, then we can estimate ages of corals, rocks, oceans etc. using many different methods, and form a consistent understanding of the earth's multi-billion year history.
bullet If we assume that Genesis is correct, then one can compute how various fundamental process of nature must have radically changed since Adam and Eve, in order to fit all of our observations within the lifetime of a six to ten thousand year old earth.

There is, of course, no evidence that nature has changed or is changing in these really basic ways. Scientists have used many different methods to date many different rocks, fossils, earth formations, fire pits etc. to before 10,000 BCE. In order to make the observations fit the model of a young earth, basic factors of nature must have radically changed in a bewildering variety of ways. Based on the preponderance of evidence, essentially all biological and geological scientists believe that the earth is very old -- having coalesced on the order of 4.5 billion years ago.

We have prepared a list of over a dozen indicators that believers in evolution have used to show that the earth is old and has been in existence for much longer than 10,000 years. We also have a list of over a dozen other indicators that believers in creation science have used to show that the earth is young and came into existence less than 10,000 years ago. Both lists contain rebuttals.

If a scientist discovered a proof that the earth was actually young, she or he would totally demolish many current scientific theories. They would be a shoo-in for one of the next Nobel Prizes in science. It is doubtful that anyone would pass up such an opportunity. We conclude that there are no obvious proofs of a young earth that scientists will accept.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

Posted by: MAllen82

Beliefs of new-earth creationists about origins:

Most individual creation scientists and creation science organizations are called new-earth creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story/stories in Genesis which is the first book in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). From internal biblical information, they have concluded that the earth, its life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago; i.e. sometime after 8000 BCE. Many believe in the creation estimate of 4004 BCE by Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland. They further believe that only very minor changes within various biological species have happened since creation. No new species have evolved or been created since. Another of their important beliefs is that the flood of Noah happened circa 2349 BCE as described in the Bible. 3 It covered the entire earth and created many of the geological features that we see today. The new-earth creation belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe that the Bible authors were inspired by God to write text that is inerrant -- free of error. Most of them believe that creation took only six days or 144 hours.

Rejection of the C-14 dating method:

New-earth creationists obviously cannot accept the accuracy of the C-14 dating method. For example:

Scientists have dated a female figurine commonly called the Venus of Willendorf or the Woman of Willendorf to 24,000 to 22,000 BCE. They were unable to date the object directly since it is made from oolitic limestone. However, they were able to date many objects found with the object in the same archaeological layer of the Willendorf deposit.

They have dated wooden residue from the remains of bonfires at up to the limit of the C-14 dating method, which is about 50,000 BCE.

Creation scientists cannot accept these dates as accurate since they believe that the world was created sometime between 4000 and 8000 BCE. Since the accuracy of the Bible cannot be questioned, C-14 dating must contain massive errors -- by as much as a factor of five. Similarly, other radiometric measurements which do not use carbon, have dated rocks in northern Quebec, Canada, at almost four billion years old.

They must be in error by a factor of at least 400,000 times. More details.

Reasons for rejection of C-14 dating, with rebuttals:

It is our policy to accurately portray both (or all) sides to each belief whenever multiple viewpoints exist. If you feel that we are not fairly describing one side, please use the "Send an E-mail" button at the bottom of this page to send us a complaint. Please be sure to include the name of this file (c14datc.htm)

Some direct criticisms of the C-14 dating technique are:

ChristianAnswers.net states: "Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible."

This was true back in the 1950s. A team of researchers, headed by Willard F. Libby calibrated the C-14 measuring technique by comparing the measured age of samples from ancient Egypt with their known date. For example, they tested a piece of wood from Pharaoh Zoser's tomb with the known tomb date, which was known to be circa 2700 to 2600 BCE. The agreement was excellent. Since then, extended calibration checks have been made using U.S. bristlecone pine, German and Irish oak, and other species of trees. That work pushed the calibration back well beyond recorded history to 10,000 BP (years before the present.) Other correlations have extended that to 26,000 years BP. It may eventually go back as far as 45,000 years.

The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. This will increase the level of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, generate more C-14, and upset the C-14 dating process.

The earths magnetic field is cyclical in nature. Any affect on the C-14 dating method is corrected by the calibration procedure.

The flood of Noah, as described in Genesis, Chapter 6 to 8, would have upset the carbon balance on earth by burying large amounts of carbon containing plants which became coal, and gas. This would lower the total C-12 in the atmosphere at that time and upset the C-14 dating process.

The Genesis flood is described in Genesis as occurring circa 2349 BCE. Samples from before, during and after the flood whose dates are known through archeology have been C-14 tested without any difficulty. Either the worldwide flood of Noah did not happen, or it did not create any significant disturbance in the C-12/C-14 balance at the time.

Volcanoes emit a great deal of carbon dioxide which contains very little C-14. Since a massive degree of volcanism occurred during the the flood of Noah, objects which died shortly after the flood would give inaccurate C-14 dating results.

Again, C-14 dating results on objects before, during and after the flood were found to be accurate when the data was compared with dates derived from archeological evidence. If there was a great deal of volcanism in the 23rd century BCE, it does not show up in the C-14 data.

Radiocarbon dating laboratories often ask what is the expected age of the samples submitted to them. If C-14 dating is really precise, such information would not be needed. ChristianAnswers.net comments: "Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a "good" date."

Lab personnel often ask for the approximate age of a specimen in advance of testing, so they can tune their instruments in order to increase the accuracy of the results. They do not ask in order to "cook" the results.

Other criticisms are based on unusual C-14 test results which were obtained from samples who lived in very unusual environments:

C-14 testing of a Lake Bonney seal estimated its age as 615 years ± 100. Yet, it had been killed only a few weeks previous to the measurement. A recently killed seal at McMurdo Sound gave an age of 1,300 years. C-14 results are totally unreliable.

This is caused by the well known "reservoir effect." These particular seals fed "...off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom [of the ocean] for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank...Thus the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere." Its C-14 would have decayed significantly. The plants picked up this "old" carbon; animals eat the plants and pick up "old" carbon; the seals eat the animals and incorporate this "old" carbon in themselves. The seal is killed. The sample taken for C-14 measurement contains partly "old" carbon and partly recent carbon. The instrument reads an apparent year that the seal died, which is older than the actual year.

A sample of oil, which evolutionists believe was derived from plants that were living millions of years ago, was C-14 tested and found to be only 50,000 old. C-14 results are totally unreliable.

Fifty millennia is at the absolute limit of the capacity of the C-14 test. The difference in C-14 content between two carbon-containing samples -- one of which is 50 millennia old and the other is many millions of years old -- is minimal. The sample of oil did indeed come from plants that were alive millions of years ago. By now, essentially all of the C-14 atoms would have decayed so that none could be detected. However, very small amount of contamination could generate an apparent age of 50,000 years for the sample. Oil is typically "found within a matrix of sand or shale." The rocks will have some radioactivity which could have created new C-14, contaminated the sample, and produced the results indicated.

Shells of just-killed snails from Nevada were C-14 tested and found to be 27,000 years old. Again, C-14 results cannot be trusted.

This is another example of the reservoir effect. These particular snails lived in artesian springs which were "fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old." 9 Essentially all of its C-14 had decayed; there would be little left. Again, the "old" carbon dissolved into the water, and was picked up by the snails when they made their shells. The shells were thus deficient in C-14 and appeared to be millennia old. "The problem caused by the reservoir effect is well known by archaeologists, geologists, and anybody else, who use radiocarbon dates; they test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data."

Fossilized wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone in Australia, believed to have been hundreds of millions of years old, was dated by C-14 as 33,720 ± 430 years BP.

One wonders why a sample which most geologists would date to the middle Triassic (225 to 230 millions of years ago) would be tested using C-14. At that age, any C-14 that the wood originally had would have decayed to unmeasurable levels millions of years ago. This particular sample was porous. It would probably have absorbed groundwater containing modern carbon. This slight degree of contamination could have provided sufficient C-14 to give a 33 millennia age. Alternately, there could have been radioactivity in the surrounding rocks which created some C-14 in the sample.

Finally, some criticisms are based on flyers -- unusual readings which materialize sometimes:

Creation Science organizations have found carbon dating results which give anomalous results. For example, different samples from the same frozen musk ox in Alaska gave age estimates of 24 and 17 thousand years BP.

No instrumental technique is perfect. The odd flyer value will sometimes be produced, due to improper sample preparation, contamination, etc. That is why researchers try to test multiple samples. If you search for flyers, you will find them.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAllen82

Beliefs of new-earth creationists about origins:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm

If this is a point/counterpoint, please make it easier to read so we can tell more easily which side the article is on. It needs to be cleaned up a lot before posting.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Let's listen to the evangelicals and the Hollywood crowd. After all, they all know more about global warming than scientists do.

See you've taken Shrubs line of thinking, afterall, Shrub and crew haven't been listening to scientists about global warming either.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int.../interference/

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

If it looks like a duck, waddles, and quacks...

...Its prolly a turkey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Evolution and Society

It wasn’t long ago that creation was the basis for society. Creation was taught through the schools and universities.

So that means that we havent been scientificly studying this for too long

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

See you've taken Shrubs line of thinking, afterall, Shrub and crew haven't been listening to scientists about global warming either.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int.../interference/

Actually, I've known that we aren't responsible for global warming since before George W. Bush ever became President.

Shows how much you know about me: Zip.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Actually, I've known that we aren't responsible for global warming since before George W. Bush ever became President.

Shows how much you know about me: Zip.

I Know all I need to about you and it's summed up in this post:http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=18833

Posted by: barry2952

Wow, did that hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: MAllen82

It's funny how you point at conservatives and proclaim that we are all blindly following Bush, yet no matter what Bush does, he is wrong to you. If there was an article about how he wiped his ass yesterday, you would say he did it the wrong way or maybe wasted toilet paper that could have been sent to Katrina victims or something. The whole time that you two and some others think you are so enlightened, you are actually just as much in the dark as the ones you accuse of the same thing. It's actually a bit humerous if not pathetic to see you guys and realize that you think you are so much more enlightened. I admit that right isn't always right, and maybe some here can't, but jeez, as the saying goes, "you notice the splinter in your friend's eye, but not the plank in your own".

Posted by: barry2952

Funny, I don't see it that way. Did you read the article?

Posted by: barry2952

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- Greenland's southern glaciers have accelerated their march to the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade and now contribute more to the global rise in sea levels than previously estimated, researchers say.

Those faster-moving glaciers, along with increased melting, could account for nearly 17 percent of the estimated one-tenth of an inch annual rise in global sea levels, or twice what was previously believed, said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

An increase in surface air temperatures appears to be causing the glaciers to flow faster, albeit at the still-glacial pace of eight miles to nine miles a year at their fastest clip, and dump increased volumes of ice into the Atlantic.

That stepped-up flow accounted for about two-thirds of the net 54 cubic miles of ice Greenland lost in 2005. That compares with 22 cubic miles in 1996, Rignot said.

Rignot and his study co-author, Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas, said their report is the first to include measurements of recent changes in glacier velocity in the estimates of how much ice most of Greenland is losing.

"The behavior of the glaciers that dump ice into the sea is the most important aspect of understanding how an ice sheet will evolve in a changing climate," Rignot said.

"It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes."

Details of the study were being presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The study appears Friday in the journal Science.

The researchers believe warmer temperatures boost the amount of melt water that reaches where the glaciers flow over rock.

That extra water lubricates the rivers of ice and eases their downhill movement toward the Atlantic. They tracked the speeds of the glaciers from space, using satellite data collected between 1996 and 2005.

If warmer temperatures spread to northern Greenland, the glaciers there too should pick up their pace, Rignot and Kanagaratnam wrote.

The only way to stem the loss of ice would be for Greenland to receive increased amounts of snowfall, according to Julian Dowdeswell of the University of Cambridge, who wrote an accompanying article.