A
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
Well, that article is nonsense, right, 'cause the Earth isn't millions of years old.
In recent months, I have also pondered this question. I actually wonder if when God built the Earth, He put the oil inside it for a special reason, to lubricate it, or float the continents, or even provide for our fuel use today. If He deliberately put the oil inside it (and its needed for a reason), then I'm also sure He would have put some mechanism in so that when people use it, the oil gets regenerated.
I've read that some creationists believe that oil gets created when dead organic matter is put under heat (I think) and pressure. I used to accept this, but the amount of oil we use, shouldn't we have run out by now if this was the only source?
In recent months, I have also pondered this question. I actually wonder if when God built the Earth, He put the oil inside it for a special reason, to lubricate it, or float the continents, or even provide for our fuel use today. If He deliberately put the oil inside it (and its needed for a reason), then I'm also sure He would have put some mechanism in so that when people use it, the oil gets regenerated.
I've read that some creationists believe that oil gets created when dead organic matter is put under heat (I think) and pressure. I used to accept this, but the amount of oil we use, shouldn't we have run out by now if this was the only source?
M
I dunno. Perhaps we'll get a few sinkholes appearing here, and there, and around the place? 
Ideally, the oil would simply replenish itself, and we could consume merrily away to our hearts desire. Isn't that what happened with the BP gulf of Mexico disaster? Only problem was, we weren't consuming enough of it merrily away...
Ideally, the oil would simply replenish itself, and we could consume merrily away to our hearts desire.
Isn't that what happened with the BP gulf of Mexico disaster? Only problem was, we weren't consuming enough of it merrily away...
Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science
Author
By Guest Column (Bio and Archives) Monday, July 14, 2008
Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science
Oil Is NOT A Fossil
Fuel - It Is Abiotic
By Jerry Mazza
Oil Is NOT A Fossil Fuel - It Is Abiotic
[video=youtube;4kZotftLE0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kZotftLE0A[/video]
Oil is NOT a "fossil fuel"
Published on Feb 20, 2012
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty spills the beans about how oil was deliberately, incorrectly classified as a fossil fuel, when in fact it is Abiotic. As such, it is a replenishable, naturally occurring source. Peak oil is a myth, or more accurately, a lie. Just like almost everything else the establishment ever told you.
M
I didn't know that! Thanks very much for the post. So do you think the global warming scam is a fall-back plan for if/when people realise oil is as rare as water and act appropriately, the criminals can then say "Yes, but its causing all this pollution and global heating (or cooling!), so we need to tax you for it?" Or is there another reason for the global warming hoax?
A
Global Warming: Reasons To Believe : Global Warming
The Saga of Global Warming Scientific Data Manipulation - Climategate - The Climate Change EMails < click
Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn't comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long.
U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - The NASA Files - Climategate 2.0
google : Why Politicized Science is Dangerous - MICHAEL CRICHTON
Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn't comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long.
U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - The NASA Files - Climategate 2.0
google : Why Politicized Science is Dangerous - MICHAEL CRICHTON
A
Why is everything all or nothing with you?
There are still uncertainties in the data, but the bulk of evidence indicates that the planet has indeed become warmer over the last hundred years.
Global warming is occurring for many reasons most of which we cannot control. For example, how are we going to control the earth's orbital cycles? These quasi-periodic orbital cycles change the amount and distribution of solar energy reaching Earth over geologic time scales, that is, over periods of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. These cyclic changes are responsible for the waxing and waning of the Ice Ages during the last three million years. How are you going to control the faint sun paradox?
Human activity contributes somewhere between 20–80 percent of the warming seen over the last 150 years; however, understand that domesticated cattle and rice crop cultivation account for more of it than every SUV on the planet.
Read some books.
There are still uncertainties in the data, but the bulk of evidence indicates that the planet has indeed become warmer over the last hundred years.
Global warming is occurring for many reasons most of which we cannot control. For example, how are we going to control the earth's orbital cycles? These quasi-periodic orbital cycles change the amount and distribution of solar energy reaching Earth over geologic time scales, that is, over periods of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. These cyclic changes are responsible for the waxing and waning of the Ice Ages during the last three million years. How are you going to control the faint sun paradox?
Human activity contributes somewhere between 20–80 percent of the warming seen over the last 150 years; however, understand that domesticated cattle and rice crop cultivation account for more of it than every SUV on the planet.
Read some books.
S
And a cyclical change makes sense in more ways than one. Nobody ever mentions the medieval warm period, but it sounds an awfully lot like non-anthropogenic(man made) global warming to me.
I don't believe in man made global warming, but I do believe that cyclical changes can and do happen. I also believe that the new-age occult-worshipping individuals at the top who started the environmental movement know this full well and have purposely deceived the bulk of today's environmentalists so as to sway them. Environmentalists are single issue voters who are easily controlled. You can sell them all kinds of technologies that will never work or scale, and tell them that overpopulation is the real threat, all the while pulling the strings behind the curtains and they never know any better.
M
That's how I roll! Thanks for noticing.
Most of the evidence indicates global warming is a fraud, and that many "scientists" and media shills have prostituted their integrity to sell it. However, there are still some scientists, even non-Christians, who have some respectability left, who won't endorse such dishonest science. Why do you think the shills have started calling it "climate change", and admitted it could be on pause? Heh, heh, heh. Its a good analogy to use, 'cause everyone watching their propaganda will also have access to a VCR, or DVD player, and these have pause buttons, too. Easily understandable to the masses.
You've never read about the Ice Age? All those tropical animals entombed in ice at the North pole and around the place? You think that happened 'cause ancient man was burning too many fires? God is not going to let His Earth be totally destroyed by ignorant man. Stop watching so much TV.
Most of the evidence indicates global warming is a fraud, and that many "scientists" and media shills have prostituted their integrity to sell it. However, there are still some scientists, even non-Christians, who have some respectability left, who won't endorse such dishonest science. Why do you think the shills have started calling it "climate change", and admitted it could be on pause? Heh, heh, heh. Its a good analogy to use, 'cause everyone watching their propaganda will also have access to a VCR, or DVD player, and these have pause buttons, too. Easily understandable to the masses.
You've never read about the Ice Age? All those tropical animals entombed in ice at the North pole and around the place? You think that happened 'cause ancient man was burning too many fires? God is not going to let His Earth be totally destroyed by ignorant man. Stop watching so much TV.
A
Married_Richenbrachen, I'm not watching their propaganda. You are. I study science and history. I obtain my information from scholarly peer-reviewed scientific publications and organizations that produce content for those publications. My assertions were correct. I stated:
"There are still uncertainties in the data, but the bulk of evidence indicates that the planet has indeed become warmer over the last hundred years.
Global warming is occurring for many reasons most of which we cannot control. For example, how are we going to control the earth's orbital cycles? These quasi-periodic orbital cycles change the amount and distribution of solar energy reaching Earth over geologic time scales, that is, over periods of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. These cyclic changes are responsible for the waxing and waning of the Ice Ages during the last three million years. How are you going to control the faint sun paradox?
Human activity contributes somewhere between 20–80 percent of the warming seen over the last 150 years; however, understand that domesticated cattle and rice crop cultivation account for more of it than every SUV on the planet."
^ Please PROVE to me this scientific assertion is incorrect using scholarly peer-reviewed resources rather than the home grown conspiracy theory websites you visit maintained by potheads. Looking forward to seeing you try.
"There are still uncertainties in the data, but the bulk of evidence indicates that the planet has indeed become warmer over the last hundred years.
Global warming is occurring for many reasons most of which we cannot control. For example, how are we going to control the earth's orbital cycles? These quasi-periodic orbital cycles change the amount and distribution of solar energy reaching Earth over geologic time scales, that is, over periods of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. These cyclic changes are responsible for the waxing and waning of the Ice Ages during the last three million years. How are you going to control the faint sun paradox?
Human activity contributes somewhere between 20–80 percent of the warming seen over the last 150 years; however, understand that domesticated cattle and rice crop cultivation account for more of it than every SUV on the planet."
^ Please PROVE to me this scientific assertion is incorrect using scholarly peer-reviewed resources rather than the home grown conspiracy theory websites you visit maintained by potheads. Looking forward to seeing you try.
Zone, that was a great link about oil! I grew up in Alberta, and have lived here now for 13 years as an adult. All my life I have been surrounded by oil derricks, christmas trees (and oil term) and watched the pumps go up and down pulling the oil out of the ground. And now the dreaded tar sands, which has boosted our economy beyond belief. The county I live in is building upgraders to process the tar sands, and that will cause more pollution than the actual pulling it out of the ground.
I was always suspicious of the biotic origins of oil. From grade 5 on, we always had these diagrams of trees and other vegetation being slowly pressured into oil. In my child's mathematical mind, I always tried to fathom how many miles of vegetation you would need to produce the vast amounts of oil we have in Alberta - and that is miles straight up, not sideways.
The overabundance of a calcium carbonate underlay here, combined with the iron, and the need to use CLR on everything, because these two minerals are in our water supply, makes complete sense to me. In fact, the soils here become more alkaline from the calcium, during dry spells, when iron and Calcium Carbonate are drawn up through water evaporating to the surface.
As for global warming, I feel we have fluctuations in weather all the time. There was a mini ice age in Britain back in 1000 AD. It was so cold the English channel froze. When Krakatoa exploded in the 18th century the mean temperature of the earth went down 2C (that's about 4F) and any lower and it would have precipitated another ice age. It took several years to get all the volcanic ash out of the air. Sunsets on the other side of the world, were the most brilliant colours of red, caused by filtering of the sunlight through the volcanic dust.
So my thought is that there are many cataclysmic reasons why the temperature of the earth goes up and down. I remember when Mt. St. Helens blew up in Washington State, to the south of where I lived. That was a winter so cold, that the water pipes burst in several interior BC towns.
So my thought that a bit of global warming may be good, in the event of any kind of increasing volcanic activity. And it just could be that the earth is a bit closer to the sun, and therefore we are warming up more. There are so many factors, to blame people for global warming is really a shot in the dark. Yes, it is happening to a small degree. But why, is the important question!
I was always suspicious of the biotic origins of oil. From grade 5 on, we always had these diagrams of trees and other vegetation being slowly pressured into oil. In my child's mathematical mind, I always tried to fathom how many miles of vegetation you would need to produce the vast amounts of oil we have in Alberta - and that is miles straight up, not sideways.
The overabundance of a calcium carbonate underlay here, combined with the iron, and the need to use CLR on everything, because these two minerals are in our water supply, makes complete sense to me. In fact, the soils here become more alkaline from the calcium, during dry spells, when iron and Calcium Carbonate are drawn up through water evaporating to the surface.
As for global warming, I feel we have fluctuations in weather all the time. There was a mini ice age in Britain back in 1000 AD. It was so cold the English channel froze. When Krakatoa exploded in the 18th century the mean temperature of the earth went down 2C (that's about 4F) and any lower and it would have precipitated another ice age. It took several years to get all the volcanic ash out of the air. Sunsets on the other side of the world, were the most brilliant colours of red, caused by filtering of the sunlight through the volcanic dust.
So my thought is that there are many cataclysmic reasons why the temperature of the earth goes up and down. I remember when Mt. St. Helens blew up in Washington State, to the south of where I lived. That was a winter so cold, that the water pipes burst in several interior BC towns.
So my thought that a bit of global warming may be good, in the event of any kind of increasing volcanic activity. And it just could be that the earth is a bit closer to the sun, and therefore we are warming up more. There are so many factors, to blame people for global warming is really a shot in the dark. Yes, it is happening to a small degree. But why, is the important question!
R
here is an interesting paper from a creationist technical journal about the origin of oil... The Origin of Oil—A Creationist Answer - Answers in Genesis
and about global warming...i think all conclusions right now are premature...to know anything definitive we are really going to have to wait until the next solar minimum period...
and about global warming...i think all conclusions right now are premature...to know anything definitive we are really going to have to wait until the next solar minimum period...
M
You actually go so far as to *read* their propaganda? I've read about it once or twice when I couldn't sleep (not the articles themselves, I prefer summaries), but that's all. I don't believe "scholarly peer-reviewed scientific publications" are any more valid or scientific than non peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed simply means the articles have gone through the doctoring process of having others indoctrinated at the same institutions agree with it. So in the rare event someone breaks free of the brainwashing they received at one of the institutions, their brainwashed companions will soon quash their dangerous, independent thought.
I disagree. The average temperature (measured at a few locations, not uniformly over Earth as a whole) measures less than a 1 degree increase over 100 years, and you think this can somehow proves that the Earth is "globally" warming, and man is causing it? I call this more than uncertainty in the data - I call it simply the normal cyclical temperature changes that you admit you believe have been happening for millions of years (even though, to clarify, I know the Earth is only about 6000 years old - i.e. I don't necessarily deny temperature cycles, but the 3 million year time frame is absurd). Probably a few more decades either way, you might find the average temperature has dropped by the same 1 degree. Its called statistics.
As I've explained before, the Earth doesn't orbit. So there's no need to control any alleged orbital cycles. If you admit that you believe the Ice Ages during the last three million years (the Earth is only ~6000 years old), is due to these (imaginary) orbital cycles, why are you now believing that (alleged) global warming is not due to the same cause?
I don't need the consent of those indoctrinated inside institutions to tell me junk science when I see it. God has blessed me with my own heart and mind. I can even point out said junk science to you. But if you will only accept ideas generated by those from these corrupted institutions (i.e. "scholarly peer-reviewed resources") to understand that the thinking and science behind an idea is incorrect, I may not be able to help you. I suppose it relates to the old saying about horses and water.
I disagree. The average temperature (measured at a few locations, not uniformly over Earth as a whole) measures less than a 1 degree increase over 100 years, and you think this can somehow proves that the Earth is "globally" warming, and man is causing it? I call this more than uncertainty in the data - I call it simply the normal cyclical temperature changes that you admit you believe have been happening for millions of years (even though, to clarify, I know the Earth is only about 6000 years old - i.e. I don't necessarily deny temperature cycles, but the 3 million year time frame is absurd). Probably a few more decades either way, you might find the average temperature has dropped by the same 1 degree. Its called statistics.
As I've explained before, the Earth doesn't orbit. So there's no need to control any alleged orbital cycles. If you admit that you believe the Ice Ages during the last three million years (the Earth is only ~6000 years old), is due to these (imaginary) orbital cycles, why are you now believing that (alleged) global warming is not due to the same cause?
I don't need the consent of those indoctrinated inside institutions to tell me junk science when I see it. God has blessed me with my own heart and mind. I can even point out said junk science to you. But if you will only accept ideas generated by those from these corrupted institutions (i.e. "scholarly peer-reviewed resources") to understand that the thinking and science behind an idea is incorrect, I may not be able to help you. I suppose it relates to the old saying about horses and water.