Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.

[Omni]

So you agree with Darwins racist ideas...ok ..then you try to cover those idea but pointing to Moses? Or others you think racist to make your racism seem ok? Its not and you should be ashamed or yourself. Christ teaches us that all men are equal in Him and He made all of us for Himself ...you really have a sad religion

It's not a religion, which means I don't have the believe everything about it. Just because I understand and accept evolution by natural selection as a reality, doesn't mean I have to have all the same personal feelings and social views as every single scientist who ever wrote abut it. You follow a set of rules and guidelines that you've gotta adhere to so that you don't incur a penalty. I don't. If Darwin was a bit of a douche who considered himself better than aboriginal cannibals, that's his problem. As for the facts and evidence essential to his biological theories, his personal character is irrelevant to those.

 

[Mitspa]

It's not a religion, which means I don't have the believe everything about it. Just because I understand and accept evolution by natural selection as a reality, doesn't mean I have to have all the same personal feelings and social views as every single scientist who ever wrote abut it. You follow a set of rules and guidelines that you've gotta adhere to so that you don't incur a penalty. I don't. If Darwin was a bit of a douche who considered himself better than aboriginal cannibals, that's his problem. As for the facts and evidence essential to his biological theories, his personal character is irrelevant to those.

Of course its a religion ...its just another silly religion, that only the most ignorant of people are inclined to believe.

 

[Omni]

What you're saying to me is like "Dmitry Mendeleev drank a lot. You utilize the periodic table of the elements, therefore you must be an alcoholic", or "Galileo was an anti-Catholic, and you believe in heliocentrism, therefore you must hate the Pope".

It's nonsense. Racism is not an integral part of the theory of evolution by natural selection, just like alcoholism isn't an integral part of the periodic table of the elements, nor anti-Catholicism an integral part of heliocentric theory.

 

[Mitspa]

Lets start with this insanity..."nothing" blew up and made everything hahaha how ignorant does someone have to be to believe that?

 

[Omni]

Lets start with this insanity..."nothing" blew up and made everything hahaha how ignorant does someone have to be to believe that?

Pretty ignorant, since that's not what the big bang theory is. Do you understand positive-negative energy distribution theory? What about the deterministic behaviour of entropy in space-time-progression? Do you understand the concept of zero-entropy absolute-density states?

If not, then you can't possibly argue this point with me.

 

[Mitspa]

What you're saying to me is like "Dmitry Mendeleev drank a lot. You utilize the periodic table of the elements, therefore you must be an alcoholic", or "Galileo was an anti-Catholic, and you believe in heliocentrism, therefore you must hate the Pope".

It's nonsense. Racism is not an integral part of the theory of evolution by natural selection, just like alcoholism isn't an integral part of the periodic table of the elements, nor anti-Catholicism an integral part of heliocentric theory.

Of course it is all based on racism anyone that can read can see that...anyone who believes evolution is in fact a racist.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

Moses believed in slavery. Does that make you a slavery proponent, since you believe in Genesis? That's what you're basically asserting here.

Another poorly scriptual based argument from atheists that annoys the pants of me


God knows men make each other slaves, so He tells them they can keep them, but are now held to His law on how to keep them = God is pro slavery and wants men to go around making each other slaves.


They always turn everything He does into some loosely bible based lie to make Him look "evil", but they always mix up what He actually says with intention.

 

[Mitspa]

Pretty ignorant, since that's not what the big bang theory is. Do you understand positive-negative energy distribution theory? What about the deterministic behaviour of entropy in space-time-progression? Do you understand the concept of zero-entropy absolute-density states?

If not, then you can't possibly argue this point with me.

Do you understand the laws of physics ...do you understand that its impossible according to every known and provable law of science for nothing to blow up and make everything? That's not science...that's a religion! you have your religion and I have mine... Im very happy with mine

 

[Omni]

Do you understand the laws of physics ...do you understand that its impossible according to every known and provable law of science for nothing to blow up and make everything? That's not science...that's a religion! you have your religion and I have mine... Im very happy with mine

The point is, Mitspa, your idea of what the big bang theory is, is a misrepresentation of what the theory actually is. Nobody is saying nothing blew up to make everything, because as you've already pointed out, that is quite impossible. In fact, it is utterly impossible for "nothing" to exist in any way shape or form whatsoever. Nothing is the absence of everything, including existence itself. Therefore, if there is, then there must always have been. Whatever energy exists cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Therefore, quite clearly, all the energy that makes up this entire universe, has always existed.

But this presents a problem when we think of spacetime within the first few moments and "before". You see, the fabric of space and time are interleaved and if there exists an absolutely dense energetic state then there can't exist time or space, since all points in time and space touch concurrently with one another when in such a state. This means that the concept of something "always having existed" is a misnomer insofar as human conscious experience depends upon time -- time, in which that experience can actually be rendered. Without the concept of time, there is no concept of consciousness, of being. It is this fundamental stumbling block that most people can't wrap their heads around.

You think of "before" the big bang as being "nothing", because you can't currently conceive of matter and energy without time.

 

[Mitspa]

The point is, Mitspa, your idea of what the big bang theory is, is a misrepresentation of what the theory actually is. Nobody is saying nothing blew up to make everything, because as you've already pointed out, that is quite impossible. In fact, it is utterly impossible for "nothing" to exist in any way shape or form whatsoever. Nothing is the absence of everything, including existence itself. Therefore, if there is, then there must always have been. Whatever energy exists cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Therefore, quite clearly, all the energy that makes up this entire universe, has always existed.

But this presents a problem when we think of spacetime within the first few moments and "before". You see, the fabric of space and time are interleaved and if there exists an absolutely dense energetic state then there can't exist time or space, since all points in time and space touch concurrently with one another when in such a state. This means that the concept of something "always having existed" is a misnomer insofar as human conscious experience depends upon time -- time, in which that experience can actually be rendered. Without the concept of time, there is no concept of consciousness, of being. It is this fundamental stumbling block that most people can't wrap their heads around.

You think of "before" the big bang as being "nothing", because you can't currently conceive of matter and energy without time.

So in order for one to accept this theory..one must reject time and space and all known physical laws...so you don't see how this is a religion? Its your fairy tale that you want to believe...its not real science !

 

[Mitspa]

Ok so now we must believe "back before time" "a long ,long ,time ago...even before time...and they call that science? People will believe anything...even when the earth is clearly getting cooler...people will believe in global warming.

 

[Omni]

So in order for one to accept this theory..one must reject time and space and all known physical laws...so you don't see how this is a religion? Its your fairy tale that you want to believe...its not real science !

Not quite. One must understand the nature of time. Time is inextricable with space. If both are concentrated beyond all recognition, they cease to behave like the time and space that we are used to -- this doesn't mean that the laws of physics are broken. It doesn't mean that they disobey the laws of physics, it just means that they behave in ways that are hard for humans to understand since we're so used to the way things behave on Earth. It's like looking at a perfectly square piece of paper and drawing a perfect horizontal line on it, one each minute, everyday, for twenty years, and then taking that piece of paper one day and scrunching it up into a tiny ball until it no longer has any flat parts or corners or edges or any discernible shape, it's just a tiny ball of sweaty white stuff; it's still your piece of paper, but you try drawing a perfect horizontal line across it when it's in that shape -- you can't.

Things behave differently under different circumstances, and some concepts are harder to understand than others.

 

[Mitspa]

Not quite. One must understand the nature of time. Time is inextricable with space. If both are concentrated beyond all recognition, they cease to behave like the time and space that we are used to -- this doesn't mean that the laws of physics are broken. It doesn't mean that they disobey the laws of physics, it just means that they behave in ways that are hard for humans to understand since we're so used to the way things behave on Earth. It's like looking at a perfectly square piece of paper and drawing a perfect horizontal line on it, one each minute, everyday, for twenty years, and then taking that piece of paper one day and scrunching it up into a tiny ball until it no longer has any flat parts or corners or edges or any discernible shape, it's just a tiny ball of sweaty white stuff; it's still your piece of paper, but you try drawing a perfect horizontal line across it when it's in that shape -- you can't.

Things behave differently under different circumstances, and some concepts are harder to understand than others.

It don't break the laws of physics ..its just behaves in ways that only a select few people that believe the way you do can understand....or some laws of physics that are only true on earth? Do you really believe that's science? Where you have to put away the known laws of physics ?

 

[Mitspa]

So we have to assume that time and physics are all different than what has been proven in sound science and believe this nonsense? That's a religion...not science

 

[crossnote]

Pretty ignorant, since that's not what the big bang theory is. Do you understand positive-negative energy distribution theory? What about the deterministic behaviour of entropy in space-time-progression? Do you understand the concept of zero-entropy absolute-density states?

If not, then you can't possibly argue this point with me.

Then why are you arguing on this Christian forum, especially Bible Discussion Forum since you don't understand the Christian faith?

 

[crossnote]

In fact, it is utterly impossible for "nothing" to exist in any way shape or form whatsoever. Nothing is the absence of everything, including existence itself. Therefore, if there is, then there must always have been. Whatever energy exists cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Therefore, quite clearly, all the energy that makes up this entire universe, has always existed.

But this presents a problem when we think of spacetime within the first few moments and "before". You see, the fabric of space and time are interleaved and if there exists an absolutely dense energetic state then there can't exist time or space, since all points in time and space touch concurrently with one another when in such a state. This means that the concept of something "always having existed" is a misnomer insofar as human conscious experience depends upon time -- time, in which that experience can actually be rendered. Without the concept of time, there is no concept of consciousness, of being. It is this fundamental stumbling block that most people can't wrap their heads around.
.

Ok so we have either an eternal God or eternal matter.

If matter is eternal then you have not only the problem of why it decays and dies but how non material entities come from matter such as thought, hope, memories, planning, intelligence etc.

If it is a personal God that is eternal then easily we know where the non material 'things' come from e.g. intelligence from an intelligent Being; love, from a loving Being etc.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

It's nonsense. Racism is not an integral part of the theory of evolution by natural selection ...

xxxxxxxxxx

 

[PennEd]

The religious ferver shown by those who desperately want to believe the hoax reminds me of those who believe in evolution:

Read this scientist's resignation letter. He has NO INCENTIVE to lie, and plenty to help facilitate the hoax:

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence - it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it...

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

 

[Dude653]

Darwin believed that blacks and Jews were still part ape and were therefore subhuman. Even if I were not Christian, I still would not believe the evolution theory because it is just ridiculous. Any and all so-called evidence for the evolution theory has been fabricated.

 

[pwrnJC]

It takes more faith to believe in Darwin, and to be an atheist than it does to accept JESUS CHRIST for who and what HE is.