Evidence for God from Science

I guess I'll look for a less restrictive Christian forum. I kind of expected this one to be quite open-minded, considering its title: "Evidence for God from Science." Seems to me, a better title would be: "Refuting Science in Favour of Unsubstantiated Speculation."

As much as I would love to agree, you shouldn't really try to circumvent bans.

Maybe you can make a appeal to conscience? They can be all right if you give them a chance.... P.S the only science they seem dead against is Evolution, but at least their alternative is not totally non-credible (OEC)

Byblos wrote:

Adaptee wrote:

Kristoffer wrote:The only slight problem with this kind of evolution, is that it make human beings the "goal", real evolution has no goal.

We're absolutely not the goal. Why must we be so special? Human evolution is ongoing. There is evidence for this. For example, the population of Tibetans living on the Tibetan plateau has evolved (very quickly: in under 3,000 years) for life at such a high altitude. A perfect example of natural selection adapting a population to the (extreme) conditions in which they live.

By the way, it's virtually impossible to stop someone posting on a forum such as this when you have an "open" registration system. However, I assume this account will be immediately banned, and three is probably the maximum number of times I can be bothered to register here.

I guess I'll look for a less restrictive Christian forum. I kind of expected this one to be quite open-minded, considering its title: "Evidence for God from Science." Seems to me, a better title would be: "Refuting Science in Favour of Unsubstantiated Speculation."

What is this an exercise in asserting your ability to use different IP addresses? Of course there's always a way around a ban, that's rather obvious. The question is why would someone want to to be somewhere they're not wanted. We've had plenty of members who deeply disagree with us and yet have been here for a very long time. But you want to come to a private forum, be insulting, condescending, closed-minded, and not expect to be banned? You have all this time to waste to keep coming back here be my guest but here's a suggestion instead: try being nice.

But why give him another chance? Someone who abuses us can just keep coming back because he's able to a certain level? His first ban was only temporary, yet he had to come back defiantly the next day. It's not that he disagrees with us or some of us, he thinks he's better - even though to him it's OK to be mean and insulting, and break the rules of a private board. We can contact his internet provider, correct? It's amazing that bullies such as this can think they're smarter or more evolved or something. Very hilarious. And it's OK, too, to completely defy logic in one's belief - and then think we're all going to think he's rational. Right.

In this particular case, I'm very much reminded of 2 John. One cannot be a Christian and not believe basic doctrines at the same time. No matter who a person is, however, they can post here, as long as they abide by the rules. I think what 2 John says, though, is stricter than that; he was concerned about believers being deceived (Byblos, I'm just posting this for everyone, not saying it you, lol).

cslewislover wrote:But why give him another chance? Someone who abuses us can just keep coming back because he's able to a certain level? His first ban was only temporary, yet he had to come back defiantly the next day. It's not that he disagrees with us or some of us, he thinks he's better - even though to him it's OK to be mean and insulting, and break the rules of a private board. We can contact his internet provider, correct? It's amazing that bullies such as this can think they're smarter or more evolved or something. Very hilarious. And it's OK, too, to completely defy logic in one's belief - and then think we're all going to think he's rational. Right.

In this particular case, I'm very much reminded of 2 John. One cannot be a Christian and not believe basic doctrines at the same time. No matter who a person is, however, they can post here, as long as they abide by the rules. I think what 2 John says, though, is stricter than that; he was concerned about believers being deceived (Byblos, I'm just posting this for everyone, not saying it you, lol).

No, I completely agree with you. I just thought a little shameful common sense would do the trick. Then again, some people have neither shame nor common sense.

One of the main studies that bothers me about climate change is the temperature record maps that many meterologists like to show on news and weather stations like this one from 2008

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... 809-pg.gif

Is there good counter evidence to show that it's not really that hot everywhere or is the debate now centered on what it causing this warmth? Thanks and God bless.

Anyway, I was going to ask you all after some discussing, is it safe to say that it's irrevelent what the climate does or even if it does end up causing the extinction of humanity, Christian theism could STILL be true? This would have no effect on the truthfulness of Christian theism since end times can be interpreted in so many different ways if the climate does burn us off the map it would just be the way or method that God chooses to exercise his final judgement correct? I was thinking since many theologians think that God will indeed destroy the earth by fire, this scenario may indeed match up to the Bible better than what I first thought. Do you all agree or disagree? Thanks for your time and God bless.

The climate changes; shock horror!

Question: can anyone show a correlation between a rise in CO2 emissions and a rise in temperatures? And if so, can you then point me to any relevant significance for this 'rise' ...?

With bated breath...

I guess I should have changed the content and the name to my original post, since it's somewhat drawing some ire from some people. The main point and the purpose for this thread was for me to get a feel for and a idea on how Christian theism by argument, can be salvaged by the challenge of "if humanity ends in a random, non Biblically predicted way as described in Revelation by most conventional and mainstream scholars, does that mean that the God of the Bible does not exist and or that Christian theism is not true"? The climate change part only had to do with what many non biblical eschatologists and dooms day ers currently like to use, but the same can apply to, humanity dying out from some kind of strange disease, or from a nuclear war, or from a comet impacting the earth. So, if any of these possible options were to actually happen, would that, in turn, disprove Christian theism and or the God of the Bible? The kind of answer I want to see and hope that many Biblical scholars and Christian philosophers could offer would be, "NO". That even if humanity were to end in one of these ways that doesn't fit well into end times prophecies, it would not disprove Christianity. And I guess they can give reasons like since Revelation is so confusing and ambiguous it would leave a lot of room for almost any scenario like humanity dying out due to climate change, disease, nuclear war, a comet or any other possible scenario. The main thing I'm wondering about is, is that a good defense or does anyone else here know of anything else that can be added to this rebuttal? Thanks.

cubeus19 wrote:I guess I should have changed the content and the name to my original post, since it's somewhat drawing some ire from some people. The main point and the purpose for this thread was for me to get a feel for and a idea on how Christian theism by argument, can be salvaged by the challenge of "if humanity ends in a random, non Biblically predicted way as described in Revelation by most conventional and mainstream scholars, does that mean that the God of the Bible does not exist and or that Christian theism is not true"?

What is "non Biblically predicted way as described in Revelation by most conventional and mainstream scholars"? I am sure there are varying opinions, as with everything else, depending on who you ask.

cubeus19 wrote:The climate change part only had to do with what many non biblical eschatologists and dooms day ers currently like to use, but the same can apply to, humanity dying out from some kind of strange disease, or from a nuclear war, or from a comet impacting the earth. So, if any of these possible options were to actually happen, would that, in turn, disprove Christian theism and or the God of the Bible? The kind of answer I want to see and hope that many Biblical scholars and Christian philosophers could offer would be, "NO".

Well, if it still counts... I'd agree.

cubeus19 wrote:That even if humanity were to end in one of these ways that doesn't fit well into end times prophecies, it would not disprove Christianity. And I guess they can give reasons like since Revelation is so confusing and ambiguous it would leave a lot of room for almost any scenario like humanity dying out due to climate change, disease, nuclear war, a comet or any other possible scenario.

You have stated here a contradiction: "doesn't fit well into end times prophecies" and "Revelation is so confusing and ambiguous [it leaves way for almost any scenario...]" If one of those other humanity fates (climate change, disease, nuclear war, etc) happens, and Revolution leaves way for any scenario, then it seems such scenarios would fit into end time prophecies. It is just up to us to determine which scenario best fits. However, to a large degree I think it is quite open ended since Revelation often talks quite generally and employs symbols.

cubeus19 wrote:The main thing I'm wondering about is, is that a good defense or does anyone else here know of anything else that can be added to this rebuttal? Thanks.

I don't see what defense is really needed. I certainly would want to be defending some popular fiction like Tim LeHaye. I see great value can be gained from Revelation, and it provides a glimpse of God and kingdom to come. Despite everything in it which can be quite confusing, I do like that there is a book which gets us to look to the future with Christ.

Kurieuo wrote: What is "non Biblically predicted way as described in Revelation by most conventional and mainstream scholars"? I am sure there are varying opinions, as with everything else, depending on who you ask.

That basically means ideas like the one I've mentioned (ie human extinction by climate change, with or without a one world government, antichrist, final world war, rapture and so on) I know a lot of opinions differ on the details of Revelation most popular debates and differing views among scholars are over things like pre trib post trib, Amillennial or post millennial reign of Christ. Not many scholars. I assume. have taken the issue of catastrophic climate change into account since the idea of catastrophic climate change/ global warming is relatively new, the idea of climate change/ global warming is NOT new but the idea of it wiping out humanity in the near or far future is a somewhat of a new idea. Come to mention, something that has nothing to do with climate change but also has to do with current events, if the Palestians or some other arab/ Muslim country or group successfully wipes Israel off the map like they have been claiming to do for decades now actually comes to pass, would THAT disprove the God of the Bible? I've heard many scholars, pastors, and other Christian big wigs say that God will never let anyone wipe Israel and the Jewish people off the earth, but somehow if that happens would it disprove Judaism/Christianity and Biblical eschatology all together? Or, could scholars reinterpret things to salvage the Judeo/Christian paradigm, just like now with the creation issue we have OEC and theistic evolution to fall back on in case if Darwinian evolution gets proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which in my case and personal opinion, I now no longer hold to YEC, but am currently OEC and will become a theistic evolutionist if and when the evidence becomes irrefutable enough).

Kurieuo wrote:You have stated here a contradiction: "doesn't fit well into end times prophecies" and "Revelation is so confusing and ambiguous [it leaves way for almost any scenario...]" If one of those other humanity fates (climate change, disease, nuclear war, etc) happens, and Revolution leaves way for any scenario, then it seems such scenarios would fit into end time prophecies. It is just up to us to determine which scenario best fits. However, to a large degree I think it is quite open ended since Revelation often talks quite generally and employs symbols.

I didn't mean that to be a contradiction, it may have came out that way, but what I was trying to say was that human extinction by climate change, disease, or nuclear war doesn't line up well with what most Biblical scholars believe about end times nor does it line up well with just a plain reading of Revelation. But since there are so many symbols and ambiguity in Revelation one could try to fit human extinction by any of those odd scenarios in and go from there but I wouldn't have the first clue on how to do that. So that's what I tried to mean by that quote.

Sounds like you guys have done your research. I have to go with the "global warming" trend/discussion as not being as factual as it is perceived. As for fire ending us all, it may end the total Earth after all prophesy has been fulfilled or it may be the inhabitance of Hellish dwellers. You are a follower, so in truth, you need not even worry, because you will not be here. There are many things to happen before the Earth itself is destroyed. None of which you will be here to encounter.
I can appreciate the researching the climate. However, the Earth changes so much over time. Just think of it- at one time all the continents were one landmass and half the animals that once inhabited it are forever gone.
Now, if you are looking into signs of the coming to an end, it seems the Earth has always had natural disasters, famines somewhere and plagues. However, they are more frequent as of today. Perry Stones, "Nightmare Along Pennsylvania Ave" is a great place to look at End Time Prophesy and exactly where the US fits in. Take a look at it and let me know what you think. It’s an easy read.
Bottom line, brother, is that you be ready for it, because no matter what we read or who we talk with, we don't know when it’s going to end. So all you need to do is be ready. You're a Christian, so I'd say you're ahead of the game. You will be taken in the "blink of an eye".

Here is a great (and short) article on global warming. How this researcher says it will be less than predicted and that the warming that has happened is due mostly to natural causes. Read to the end for unfortunate bias in peer review.

Clouding the debate

Adapter wrote:(And no, DannyM, I'm not going to do your Googling for you, or provide a list of ISBNs, or come round your house to tune your TV into a science programme. The evidence is out there, it's everywhere; the experiments and observations have been repeated and verified by many, many individuals and groups. I'd say "Go find it!" but the article has already shown why that would be less than worthwhile...)

Here's a classic case of a sucker, taken in lock, stock and barrel by the gerrymandering IPCC & friends. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist and a naysayer to realise that there is a stinking, smelly rat loose with regards this issue.

"I won't do your research for you"...roughly translated: "I haven't got the first clue as to what I'm talking about, so will palm you off with the old and tired 'I won't do your research for you' "... Oh to believe without having the wherewithal to test things for oneself.

DannyM wrote:The climate changes; shock horror!

Question: can anyone show a correlation between a rise in CO2 emissions and a rise in temperatures? And if so, can you then point me to any relevant significance for this 'rise' ...?

With bated breath...

(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-graphics.html)

+
(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

+
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt
=


The CDIAC, NOAA and GISS websites all contain lots of data, both raw and processed, on global CO2 and/or temperature trends.
Lots of links to datasets, models and analyses of various detail can be found here - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

After reading some of those sources, in particular the "methods" sections of some of the papers that carry out analyses, perhaps you will see that you may have been misguided to remark that

DannyM wrote:I wouldn't put any stock in NASA. In fact I wouldn't put any stock in any so-called reputable organisation. Where I live, things have been getting decidedly cooler for the past few years. Fact. Last winter was the worst in my area for decades. Fact.

Not only presenting the - I hope you will agree - absurd idea that you can somehow divine the long-term state of global climate via the weather in your back yard, but attempting to bolster this idea by quoting from a tabloid.

Welcome Tidalforce.

I'm glad you're here and apprecaite your input.

Global Warming is a highly controversial subject not only because of the scale, the many variables and the uncertainty of whether correlation means the same thing as cause and effect or if some elements are coincidence or tied to another unidentified or unrecognized confounding factor.

Add to that that the matter has become highly politicized and the seeds are all there for highly emotional exchanges.

For my part, I believe Global Warming as a straight matter of fact is a pretty well demonstrated trend. A mere extension of history shows that even before the introduction of the internal combustion engine and the industrial age that there were (and are) warming and cooling trends over a very long period of time.

It looks to me that we're on a warming trend and it's entirely possible that Carbon Dioxide and other "Greenhouse" gas emissions are a likely contributor to this trend. I think it's reasonable to assume that when the human population increases and related emissions tied to travel, power grif, industrial infrastructure etc. increase then it's very likely that there will be an impact.

There's enough controversy and difficulty in working in that realm but when you add the politics to it ... phew.

To me Global warming is independent of politics. What people do with it, pro or con is usually tied to other agendas and there's usually not a lot of integrity from across the spectrum as to what is tied to Global Warming and what is using Global Warming as an alarmist issue to promote another agenda.

I will say this though. I'm more convinced of the legitimacy of the issue apart from the politics. I think the data is showing that there are some accelerating trends that have to potential to hugely impact this world we've been given by God and we need to step back and re-evaluate what we're doing and what other options exist.

That doesn't have the detail of your response but I hope it encourages you and welcome you to the board and to participate here and elsewhere in the forums.

blessings.

bart

Tidalforce wrote:Not only presenting the - I hope you will agree - absurd idea that you can somehow divine the long-term state of global climate via the weather in your back yard, but attempting to bolster this idea by quoting from a tabloid.

I don't know for sure what tabloid you're referring to, since I didn't go back and read all the posts. But, some popular references aren't bad - an example being the New York Times, when they do a long article on a new scientific study or finding. It just depends. One can always check their sources. The link I placed was an easily accessible read, but based on an awarded NASA scientist's research (he has peer-reviewed articles and a book coming out on this subject). It very unfortunately mentions Rush Limbaugh in that article - a researcher can't help which fans he might pick up, however. What he says is very much worth considering. Like Bart said, there are many many variables involved in our climate. I just read the other day how some scientists did an accelerated weather pattern reading where a very very small thing was included at the beginning, and it caused a huge change later. Mix with that many small changes, and who knows what will happen (and, it makes one wonder how accurate the computer simulations are . . . ). One thing that the researcher points out in the article I provided, is that our climate is much more self-fixing and resilient than a lot of people want to admit (because of politics and worldview). Money is involved as well. Alarmism always brings in the bucks for someone. I'm not saying there isn't change happening, but that it's probably blown out of proportion.