Giant Ant Fossil and Climate Change

[betsy]

Betsy:

Some things will become extinct. How many undiscovered species have come and gone right under our noses as we speak?

This is a trick question. The answer is ZERO. God didn't create any new species after man. They couldn't possibly have "come and gone right under our noses."

EEEENNNNGHHHH. Your answer is wrong!

Key word: UNDISCOVERED

If it's undiscovered, how do you know???

Yep. You could say it was a trick question. Too bad you missed the "trick" though!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

[cybercoma]

I know because I have faith in the Bible and it tells me that nothing came into being after man.

[betsy]

Don't feel bad Cyber, others here got it worse than you.

Let's do a recap.

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...

Come off it Molly, we all know that the ant fossil is only 6 thousand years old!

Surprised to hear this from you. I thought you didn't believe in evolution?

Not only did they miss the "trick," but obviously they don't understand creationists....or evolution. Or both!

Well listen up, bumbling trio!

Keyword: ADAPTATION.

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible.

Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution.

There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions.

3. No new information is added to the DNA.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

Boy, what is it about you guys and missing "tricks?" Bwa-ha-ha-ha

You guys got that? Good.

Now back to the topic.

Edited May 8, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

People like to justify global warming as being a natural cyclical event. Even if this is so - our atmosphere and water resourses are not a dumping ground for human waste. Nor is nature there to specifically try to absorb artifically created waste material..In other words it is not wise to shit on the sky and shit in the well.

[BubberMiley]

DBwa-ha-ha-ha

I think in such a situation one can only pray for forgiveness.

[betsy]

I think in such a situation one can only pray for forgiveness.

There's nothing to forgive. I wasn't offended or hurt....they're just teasing...actually I found it funny.

[g_bambino]

Who sez?

Anyone with the ability to rationalise.

[TimG]

When what's shown itself to naturally only happen very slowly is seen to be happening at a hitherto unknown, relatively rapid rate, it's obvious something that was never present in the past is related to the unique events being witnessed today.

First: the current rate of change is not outside of the range seen in the past. Second, there is no compelling evidence that the current warming could not be a natural phenomea. The only evidence offered is a indirect claim which claims that since they can't find anything else it must be CO2 - a claim which assumes, but does not show, that natural factors cannot explain the warming. Edited May 8, 2011 by TimG

[g_bambino]

[T]he current rate of change is not outside of the range seen in the past.

Can you point to the empirical evidence that shows the climate changed at the same rate and the same scale before?

[T]here is no compelling evidence that the current warming could not be a natural phenomea.

Then the natural phenomena should be easily identifiable. What are they?

[TimG]

Can you point to the empirical evidence that shows the climate changed at the same rate and the same scale before?

Sure - look at the temperature change from 1910-1940 - you will see a rise that is identical to the rise from 1975-2009

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/oh-maybe-ocean-occilations-are-important.html

You can look at the ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland. You will find climate changes in the same order of magnitude constantly over the last 10000 years.

Then the natural phenomena should be easily identifiable. What are they?

The oceans and clouds. The consensus view is the oceans and clouds do not add or remove energy from the atmosphere over long periods of time. The minority opinion is both of these phenomena can cause change the energy balance over decades.

The consensus opinion has no evidence to support its claims. They simply assume it to be true.

Edited May 8, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Sure - look at the temperature change from 1910-1940 - you will see a rise that is identical to the rise from 1975-2009

So the rate of change over the last 100-200 years has been seen before because it has been happening for the last 100-200 years?

[TimG]

So the rate of change over the last 100-200 years has been seen before because it has been happening for the last 100-200 years?

Well, it matters because the climate models claim the change in from 1910-1940 was natural and claim the change from 1975-2005 is due to CO2.

I also said the ice cores have plenty of examples of similar temperature changes over the last 10,000 years.

Edited May 8, 2011 by TimG

[RNG]

Here is some good data. Too bad we can't post pictures. And note that CO2 change trails temperature change.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

[g_bambino]

You can look at the ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland. You will find climate changes in the same order of magnitude constantly over the last 10000 years.

Can you please point to already collected data that empirically affirms the climate has, at any point in time prior to 1750, changed as much as it has, at the scale that is has, and at the speed that it has over the last 250 years?

The oceans and clouds. The consensus view is the oceans and clouds do not add or remove energy from the atmosphere over long periods of time. The minority opinion is both of these phenomena can cause change the energy balance over decades.

I wasn't clear before: I don't want your theory. What natural phenomena have been identified as the cause of the global climate change presently occurring at a never before seen speed?

[+]

Edited May 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[RNG]

Can you please point to already collected data that empirically affirms the climate has, at any point in time prior to 1750, changed as much as it has, at the scale that is has, and at the speed that it has over the last 250 years?

[+]

See my post above.

[TimG]

Can you please point to already collected data that empirically affirms the climate has, at any point in time prior to 1750, changed as much as it has, at the scale that is has, and at the speed that it has over the last 250 years?

First, here is the GISP data. I checked the change per century for 100 year intervals going back 9000 years. The change for the last 100 years is 0.52 (until 1986). There are many instances where the change per 100 years is larger than the present.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gispd18o.txt

Second, your demand is a strawman. The climate models claim that only the last 50 years is a rise due to CO2 so you are including known natural warming when you ask for evidence over a >50 year period.

I gave you the alternatives which are discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Both the oceans and clouds have a large enough effect on the climate that they are plausible explainations for the warming. The debate is between scientists who insist the ocean and clouds can only affect climate over the short term and those who think their effect is much longer.

Edited May 9, 2011 by TimG

[g_bambino]

The climate models claim that only the last 50 years is a rise due to CO2 so you are including known natural warming when you ask for evidence over a >50 year period.

In other words: you can't.

[TimG]

In other words: you can't.

I did. But your claim is still nonsense. There are lot of periods with the same or greater rises over 250 years too.

You seem to be focused on a single alarmist talking point and do not seem to that interested in understanding what the data says and does not say. The fact is the recent period of warming is not unprecedented or unusual.

What is different is the climate models say we will experience unprecedented warming in the future because of our CO2 emissions. This prediction could be true even if one acknowledges that the warming to date is not unusual.

Edited May 9, 2011 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...

:lol:

I was going to post this exact thought.

[Oleg Bach]

I think in such a situation one can only pray for forgiveness.

A declared socialist suggesting the a prayer for forgiveness? Hummm. What am I contemplating? Jesus Christ was a socialist..."take all your property and sell it - then put the money in a common purse where those in need can come and take as needed." There has always been a problem with the sociaist and capitalist systems of wealth storage - that once you make a deposit - they don't allow you take any money out...Prime example - The American Federal Reserve and the Vatican...both are in a state of breach of contract.

[GostHacked]

Betsy is starting to look like the other drive by poster who proclaims that atheism is dead.

[Oleg Bach]

The planet earth is only two minutes old...maybe even less. So did these giant ants have heads on them the size of grapefruit? Creationism and evolution one and the same...There is no time!

[bloodyminded]

Let me get this right: A creationist is introducing fossil ants as evidence of climate change having occurred in the early part of the eocene epoch ( hoping thereby to refute the human role in the current climate shift....)

Excuse me while I just... back away... slowly...