Jump to content

The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Evolution has been debunked and is rejected by many scientists.  The simple truth is Evolution is not science. It never was.  Evolution is a theory and a religion with many.  The fact is there never has been any proof of evidence.  The most important evidence which is the fossil record does not support evolution.  If evolution were true, there would be a vast fossil record in the earth's layers showing the transition between the different species.  Guess what?  It does not exist.  The transitional fossils do not exist because there was no evolution.

All that exists are fossils of the different species which shows no evolution or transition between them.  

God says in his word how he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day.  There was no millions of years of evolution.  I know there are many people who believe in it, but they are rejecting the literal account.  God would not have said how he literally created everything in six days if it were not a fact.  It was a supernatural miracle.  God does not lie.  The correct interpretation is literal. One must interpret the Bible literally unless there is clear reason something is not meant to be taken literally.  Genesis is not one of those sections.

Have you ever read Genesis.  You said it is described precisely word for word in Genesis.

"31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."  Genesis 1:31 KJV   There it is word for word,  six days.

What does this have to do with climate change?   The answer is plenty.  It proves many atheist scientists who believe the lie of evolution also believe in the lie of man-made climate change.  They have not studied it and for most of them, it is not even their field of study.  But they still claim it as fact, when there is no proof.   Man-made climate change, like the theory of evolution, has not been proven.   It is just another theory which many have embraced and claim as fact.  

Evolution may be rejected by many “scientists,” but not by actual scientists.
 

Genesis says six days. But it does not say how long a day lasts to the Good Lord. If we take all of the known science in the world and apply it to evolution, what does it say? It says that in the beginning, the world was dark and formless, and then, there was light.  You tell me, how do we distinguish between that and Genesis? They tell us the same thing, so why feel so offended and defensive about it? Accept the miracle! 
 

Does DNA exist? Does DNA replicate to form life? Yes, it’s an absolute fact. Does that mean there is no G-d?  No. Does it mean the Bible is wrong? No.  The Bible was the Lord’s message, written to primitive people. It didn’t need to explain physics or DNA or atomic particles, so it didn’t. And as we discover these things, we realize that they don’t disprove or even dispute the Bible.  Science is not the enemy of religion, and religion should not make itself the enemy of science.  
 

You get in your car, start it up and drive. Why? Because Bible, or because Science? Why not accept both? People used to be killed if they thought the Earth rotated the Sun… but it does.  And the Earth really isn’t flat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Scientists Debunk UN "Climate" Hysteria

"PARIS — Amid United Nations efforts to shackle humanity to a UN “climate regime” at the COP21 global-warming summit, an international team of scientists and experts from various fields debunked the hysteria at a separate conference in Paris for realists. Essentially, the prestigious scientists said, there is no man-made global-warming crisis. The UN’s “climate” efforts, meanwhile, have a much more sinister agenda: Destroying industrial civilization, propping up kleptocrats with Western tax funds, and seizing control of the global economy under the guise of regulating the immensely beneficial “gas of life,” also known as carbon dioxide. The top U.S. senator on the Environment Committee also offered a message of hope to climate realists, saying the “climate charade” by the UN and the Obama administration was dead on arrival.  "

In Paris, Scientists Debunk UN “Climate” Hysteria - The New American

If you’re right, what is the evil in transitioning away from energy which props up dictatorships and makes us vulnerable to foreign domination?  
 

And, what if you’re wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I doubt very much it is near unanimous.  The mob or herd does not prove truth.  For example, most people believe in evolution because it is taught in schools as fact or dogma when if you really examine it, it is not a fact; it is just a theory or hypothesis with no proof.  More importantly it has been debunked and rejected by many scientists.   If you form your opinion just based on numbers, you will be sadly deceived.

"In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science' (forbes.com)

Survey after survey shows overwhelming consensus. Sure, one can seek out a handful of lonely dissenters, but it's pure confirmation bias to believe them over the overwhelming consensus.1280px-20211103_Academic_studies_of_scie

 

And no, evolution has not been "debunked." That's a truly absurd statement. Yes, there are people that peddle nonsense to rubes, mostly for religious reasons, but evolution is scientific fact at this point. You can watch it happen. It's a "theory" in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a "theory." You're in flat earth territory here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Survey after survey shows overwhelming consensus. Sure, one can seek out a handful of lonely dissenters, but it's pure confirmation bias to believe them over the overwhelming consensus.No,

 

And no, evolution has not been "debunked." That's a truly absurd statement. Yes, there are people that peddle nonsense to rubes, mostly for religious reasons, but evolution is scientific fact at this point. You can watch it happen. It's a "theory" in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a "theory." You're in flat earth territory here.

No, evolution is definitely not "scientific fact".  Even scientists would laugh at that statement.

Empirical science is science that is proven by the scientific method.  Evolution has never been proven and is impossible to prove.  It simply cannot be repeated in a lab and never has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If you’re right, what is the evil in transitioning away from energy which props up dictatorships and makes us vulnerable to foreign domination?  
 

And, what if you’re wrong?

There are many evils in it.  Trudeau and the Liberals (and NDP) are destroying the energy industry and thousands of jobs in Canada.  The war against CO2 is costly Canadians billions of dollars and harming the standard of living of everyone.

If government or someone such as yourself wants to take action on things that effect my life, my prosperity, my income, etc. the onus on you and them to prove beyond a doubt it is justified.  That has not been done. 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. The blackened stumps are about 100m from the cabin's property line. I drove over a Bailey bridge to get to it because the road washed out in the spring. The place we passed to catch the ferry to my sister's was washed away by a hurricane. 600 people died from a heat wave where I grew up. The icefield is like a 4 mile drive from where we used to get on the snow bus...

Maybe someone else should pull his head out of his ass instead of YELLING that it's not true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, evolution is definitely not "scientific fact".  Even scientists would laugh at that statement.

Empirical science is science that is proven by the scientific method.  Evolution has never been proven and is impossible to prove.  It simply cannot be repeated in a lab and never has been.

Hey, remember when Covid was a thing, and then Delta variant showed up and killed millions? That was evolution. Evolution has been proven in labs many times. Ever eat a navel Orange? Evolution, from a lab.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Energy is what makes life possible on earth for the seven billion people.  

So you agree that we ought to invest in new sources of everything production as fast as we can, right?   
 

Imagine if 90% of our energy came from wind and sun, and all cars were electric. The remaining oil-powered devices like jets would be really cheap to operate. Everyone would have plenty of power.  We could build more factories more easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Hey, remember when Covid was a thing, and then Delta variant showed up and killed millions? That was evolution. Evolution has been proven in labs many times. Ever eat a navel Orange? Evolution, from a lab.  

You proved your ignorance.  Viruses have always mutated.  Mutation is not evolution.  There was no change from one species to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

So you agree that we ought to invest in new sources of everything production as fast as we can, right?   
 

Imagine if 90% of our energy came from wind and sun, and all cars were electric. The remaining oil-powered devices like jets would be really cheap to operate. Everyone would have plenty of power.  We could build more factories more easily. 

If you think you can do it, go ahead and invest your money in wind and solar power and sell it.  See how much you make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You proved your ignorance.  Viruses have always mutated.  Mutation is not evolution.  There was no change from one species to another.

The FACT is, mutation is an inherent PART of evolution.

And multiple survivable mutations OVER TIME, does SOMETIMES create NEW SPECIES provided those mutations give the organism a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I read your cite, and as usual, naked links DO NOT support your claims.

IF you actually believe it supports your claim, QUOTE the relevant EVIDENCE HERE.

Of course Revelle's "wait and see" attitude is irrelevant TODAY. We HAVE ALREADY SEEN, and Gore was RIGHT.

The temporary cooling of Revelle's time has ENDED and WARMING is even worse than before.

Fortunately the WORLD agrees with GORE and is TAKING STEPS to slow down the impending disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, mutation is an inherent PART of evolution.

And multiple survivable mutations OVER TIME, does SOMETIMES create NEW SPECIES provided those mutations give the organism a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

Changes in viruses caused by mutations is not the same thing as Darwinism or the theory of evolution.  That is not what the theory is talking about.  A virus will not become another creature or species for example.  Creationists believe in mutation, but not the kind the theory of evolution is talking about.  It doesn't happen.  The transitional fossils that would provide evidence do not exist.  Viruses mutating are not considered evolution.

There are people who use the term evolution when talking about mutations of viruses, but this is baloney.  It is an incorrect use of the word evolution, unless the word evolution has different meanings.  That could be the case.  Many words are used to convey different things.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, mutation is an inherent PART of evolution.

And multiple survivable mutations OVER TIME, does SOMETIMES create NEW SPECIES provided those mutations give the organism a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

There is no evidence that new species were ever formed by evolution.  No fossils showing it have been found.  That shows the whole thing is a fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, mutation is an inherent PART of evolution.

And multiple survivable mutations OVER TIME, does SOMETIMES create NEW SPECIES provided those mutations give the organism a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

Do mutations add information? Is that Evolution?

Do mutations add information and is that evolution? - creation.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

You are making no point here.

The simple truth is that Al Gore was a policy-maker, not a scientist. The scientists are overwhelmingly clear on the issue. 
 

Forget About Global Warming.

What matters is that America will not be competitive if we do not invest in a renewable energy infrastructure.  It’s not just the environmental issues.  Look at the impact that every war has on global petroleum prices.  Imagine a future where that doesn’t happen. Where Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia have no leverage over the economies of the industrialized nations.  Where fuel prices aren’t 20% of the budget of a family. Where truck drivers don’t spent $20,000 a month to fuel their trucks. 
 

Now imagine that China and Europe have that kind of energy, and we’re still buying oil. It’s like wooden ships going up against iron clads. We lose. 
 

The time to act is now, before China and Russia dominate us. 

The time to tell the truth is now.

Your fear-porn has no effect anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I read your cite, and as usual, naked links DO NOT support your claims.

IF you actually believe it supports your claim, QUOTE the relevant EVIDENCE HERE.

Of course Revelle's "wait and see" attitude is irrelevant TODAY. We HAVE ALREADY SEEN, and Gore was RIGHT.

The temporary cooling of Revelle's time has ENDED and WARMING is even worse than before.

Fortunately the WORLD agrees with GORE and is TAKING STEPS to slow down the impending disaster.

Lol..."AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!

Give it up Sally. Your scary monster is exposed for what it really is

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, mutation is an inherent PART of evolution.

And multiple survivable mutations OVER TIME, does SOMETIMES create NEW SPECIES provided those mutations give the organism a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

Sometimes I am able to find the answer to a question as in this case.

'Let me emphasize the point again, mutations can create new traits and, by definition, new information, but this is only possible at the very basic level. Mutations cannot give us the type of information required for evolution. It cannot account for the type of information required for making irreducibly complex machinery in the cell such as ATP synthase, or the incredibly complicated biochemistry of photosynthesis."

Do mutations add information and is that evolution? - creation.com

So according to this article mutations can create some new traits, and some new information, but not the kind of complex information that would be required for evolution as in Darwinism.   That kind of information required an intelligent designer-Creator.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is no evidence that new species were ever formed by evolution.  No fossils showing it have been found.  That shows the whole thing is a fraud.

Fossils have been found with some intact DNA, and that demonstrates mutations which CAUSE evolution.

EVERY mutated animal is a TRANSITION to a new species WHEN that mutation gives the organism a survival advantage.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...