Do you think the Earth is approx 4.5 billion years old? Then, Agree.
If you think the Earth is approx 6,000 years old disagree.
There is so much diverse and overwhelming evidence that refutes Young Earth Creationism (YEC) that it confounds me how educated people could take YEC seriously.
Do Young Earth Creationists mistrust science and scientists? Are they isolated inside some sort of impenetrable bubble? Perhaps they will write me off as another New York liberal elitist, but I'm sorry. I just don't understand. To me it seems like a wilful and determined ignorance is required.
4.5 Billion years old makes more sense in my opinion. The dating techniques used on rocks on the Earth and moon confirm the age of the Earth. The fossil records show the Earth must be at least 100,000 years old. Distant galaxies over a billion light years away show the universe must be billions of years old.
You are being kind when you say "in my opinion". As far as I know, every respected scientist accepts that the age of the Earth greatly exceeds 100,000 years.
The 6000 year figure is based on the Bible.
The 6000 year figure is based on the assumptions and doodlings of a dingbat preacher and a lot of sloppy students who really should know better. The bible does not mention anything that can be dated. It says "In the beginning ..." It might interest you to know that there were eye witnesses to what we mistakenly call creation. They recorded their observations as best they could, carving some records into stones and passing verbal accounts from one generation to the next. It has taken a very long time to interpret these records because they don't describe anything we have seen. For example the legend of the dragon is carved into rocks all over the world, but it is only recently that anybody has noticed a natural effect that fits that description. This is a long book because it tries to cover everything completely.
Yes I know the guy was a bit buggy but his calculations were based on the Bible's recount of generations.
That's where the 6000 year figure is from, no?
"there were eye witnesses to what we mistakenly call creation." Huh??
If there were witnesses didn't creation already happen?
What do prehistoric animals carved on stones have to do with it? Since about 1962 I suspected that the proposed chronology of human evolution was not reality. For me it started with the Sphinx
A very intriguing book but changes nothing.
You apparently have your mind made up, so I won't try to confuse you with facts.
You haven't presented anything relevant to creation. Carved stones only suggest early man had seen dinosaurs. That's not creation or evolution. It refutes the current timeline but . . .
I specifically said "what we mistakenly call creation." You need to read more carefully.
Yes I know what you said. I quoted it. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now and nobody I know mistakenly calls it creation. Perhaps it's you who needs to read more carefully.
Well I don't understand your point, and we seem to be losing good manners, so I now abandon this discussion.
No autopsy no foul.
Dinosaurs - do they think they're made-up stuff like Fairies or something? Stone Age too? Ice Age? Homo erectus? Homo sapiens? The Neolithic Revolution? There is people out there that think everything Prehistory is made up?!
Oh, I like that xD
Creationism is for the non-thinking and It cracks me up when I hear the term creation science but then almost everything creationists say cracks me up.
What if both are right? What if natural processes like evolution are the mechanism of creation? I mean, if one believes creation is real, it has to have a mechanism, right? The rubber has to meet the road. There was a time when none of this existed, now it does, therefore it was created, the only real debate is whether it was intentional or not.
You mean Deism creationism, in the sense God set up the universe and then let natural processes take over. Therefore, Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and evolution are correct, but so is creationism.
Creation states that God made the world as it exists with all life created in it's present state.
Evolution and creation cannot coexist
God did create the world as it exists with all life in it's present state. The past is a just memory, the future is only a dream, they don't actually exist, they're not real, time is a figment of our minds, a way our minds make sense of motion and the patterns of change in our environment. The truth is the time is always now and things change.
For me, philosophy is about understanding reality, not rigidly adhering to orthodoxy. Often, the biggest revelations come when you understand how two seemingly contradictory ideas can both be true.
Now we are getting into semantics, there is more than one definition for creationism.
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Jun 6, 2014
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. "
This is one definition of Creationism. Meaning a creationist just has to believe in a god who created heaven and earth. There is no mention of evolution nor the Big Bang theory in this definition.
No matter how you slice it creation and evolution can't coexist. At least not without drastic perversion of one or both. We still don't find modern animal remains with dinosaurs. Flood or no flood.
Deistic creationism and evolution are perfectly compatible. Think of this way, an unknown God, God x, created the universe then vanished. Then, the Big Bang occurs, Earth forms via rotations and gravity, abiogenesis, and finally evolution.
There is no conflict in this scenario. On the other hand, you have Judeo-Christian creationism which conflicts heavily with evolution.
Islam creationism doesn't conflict with evolution, because vague references to evolution are mentioned within the Koran.
Summary, Deism creationism and Islam creationism have no conflict with evolution. Judeo-Christian creationism has a potent conflict with evolution.
I know its difficult to imagine any thing other than Judeo-Christian and atheistic beliefs, but they do exist.
Gee, as hard as it is to believe I know there are other religions but that's not what most creationists believe. They believe in a personal God.
Saying God is the cosmic force or started the big bang is a cop out. If the universe still starts at the big bang no deity is required. (Occum's Razor).
If he vanished, who was performing all those miracles and talking to Moses?
Islam believes in the same OT God as Jews and Christians. The God of Abraham and most major religions have similar tales other than Buddhism and Confucianism et al.
In order for any creation tale to fly we should find modern animals as fossils along with every other animal at all depths in the strata since they were all created at the same time but that's not what happens. We don't find a modern horse at the depth of T-Rex and with ice and deep sea cores we can physically count back about 160,000 years
Of course your right urwutuls. That's why I think of myself of as an atheist.
Off topic, I think spirituality is fine, in fact I've read Sam Harris is very spiritual. I'm not a pure atheist by the way. I believe there is barely enough evidence to think that ghosts exists, just not God.
There is a vast difference in believing that the world is 6,000 years old, a man walked on water, and Jonah survived for three days and three nights inside the belly of a great fish, to believing that something exists beyond just the physical realm, even if we can't identify what it is.
For all we know ESP and spiritually are simply aliens from another dimension attempting communication. Another perfectly logically explanation is that what we see as spirits is simply a repressed need or desire and is simply psychological. Either way I think inner peace is worth attaining.
I just don't find a need for all these creation myths and rituals. Meditation under a tree is just fine for me.
Do you find it contradictory that I a see myself as both an atheist and a spiritual person? I meditate often, I pray to God, mostly just to help me verify that God doesn't exist, and try to be a moral and just person using my own personal belief system and reason.
I think Karl Marx hit the nail on the head.
"Karl Marx, writes in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
As I view the world, religion is for the spiritless, those who are truly spiritual have no need for religion.
Yes, that sounds about right.
If one believes creation is real one believes things without evidence. That's no different than superstition.
When I look at the beauty and order of the natural world, it's hard for me to believe it wasn't intended to be this way by some higher intelligence.
Definition of superstition
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance...
I see order and assume it's the result of intelligence, you see order and assume it's the result of random chance. Trusting that chance magically created the universe seems at least as superstitious to me as believing it's the creation of a vast interdimensional intelligence.
I understand your point but creation is a non sequitur.
I'm not saying there is no creator. I'm saying there's no good reason to believe there is. Frankly, creation, like life after death, is the hubris of humanity rearing its egotistical head.
Superstition is belief in supernatural causality like a magical being who wished the universe into existence.
It's a belief in things that defy natural law, the laws of physics
Creation is born of the fear that life has no meaning. That human life must have a purpose. That we're special.
Well, what if we aren't? Would it matter? Would you live your life any differently if it wasn't toward some grander scheme other than just getting through it? I wouldn't. I don't.
There is also the possibility that we might just be planet cancer. We replicate uncontrollably, spread across the entire planet and turn healthy ecosystems into polluted dead zones everywhere we go.
Again, does it matter?
It matters to me. By nature I find the subject interesting, but also, our effect on the world is something that should matter to every Christian.
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:
“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.”
And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying:
“We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.
"The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small— and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”
Yeah, I suspected it would come to this but it doesn't change the fact that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.
They may be mutually exclusive to you, but they're two sides of the same coin to me.
Look how people create things, it's a process of evolution. Did "human" create the computer you're using? Obviously, but nobody sat down and invented the modern computer, it is the result of generations of evolution. The same is true with cars, houses and everything else we create. Evolution is an integral part of creation.
So was the computer made by way of inspiration or evolution? It was both, wasn't it? Every new advance was a moment of inspiration that took the process of evolution forward.
So we've established that evolution occurs. That's not the beginning of the universe. Evolution makes no claim to that but like the big bang it's not a belief. Creation is
I don't believe in evolution I accept it as the best explanation and would drop it in a heartbeat if a better one came along.
This is a completely different realm from creation which presents no evidence and makes preposterous claims which it tries to justify with stupid things like irreducible complexity.
Unless your understanding of creation and evolution are significantly different from those generally accepted I don't see how you can possibly get two sides of the same coin
Most of us believe that all the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence out of nothing. That's preposterous no matter what you believe caused it. But then, what's the alternative? That it always existed? Is that any less preposterous?
Is it crazier to think there's an intelligent force out there with the power to create the entire universe, or is it crazier to believe that the entire universe was the result of a random event?
so it still is something from nothing but it was a magical being instead of physics? we used to believe the universe was static and always existed until Hubble discovered the universe is expanding. Why is it so hard to believe that humans are not that "special".
It's pure arrogance to think we're somehow better or more important than all other living things.
What is the role of consciousness in reality? Is consciousness merely a function of biological processes, or do biological processes provide a vehicle that consciousness inhabits? When you consider the myriad of accounts of the "extravehicular activities" of people's consciousness, I think there's substantial reason to believe consciousness isn't a product of our bodies but an inhabitant of our bodies.
There's also substantial evidence that suggests conscious can transcend the normal bounds of time and space. A good example is how psychics have been used in police investigations, producing actionable intelligence that led to cases being solved.
Science is only now beginning to address the multidimensional nature of reality, but it's been a topic of investigation in other circles for a LONG time. To me, it's something religion attempts to give us some framework of understanding for, a way to safely navigate it. I see the Bible in particular as the accumulated insights of the wise into the nature of reality.
Do animals have consciousness or just humans?
Life after death?
After decades of study there is nothing that suggests psychic or paranormal activity is real. James Randy has a $100,000 offer that no one has collected in 40 years though many have tried.
The Bible is an intriguing book but it's not science, it's not history and it certainly isn't the word of God.
Insights into the nature of Reality? Really? Talking snakes, being swallowed by a fish, raising the dead, turning people into salt, parting the sea sounds like reality to you?
I showed you clear evidence that psychic abilities are real, and it's only a drop in the bucket of evidence that's out there.
All living things are inhabited by consciousness, and since consciousness is non-local, I have to assume "life after death" is a reality for all beings.
Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who gets understanding, for the gain from her is better than gain from silver and her profit better than gold. She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called blessed.
The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.
"I showed you clear evidence that psychic abilities are real"
"All living things are inhabited by consciousness, and since consciousness is non-local,"
Why, because you say so?
Consciousness is non-local?? What does that mean, who said and how do they know?
"I have to assume "life after death" is a reality for all beings."
Even if all the other BS were reality this is a non sequitur.
It's clear you don't have a clue as to what constitutes clear evidence which helps explain why you accept a 6000 year old Earth regardless of evidence to the contrary.
I showed you a video of 5 cases where psychics solved major crimes. That's evidence. And if you want to discount those for some reason, I can post others, there's an endless supply of them out there. So psychic abilities are real, I know it first hand too, both from what I've been told by a psychic, (things that only I knew, thus impossible to fake) and by what I've seen with my own psychic abilities. There are no boundaries of space and time in the psychic realm.
Science tells us that matter is almost entirely empty space when you examine it on the subatomic level, and what is there is basically just energy and information, which does go some way toward explaining how so much "something" could come from apparently "nothing". It's an illusion of sorts, a creation.
As for how old it is, I have no idea. I do suspect it's a great deal older than 6000 years though. I think 4.5 billion is probably more accurate, but I'm aware that it's only an educated guess based on extrapolation of the available data.
Here's another case of a psychic providing info that breaks open a murder investigation, leading to a conviction, complete with names, faces, and interviews with the participants. It's a good watch if you're into "true crime" stories.
Like I said, you don't understand what constitutes evidence
Videos of re-enacted second hand information do not constitute evidence the same way ghost hunters is not evidence ghosts exist no matter how many episodes there are.
James Randy has had a standing $100,000 offer, for anyone who can demonstrate psychic abilities, for 40 years. No one has claimed it though many have tried.
How many times has that "psychic" been wrong?
Do they ever have a psychic who has solved any number of cases?
If any of these people were any good every police dept in the country would be using them.
The CIA studied psychic ability for decades with zero results. So did the USSR. There have been thousands of studies all around the world and not a single one has shown it to exist.
It's total bull.
That wasn't a reenactment, it was interview footage of the actual police investigator and psychic involved in the case. But that aside, do you really think you'll talk me out of believing things I experienced firsthand? I don't believe psychic abilities are real, I KNOW they are.
James Randi is a liar and a fraud. Anyone who trusts him... shouldn't. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cult...debunkers.html
Intelligence agencies aren't stupid, they wouldn't study something for decades if they weren't getting results. Do you really think they're honest about their methods and capabilities? I hope not.
You know, you accuse me of being narrow minded, but let's be honest here, somebody told you something and you believe it, and now nobody can tell you otherwise, no matter how much evidence they put in front of you. You are what you accuse me of being.
Okay, this has gotten ridiculous.
You obviously don't know what actual evidence is.
In a courtroom the videos would be called hearsay and it's worthless.
You accuse a guy who spent a good part of his life exposing charlatans and crooks, like the ones in your videos, of being a liar and a fraud which is patently absurd. He gained nothing from it. `
And, again, because you say so?
I never said you were narrow minded. You're using that as an excuse to call me narrow minded.
This comes under the: "talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" rule
Why is it that they aren't predicting things all the time? What other predictions have they made?
How many predictions have they made that were wrong?
This is Not evidence.
"Intelligence agencies aren't stupid, they wouldn't study something for decades if they weren't getting results."
That's why the program was ended. It's called the freedom of information act and all the research is public as are thousands of other clinical tests and every single one draws the same conclusion.
Do Some Research !!
BRAIN SURGEON certain HIS OWN near-death experience (NDE) is NOT fantasy
You think posting more non-evidence will change reality?
When you find out what constitutes actual evidence we can continue. Until then I'm done
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtual—and what it means either way
science cannot accurately prove it either way. but because people are stupid sheep, so called scientists can say whatever the heck they want and people will believe it
But so called holy men only speak the truth. . . . . .unless they're not Christian.
I assume you come to this 4.5 billion year number, because of C14? If not, then what?
"Carbon-14 is a method used for young (less than 50,000 year old) sedimentary rocks."
No, can't be C14. Since, C14 only works up to 50,000 years old.
"To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years."
That's why an isotope with a very long half-life is necessary.
And how much daughter element was already present when the rock was formed? The potassium-argon method was used on a sample from Mount St. Helens' 1980 eruption and was determined to be almost 3 million years old. There are other cases like this as well, where we actually know the real age of the specimen, but our radiometric dating methods put it millions of years prior.
This exposes the major fallacy of uniformitarianism. Too many assumptions are made to arrive at the answer most desired (i.e. the oldest possible date). There's no way to be certain of the original starting conditions (i.e. original parent/daughter ratios), or if the rate of decay has always remained the same. Uniformitarianism assumes far too much to be scientific and/or credible.
Here's some articles about saint helens. If you want to learn about the oldest rocks zircon, here's a livescience article.
The St. Helens articles you cited don't address the issue I raised, which was the unreliability of radiometric dating.
Can you personally refute it, without giving me reading assignments? I have enough to read these days on my own.
Mt. St. Helens isn't an anomaly either. There are many known, young rock ages, which K-Ar dating shows to be millions of years old. It's completely unreliable.
The radiometric dating methods such as K-Ar used on the Mt St Helen's rock are not useful for dating rocks less than about 2 million years old as they use isotopes with an extremely long half life.
So then you must first know how old the rock is, in order to choose the correct dating method, to ultimately determine how old the rock is? Is that what you're essentially saying?
They used to say that the age of fossils was easily determined by the strata they were found in. And that the age of the strata was determined by the fossils found within it.
No, I can't personally refute the Mount St. Helens claim. I'm not a geologist. I can barely comprehend the material.
Not necessarily. It depends largely on the equipment used. There are machines that can detect much lower concentrations of Argon and Potassium -40 down to a few thousand years however they are not available to everyone. The company that tested the MSH rocks, whose name I can't recall, is no longer doing K-Ar but when they were their website stated 2 million years for K-Ar.
Radiometric dating occasionally gets it wrong but it's very rare and there are several methods used to corroberate crucial samples
An old Earth has been suggested for 200+ years now, and billions of years have been proposed since the early 20th century. Are you admitting those were all in error, because they didn't have access to these allegedly more accurate machines? The 4.5BY age of the Earth is from the 1950's, so did they just get real lucky back then when they tested with inferior equipment? Or is more likely, that evolutionists desperately need the maximum date range possible, in order to keep their "theory" alive?
Radiometric dates are very rarely wrong? Can you give me an example of a million/billion year date that is correct - and how do you know it's correct?
What evidence is there of a young Earth? A 3000 year old book written by people who believed earthquakes were God's revenge?
I don't know with 1005 certainty it's right but it has supporting evidence religion lacks
Nuclear decay is a known process that can be measured with predictable results.
How do you know matter is made up of atoms?
How do you know the speed of light?
Science is responsible for virtually every advance in human knowledge and yes, they get it wrong at times but when errors are discovered science changes.
Religious dogma is constant regardless of evidence. It's the same now as it was 1000 years ago and only changes when the science is too overwhelming to ignore and even then it's like pulling teeth.
Nuclear decay is a known process, with a known rate of decay today, but has this rate always been the same in the past? What were the initial daughter amounts, were any daughter amounts added/removed along the way? These questions are all simply answered away with uniformitarian assumptions. That's not science.
You're unable to provide a "correct" old date, because to do so, you'd need to assume that which you're attempting to prove (i.e. an old Earth). The supporting evidence you speak of, is likely other radiometric methods which differ from each other by hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of years... but if you've already assumed the Earth is old anyways, then those discrepancies aren't so bad. In that way, these old dates are actually non-falsifiable.
Radiometric dating has come a long way but if you want the specifics do your own research. There are many sources of the science and math for anyone who cares to look.
Besides, I'm not trying to convince you. I realize there is nothing I can say nor evidence I can present that would alter your perspective
I am, however, open to arguments in favor of creation and a young Earth instead of anti science, if there are any because if it's just the Bible or what you can't imagine then you have no argument
I've done my research, which is why I disagree with the old Earth model completely. Assuming you've done yours, why can't you defend it? Defending radiometric dating, however, does force one to argue in circles. For instance, you still haven't explained how you know you can trust radiometric dates - without already presupposing an old Earth in the first place. If it gets it so wrong on known sample ages, then how can it be trusted on ones where we don't know their age? The only answer I've heard from you is: we should only test old rocks, since that's all radiometric dating is really good at. Circular.
You want me to defend a young Earth, when you still haven't defended an old Earth? I can't prove the Earth is 6,000 years old, but that's not my intent here anyways. My point is the old Earth model is like the emperor sans clothes. There's no logical basis to trust it.
"You want me to defend a young Earth, when you still haven't defended an old Earth?"
"There's no logical basis to trust it."
There is a very logical basis you just refuse to accept it. There are mountains of articles on radioactive decay and how we know what we know.
No, you still haven't answered me. What is the logical basis that I refuse to accept? Tell me. Now's your chance - eviscerate my argument with pure logic.
Instead, you opt to feign incredulity? Fail.
Radioactive decay is the logic you refuse.
I didn't feign incredulity. It was a ridiculous question.
Maybe it would have been easier to grasp if I'd said: You first!
I've challenged you three times now to provide a single example of a correct radiometric date proving an old Earth, without also presupposing an old Earth, but so far nothing. Unless you want to finally answer that question, I think we're done.
Very true. It's funny, the more atheistic and naturalistic the ideology, the more faith-based it becomes. I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist anymore. :)
I fail to perceive how it takes a lot of faith to believe either. Both have copious amounts of scientific evidence backing them up.
"2. Confident or unquestioning belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Faith
I do question science often. I admit I can't question every single scientific fact, that would take more than a lifetime of work. Yet, when somebody makes enough fuss about how science is wrong, I take the time to hear them out and debate them.
I also use my own personal experience, I've noticed the weather getting hotter in the winter particularly which matches the scientific evidence I've read.
Right now it is the middle of winter, and we have had about 5 degrees F or higher temperature anomaly. Also, I've noticed the increase in man-made structure and decrease in natural habitat.
Logically, there must be a consequence to the loss of environment. More storms, erratic weather, warmer temperatures are the consequences.
I can't answer all your questions this second. I can tell you that we came out of the ice ages due to Milankovitch cycles. Which heated the Earth somewhat causing Co2 to be released from the ocean. The Co2 in the ocean went into the atmosphere causing an increase in the greenhouse gas effect raising temperatures further out of the ice age.
I'm not sure about the little ice age, I'm sure either of us could look it up, short on time right now. As for higher temperatures in the past, those temperatures occurred either gradually or suddenly.
The gradual change is tolerable since plants and animals can adapt gradually. The sudden changes like we are seeing today are correlated with mass extinctions.
Thank you for continuing the conversation.
We know that more Co2 is going into the oceans than out because of the acidification of the oceans.
"Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION."
The man-made ice age was caused by aerosols.
"The answer is now apparent with recent studies in aerosol levels and global dimming. Atmospheric aerosols caused a global dimming (eg - less radiation reaching the earth) from 1950 to 1985. In the mid-80's, the trend reversed and radiation levels at the Earth's surface began to brighten. From 1950 to the mid-80's, the cooling effect from aerosols was masking the warming effect from CO2. When aerosol cooling ended, the current global warming trend began."
"There is very little good science out there anymore. It has been polluted by money and the subsequent search for more of it." Brianl
So you are just going to give up on science entirely? There is some level of corruption anywhere there is money. Yet, the amount of corruption matters. Science by its very nature reduces bias and systematically roots out corruption.
The fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign is much much more corrupt than NASA and the climate change scientists. Just because something is not perfect, you don't simply throw it away.
Thanks, Brianl I think you are a good person too.
I watched the 7:38 long George Carlin video. Carlin makes a claim about 25 species going extinct a day, and that's w/o human interference.
I found George Carlin's video funny, despite disagreeing with him. Btw, George Carlin was an atheist.
"Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 100 times higher than the background rate"
The rate of loss of species is about 100 times greater than background extinction rates that would occur without humans. We are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction.
We are certainly capable of inflicting much harm upon the planets. Deforestation, bleaching of coral reefs, overfishing, and many more.
Carlin claimed that the Earth is simply too vast, and it is human arrogance that we can damage the planet. It is true that the planet's mantle will be largely unaffected by human activity.
Yet, the surface, oceans, and atmosphere can be drastically affected by humans. This is where the vast majority of life is. Insects, birds, trees, fungus, soil bacteria, buffalo, large cats, plants, and many more live.
There is also underprivileged people who already are suffering the consequences. Climate change has lead to water shortages. These shortages in turn lead to terrorism.
"Nye’s reasoning hinges on a water shortage in Syria, which researchers have blamed on climate change. As Nye explained, the shortage has stunted farming and pushed young people to look for work in more densely populated areas.
“Young people have gone to big cities looking for work. There’s not enough work for everybody, so the disaffected youths, as we say — the young people who don’t believe in the system, believe the system has failed, don’t believe in the economy — are more easily engaged and more easily recruited by terrorist organizations, and then they end up part way around the world in Paris shooting people,” Nye said."
Terrorists are coming to the western world because of climate change. We have an obligation to perform the right deed and nip this problem in the bud.
"The environmentalists sees man as a disease that has beset the planet. " Brainl
That's 5-15 year old thinking. Yes, some environmentalists do think that way, but they are just so angry they can't think rationally. They want a solution but can't think of any.
The worst case scenario of climate change is a Venus case scenario. That a glacier melts releasing a huge amount of methane which causes more glaciers to melt releasing extremely high amounts of methane until the seas literally boil away. This is a possibility, but this chance is extremely low.
A true alarmist statement would be to focus on the apocalyptic scenario and lie that it is more likely than it is.
Yet, a much more likely and therefore reasonable scenario is that climate change stinks, it is a burden, but nothing too terrible happens. A few more heat waves, more invasive species, more disease, but mostly a real annoyance.
Here's a break down based upon what I've read.
.1% chance of Venus scenario
.1% chance climate change doesn't exist.
99.8% chance climate change will be very annoying.
The best way to estimate the impact of climate change is what is already happened.
"Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually."
As you can see, climate change will subtly cause the death of 150,000 humans annually for the next two hundred years or so.
"The current environmental movement has been coopted by people seeking money and political power. same old story, different actors." Brianl
There is corruption anywhere there is money, that's why we need science to figure out who is telling the truth and find the evidence and facts we need to make an informed decision.
This is an argument against the Big Bang Theory. This is not an argument for young Earth creationism.
It's disputing big bang, evolution and so forth.
I watched the entire video. The author is attempting to dispute evolution as well as big bang, but I see the main attack on the big bang and the events that occurred before the big bang.
Overall, the video is an attack on science in general. Also, even if the video did make some valid points, it helps all religions equally. In the sense, that with just a few words changed this could be a video promoting Islam or Hinduism.
So something can only come from nothing if a magical being that came from nothing makes it. That makes perfect sense.
As long as you don't think about it
6,000 years old belief is a religious thing. 4.5 billion years old idea is a Human fact
When someone says they cant believe the earth is 2017 years old I just laugh and laugh and laugh...