How Can Anyone Be Serious about AGW?

_{September 23, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s a graph from the IPCC. I just happened upon it.

IPCC Report Fig 2.22 Historic Record of Temp, CO2 and Methane from Antartic Icecores.

Notice that, historically, global temperatures were, cyclically, about 4 degrees warmer than now. Just look at the repeated cycle! It’s been getting warmer for the last 15,000 years plus.

AGW is just a farce. And the IPCC itself makes this point.

Comments

CLAVDIVS states
"So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too – that’s your argument. That’s ridiculous."
No CLAVDIVS, what is ridiculous in your entire line of reasoning of agreeing with atheists that 1+1=2 is true is the fact that 1+1=2 is true cannot even be grounded within the naturalistic worldview in the first place. To put it simply, if 1+1=2 is true then atheism is false! In others words, the ability of the human mind to even be able to do mathematics in the first place is a proof for Theism and is not a proof for atheism. And yet you act as if it is completely reasonable for atheists to assume 1+1=2 is true, and for you to 'agree with them', without pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that 1+1=2 is true undermines atheism itself. A few notes:
"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine." - Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13 Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics - video (excerpted from BBC's 'Dangerous Knowledge' documentary) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1119397401406525/?type=2&theater An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists. "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands." Albert Einstein - Letters to Solovine - New York, Philosophical Library, 1987 "Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910 The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html
Claude, perhaps you should use some other example that does not point so directly to Theism in you want to 'agree with atheists' and show Theists and Christians, and Intelligent Design advocates overall, to be the unreasonable bigots that you imagine us to be? Trouble is in finding another example that would make the point you are trying to make is that atheism has been worse than useless in science.bornagain77_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: As I look back over your comments, I suspect the "evidence" you think I'm overlooking is that temperatures appear to be "cooling." Yes, there is a different character to the pattern, but we don't know what that means. If you want to 'predict' cooling, go right ahead. They were doing that back in the 70's. But everyone is predicting 'warming.' Based on your "evidence," shouldn't you be telling the alarmists they're wrong? Isn't that what it means to follow the "evidence"? Just asking. But, there's more. If you want to notice things, let me notice something. For the last part of the curve, for the last 12-15,000 years, temperatures have risen, while CO2 levels have not. Well, if CO2 causes warming, something is wrong here, no? Are you willing to look at that? Going back to the putative "cooling," my point is this: I believe more in the long-term pattern than I do in what we're seeing in just this latest cycle. IOW, I expect the world to warm another couple of degrees! But don't get scared---I think this warming will take place over the next 2-3,000 years based on the graph. (If you want to nit-pick the numbers, then go right ahead. But it is no more than simply "missing the forest for the trees.")PaV_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

And wd400 isn't paying much attention or else he would have noticed that I haven't commented on the article, but simply asked about it.PaV_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: First, I like your quote from Galileo. I think it pefectly reflects the debate we have here at UD with Darwinists. They close their eyes to the truth. As to this comment: You are not dealing with the evidence contrary to your position. You are just trying to sweep it under the rug, I can only respond by asking: what contrary evidence? Would you like to point it out to me, please?PaV_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: You wrote: PaV – I think reality is a better tool to contradict what you wrote. The graph simply doesn’t have the resolution for you to see clearly what happened. I didn't say there was a 'continuous' increase in temperature. I said that temperatures were increasing. Just look at the graph. It doesn't contradict me at all. Or else you wouldn't have to make mention of a different graph. The important point here is that we've seen this pattern before, and that nothing that is now happening is outside of the charts temperature wise. Let's put it another way: if CO2 causes "warming," then, since CO2 is 'off the charts,' then why is temperature within a normal range? Science is done by comparing theory to actual measurements---well, at least until the present era, when, science having been stripped away from religion, and with it philosophy (love of wisdom ["The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"]), no longer searches for the truth, but, instead, what tickles the fancy---a la the "multiverse," etc. If your contention is that CO2 will lead to warmer temperatures, then why is CO2 off the charts, literally, but not temperatures? And why have CO2 levels risen over the last twenty years, but not temperature? Aren't these just basic questions? And on the basis of these questions, isn't AGW ruled out? Certainly one simple look at this graph should do so. Let me just tell the story of a graph that was published by the L.A. Times in the 90's. The graph was printed with a shaded area (= cool) and an unshaded area (= warm). The demarcation point was at the temperature for around 1940. This, apparently, was meant to "prove" how temperatures were rising. Well, they may very well have been, based on the graph in the OP. However, I noticed that the slope within the 'shaded' area (cool), was rising at a slightly higher rate than the slope in the 'unshaded' area (warm). This starts in 1940. Well, this is the kind of thoughtless propaganda we get from the alarmists. If, indeed, 'man-made' CO2 is the cause of "warming," then how do you explain temperatures rising 'faster' when 'man-made' CO2 levels were lower? And why were they rising in the 1800's? (BTW, I tend to notice things. Once, in the early 70's, I read an article in Newsweek having to do with a recent court decision permitting the FBI to raid homes under certain circumstances. Newsweek carried a photo with the caption reading: "FBI breaks into private offices," or something to that effect. Well, if you looked at the photo, you noticed door hinges. Door hinges are always on the 'inside.' So, how exactly do you 'break in' from the 'inside'? A question that Newsweek could not explain to me.)PaV_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

WD400 Right excuse my incorrect wording let me rephrase.... Al Gore Scare mongered, gullible people like yourself that by 2013/2014 there would be no more ice left at the poles. He regurgitated this a few times over the course of the years, it has not happened but it seems it has not stopped irrational nincompoops like yourself to actually process the truth and distance yourself from such nonsense. Here you are defending false information. Better? The videos both of them Al Gore clearly states that the ice caps would be gone...... why are you so dishonest Wd400? Lastly and this is important! Climate change is a misnomer the climate changes all the time, that is why its called climate!Andre_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS You've been highly irrational on these pages on numerous occasions so there are no presumptions, I don't think you are a materialist I just think based on the evidence you are wrong most of the time.Andre_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

Andre, The meme that you regurgitated was that "Al Gore predicted" that the ice caps would have melted. That text and the video you linked doesn't include Gore making such a prediction. As I said, what particular US politicians think about climate science is not very relevant to the truth of climate change. But is interesting how these memes ("Al Gore claimed...", "No warminng since 1998"...) get propagated despite their inaccuracy.wd400_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

Andre @
How does one agree with the notion that we are just bags of chemicals and whatever our chemical reaction is that’s just how it is…..
Dont ask me - I don't agree with it. Do you agree with bornagain77 that if someone agrees with an atheist on some subject, that makes them an atheist? Don’t you think it’s highly prejudicial to just assume I’m a materialist simply because I disagreed with bornagain77’s stupid argument?CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

John_a_designer @ 67
Do we still have polar ice caps? Have they shrunk any?
Yes and yes.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS How does one agree with the notion that we are just bags of chemicals and whatever our chemical reaction is that's just how it is..... There is nothing to agree to and they may be right they may be wrong but in the end it means nothing as materialism says we are shaped for fitness not for truth. What have you been shaped for CLAVDIVS?Andre_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Andre @ 68 How should I know? I'm not a materialist. Do you agree with bornagain77 that if someone agrees with an atheist on some subject, that makes them an atheist? ETA: Don't you think it's highly prejudicial to just assume I'm a materialist simply because I disagreed with bornagain77's stupid argument?CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer I am Gobsmacked that WD400 reckons Al Gore never said any of it, I am telling you WD400 is a dishonest man. but then again if materialism is true there is no such thing as honesty or dishonesty, things just are.....Andre_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS
if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2
Tell me how does a materialist come to the conclusion that 1+1=2? How does he trust his mind in anyway? What is his unchanging standard to get to such truth?Andre_{September 26, 2016
September
09
Sep
26
26
2016
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

Here are a few excerpts from a speech AL Gore gave on Sept. 18, 2006:
A few days ago, scientists announced alarming new evidence of the rapid melting of the perennial ice of the north polar cap, continuing a trend of the past several years that now confronts us with the prospect that human activities, if unchecked in the next decade, could destroy one of the earth’s principle mechanisms for cooling itself. Another group of scientists presented evidence that human activities are responsible for the dramatic warming of sea surface temperatures in the areas of the ocean where hurricanes form… Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special issue this month with the following sentence: “The debate on global warming is over.” Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could?—?within as little as 10 years?—?make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization. In this regard, just a few weeks ago, another group of scientists reported on the unexpectedly rapid increases in the release of carbon and methane emissions from frozen tundra in Siberia, now beginning to thaw because of human caused increases in global temperature… Similarly, earlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale?—?a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency?—?a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe. The serious debate over the climate crisis has now moved on to the question of how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic damage.
https://thinkprogress.org/al-gore-nyu-law-9-18-06-60acdb2cb08f#.rmgz95isk Well, it is a decade later. How well did Al Gore do with his predictions? Do we still have polar ice caps? Have they shrunk any?john_a_designer_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too - that's your argument. That's ridiculous.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Then a duck you are! https://waterman99.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image10.png I guess that makes me a duck bigot for treating that which acts like a duck like a duck! :)bornagain77_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 55
I do not know your heart of heart, only God does, but from your very own words, despite your denial, most of the time I find it very hard to distinguish your arguments than those of atheists.
So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too? What a ridiculous argument.
Perhaps it is time for you to clear the air once again and state clearly what your exact position is?
Nope, I'd rather give people the opportunity to showcase their prejudices for all to see.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Vy @ 54
While it would be um, nice, to get into a “dating method x is invalid because …” discussion with you, posting article by article contradicting your “beyond reasonable doubt” claims, I have better things to do.
And because your position can so easily be shown to be unreasonable, best to just not discuss it. You don't have to explain how "dating method x is invalid" for all dating methods. What you have to explain is why, if they are all invalid (as you claim) they all converge on the same ages.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Oh I also thought the planet had too many people and that animals are to be awarded equal rights. I supported consensus and I thought socialism is the saviour of the world. Today I know with very reasonable certainty that my worldview was wrong. WD400 and his merry band of chemical bags are wrong and due to their status as just chemical bags they will remain ignorant of the truth until they realise their actual value.Andre_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

In 2007 I was an atheist and like most materialists here I hung onto every word spoken by the Darwin crown and every word the AGW crowd had to say, but in 2010 something amazing happened and THE truth set me free.Andre_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

And wd400 only thought he 'listened' to a video and that he read an article.
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
And although Hoffman tries to limit his results to just visual perceptions and ignore the conclusions as applied to our cognitive faculties more generally, the following article rightly points out that there is no reason to presuppose that his results should not be applied more generally to our cognitive faculties overall since evolution is supposedly ultimately responsible for everything we are and think:
The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
Moreover, there is the small matter of ‘reliable observation/perception’ being a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself:
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Thus, since the mathematics of population genetics forces Darwinists to believe that their observations/perceptions of reality are illusory, then either Darwinian evolution must be false at some fundamental level or else all of science must necessarily be undermined. Humorously, I think many hard-core Darwinists would opt for the latter option as the best answer :) In what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the math of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Verses and Music:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U
bornagain77_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

So Andre didn't listen to the video, and pav didn't read the article (s)he commented on.wd400_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Al Gore did say the poles would be ice free!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhTsI Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf HitlerAndre_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Al Gore did say in 2007 that in 7 years the poles would be ice free.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVpBjhi0n2sAndre_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Vy @ 49 - ah, the foundations are so shaky that one of the people who carried out the study (where, incidentally they found their model didn't match the data) said
“You can say at the end of the Younger Dryas it warmed 10, plus or minus five, degrees Celsius. But what happened on this pathway into the event, you can’t see,” Carlson says.
So we might not understand the details, but the Younger Dryas still happened.Bob O'H_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, or it could be that you really are a duck! I do not know your heart of heart, only God does, but from your very own words, despite your denial, most of the time I find it very hard to distinguish your arguments than those of atheists. Perhaps it is time for you to clear the air once again and state clearly what your exact position is?bornagain77_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

You think they’re random too? Just like the sawtooth pattern in the OP? Of course not.
And Milankovitch cycles are valid? The articles I linked to earlier show otherwise.
Ice core layers are annual, beyond reasonable doubt, because the ages observed are correlated with: – Milankovitch cycles – Radioisotope dates (of various methods) – Coral growth – Plankton layering – Varves in freshwater lakes – Patterns of nuclides from space – Tree rings – The Earth’s rotation – … lots of other things
Interesting list. While it would be um, nice, to get into a "dating method x is invalid because ..." discussion with you, posting article by article contradicting your "beyond reasonable doubt" claims, I have better things to do. Corals are lovely. :DVy_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Vy @ 52 Get a grip. Milankovitch cycles are validated by the laws of orbital mechanics. You think they're random too? Just like the sawtooth pattern in the OP? Of course not. Ice core layers are annual, beyond reasonable doubt, because the ages observed are correlated with: - Milankovitch cycles - Radioisotope dates (of various methods) - Coral growth - Plankton layering - Varves in freshwater lakes - Patterns of nuclides from space - Tree rings - The Earth's rotation - ... lots of other thingsCLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Irrelevant.
Really?
It has absolutely nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles in ice cores.
Yes it does. Sedimentary layers are dated/have their dates calibrated against Milankovitch cycles (among other things). Ice cores are dated/against sedimentary layers and Milankovitch cycles. The validity of Milankovitch cycles is then based on sedimentary layers and ice cores (among other things). So when they all "match up" in a supposedly non-random way, it's not surprising. Did you miss this?Vy_{September 25, 2016
September
09
Sep
25
25
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply