The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Well I agree with you, Scaper, Ronald Reagan is a hard act to follow. I think Reagan's advantage was his optimism and his heart. He was a combination of conservative politics and a great love for America. The fact he was a great speaker just made it easier for him to convey his patriotism and optimistic view of life to the American public. When you look at our founding fathers you are again looking at leaders who were extremely passionate about their views. They had to be, they risked everything including their very lives for America.
Bush confuses me sometimes by his contradictions, but I'm amazed at the over the top hate libs have toward him. While I might get angry when Bush turns away from conservatism the libs hate him for not being liberal enough, and he is by no means conservative on all issues. I hope Bush at least gives future politicians an example of what not to do politically. Namely trying to please everyone only makes everyone angry. You have to do what's right first and take the politics out of it. After all a leader has to lead the agenda, not follow after the polls. Of course Clinton did that to some success, but he was a better politician. Mind you I didn't like him as a President, but he knew how to manipulate the system. A conservative or one the public might perceive as a conservative had better stick to conservative values or lose all of their support. The libs ain't gonna support them unless they go 100 percent their way, or join the democrat party.
Sorry I went on a bit. Too much caffeine. __________________
DH and tim, sorry i was being so sarcastic. but don't you think if all religions adopted the concept of ecumenism, the world would be a better place. and i'm not asking what the muslims would do. we can only control what we do. so the question is: do YOU agree with ecumenism? yes or no? and i did watch your movie tim, why do you think i said you were a man of many talents. i was referring to the movie. did you want my opinion about it? and i answered your question about school in another post i think. but my answer was no, i'm not in university or taking any courses. i did do a year of university when i was 22 but left to take a trade. i turned 32 in may. however, i was thinking about taking a political sciences course in my spare time. not for any other reason except that i find it quite interesting. you can never learn TOO much. anyways, i'm off to the lake again for a little r&r. raving and ranting. everyone have a good weekend.
Posted: 13 Jul 2007 22:59 Last Edited By: Tim
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4892
Join Date: Apr 2005
Who are you and what did you do to Zod? Ok so ecumenism meaning
a movement promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious groups or denominations. I'm not sure I understand. I thought you were against religion. I'm all for getting along with anybody of any religion, but I'm not for giving up theological beliefs. If someone can get along with me and work with me without me having to change my beliefs that's all well and good. I think they are some things Christians can all work together on that comes to mind. Like get good people elected for instance or spend money on good movies like Passion of the Christ.
32 huh? I figured the way you were talking you were younger than that. __________________
I just could not pass up sharing this little gem I just found on youtube. Maybe a little debate isn't such a bad thing.... Some of you may be offended, which I can't help really, but it touches on a few things mentioned in this thread which merited my linking it here. Gonna just put on my asbestos jammies in prep for the response. Enjoy.
__________________
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 14 Jul 2007 06:57
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 2736
Join Date: Mar 2007
Wow and to think I use to like those guys. First off there is a lot of evidence of the Jews in Egypt. They even have many writings of Joseph with the stories of the seven years of drought. These guys are lying through their teeth. Also so many of the versus they picked and choose to make their points were way out of context. Unreal. Well they will be surprised one day when they find out where their pompous atheism got them.
one more thing...Egyptian Chariot wheels have been pulled up from the bottom of the Red Sea too. __________________
Don't mess with me...I'm like a super BABY!!!
Posted: 14 Jul 2007 17:40
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4892
Join Date: Apr 2005
Well I'm not mad, exactly, but I think Penn and Teller are a couple of creeps for their use of language on the subject of the Bible, but that's on them.
I'll try to address the questions they present as quickly as possible. The first one that strikes their credibility right off the bat is that guy saying that Genesis contradicts itself in the creation story. I pasted the verses in question below on the creation of man. There isn't any contradiction. See for yourself. Chapter One is an overview stating God created man. Which is a true statement, and then chapter two gives additional details with the creation of woman all happening on the same day. One doesn't contradict the other in any way that I can find. I challenge you to find it.
GE 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
GE 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
GE 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
GE 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Doesn't contradict the day it happened anywhere, just tells us Adam was created first. God had a whole day to get to Eve so where's the contradiction?)
GE 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
GE 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This is not two different versions. Chapter two has gives more details about the 6th day.
Question on Noah getting all those animals in the ark. Well it's simple Noah get's one type of species that God has inputted all different DNA sequences in. That species will later branch off into other species of dog for example. Thus Noah didn't have to have billions of animals on the ark at one time. Even if he did God doesn't find anything impossible after all. More after I eat lunch. __________________
Ok lunch is over, now you take dogs again, now I'm not an expert mind you but how hard is it to take collie, and a poodle and breed them into a colliepoodle. They've been selling cockapoodles and the Lord only knows what lately. So the billions of species thing isn't the smoking gun these guys want.
That whole flood story dude was telling by the Euphrates river. The one that he assumed Noah's flood was based on, is that anywhere near China or America because I have heard that the Chinese and American Indians also have stories of a major world wide flood. That's one, two you can easily see landmarks like the Grand Canyon and assume some very large body of water moved across the world at some point. Not to mention the way coal beds have formed in layers seems to also indicate a massive event in very short period of time.
You have to listen very carefully to what they are saying too. Fat boy said they have archeological evidence to support his story about the flooded Samaritan king. Ok, I'll buy, but that just proves a Samaritian king was in a flood. That doesn't prove Noah wasn't in a worldwide flood. That's like saying if I can prove you have a car that means Grey Hound Bus company doesn't own any buses. I know it doesn't make sense does it, but if I talk really fast and sound like I know what I'm saying then..well you get the point. That's what these guys are essentially doing. They are showmen. They know how to sound like they know what they are saying. The actual statements they are making don't hold water.
I've never heard anyone ever say that the Jews weren't enslaved in Egypt before. It seems unlikely that the entire nation of Jews would make up something like that in their national history. That would be like you accusing Americans of fabricating the existance of Abraham Lincoln. Two, I've listened to a lot of secular documentaries and never heard anyone dispute the Exodus story. Libs try to explain away the Red Sea miracle, but never the entire story.
This disrespect of Jesus on this video is rather disturbing. Sounds like they are almost disputing the very existance of Jesus. These guys are way way out there.
The pick and choose line about the moral codes doesn't work if you know anything about the Bible. Sure there are things in the Old Testament we no longer hold too like stonings, because some things were written for Israel and changed when we headed over into the New Testament known as the Age of Grace when Jesus himself stopped stonings. These magicians are great at slide of hand tricks. It's easy to tell half truths about things you know nothing about especially when there is no one around to dispute your findings.
As far as the long hair and Jesus thing he mentioned from Corinthians. Hey one, we don't know that Jesus had long hair. There wasn't any cameras back then. Number two I believe it was Nazarites that were commanded to have long hair in order to seperate themselves. It was also a way to show humility since as the Bible says it is a shame for a man to have long hair. Now to be fair it also doesn't say how long is long.
It's real easy to make points when it's slung out a 100 miles an hour, but take time to tear apart these arguments and you'll see Penn and Teller are full of it, or just trying to pull another magic trick on you. __________________
Too much to read for the short time I have online...but I will say, that Noah was to take two of each animal of it's kind, that God sent him. Not every specific species. So Two Dogs...not Two Wolves, Two Coyotes, Two foxes etc. Just Two Dogs. __________________
Don't mess with me...I'm like a super BABY!!!
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 01:20 Last Edited By: pakratmak
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 983
Join Date: Sep 2006
I'll grab my own quotes for Genesis here;
GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
GE 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
GE 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
GE 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
GE 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
GE 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
GE 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
GE 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
That would be what the gentleman was referring to by conflicting accounts. Chapter 1 was they were created at the same moment, chapter 2 added the delay with God having the afterthought that Adam should have a companion.
Of course there were Jews in Egypt Scaper; he said Jewish slaveswhich makes a huge difference. I also think you missed the point about Noah not only picking up the animals but then redistributing them to their own particular indigenous areas.
Quote: Question on Noah getting all those animals in the ark. Well it's simple Noah get's one type of species that God has inputted all different DNA sequences in. That species will later branch off into other species of dog for example.
Either you believe in evolution or not Tim. Pick one. __________________
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 01:47
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4104
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote: I just could not pass up sharing this little gem I just found on youtube.
Well, it's obvious that it was made for entertainment value - nothing else. So, given it was for entertainment I am not offended by the video. I am sorry that those folks are so ignorant to try to spout such bull. Tim has already hit the high points of what I was going to address, so there is no need to repeat it.
Quote: Either you believe in evolution or not
Tim was not giving an example of evolution, simply breeding dogs to produce dogs. Evolution is about as out there as "global warming" for goodness sakes.
Here's fact, when a person dies, they will found out what happens. Me, I have had too many personal experiences in my life for ANYONE to persuade me otherwise of my faith. Period. __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
It's not fair to be labeling anyone as ignorant D, when you clearly are missing many facts here yourself. Evolution and global warming are not 'out there'; they are scientific fact. There's no gray area, no maybe about it, nothing left to debate; just plain proven scientifically evidenced fact.
If a species branching off into other species or other versions of the same species isn't evolution, then what is? I'm not 100% convinced you understand what evolution is D aside from someone obviously misinforming you.
I also wanted to comment on your previous post that there is no seperation between church and state. This is absolutely dead wrong. Fact is, if tax dollars pay for something then religion cannot be involved with it. There are two exemptions from this of course, but mostly for ceremony; 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance and swearing into court while placing your hand on a bible. We have local, county and supreme courts; not Christian, Protestant or Muslim courts. To place an object from just one religion (or set, if you will) is not only unconstitutional but it endorses those while shunning the others. Stores can't even just post 'Merry Christmas' in their windows around the holidays anymore because other religious groups stir up trouble for 'limiting thdeir religious expression'. It's almost mandatory that the only acceptable decoration nowadays is simply 'Happy Holidays'. Keep in mind that these are privately owned stores dealing with this, not any sort of governmental post or office. You wondered why the ACLU cared so much about the commandments being displayed in a courthouse? That's your answer. They didn't belong there in the first place.
I've already said I have nothing for sale and I have absolutely nothing to gain by even so much as testing your faith D, much less trying to turn you from it. I've seen innaccurate information being passed off as fact by a few folks and it seemed to me that you were personally inviting a 'debate'. Maybe there's a few things we could all learn from each other here, with a little more worthwhile knowledge than spoilers and speculation for a TV show.
Again it is not my wish to upset anyone here. I present arguments very matter-of-factly and very blunt, to the point. If any of this seemed too harsh or like an attack of some sort than you have my apology now. Let me know and I'll tone it down some. __________________
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 03:45
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 983
Join Date: Sep 2006
Had to do a little detective work here, but here is the very definition of that seperation as determined by the Supreme Court back in 1947.
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 04:42
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4892
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote: That would be what the gentleman was referring to by conflicting accounts. Chapter 1 was they were created at the same moment, chapter 2 added the delay with God having the afterthought that Adam should have a companion.
Dude it just says "in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. " That doesn't say anything about how, or the time or anything. You have to read chapter two for the specifics. I think the gentleman was grasping at straws.
Quote: I also think you missed the point about Noah not only picking up the animals but then redistributing them to their own particular indigenous areas.
They had plenty of time to get to their own places on their on like a few thousand years.
Evolution claims one species can become an entirely new species. Having the ability to change small attributes within a species just means God created them with that characteristic from the start. It's like there was only Noah and his kids and their spouses, but over the years we still ended up with several different races. The races were encoded in their dna. But no human has ever gave birth to a monkey or a horse, or whatever.
Quote: Evolution and global warming are not 'out there'; they are scientific fact. There's no gray area, no maybe about it, nothing left to debate; just plain proven scientifically evidenced fact.
I'll remember you said that when the next big thing is global cooling.
Quote: there is no seperation between church and state. This is absolutely dead wrong.
Ok pak fair enough paste the exact phrase from the Constitution where either the seperation of church and state is mentioned or where it is referred to. Actually it says Congress shall make no law concerning religion either for or against. That's a far cry from the ACLU's stance of taking down any and all monuments to God or Christianity. Free speech and expression don't end because something might be religious. The ACLU has recently gone so far as to sue over a picture of Jesus. Just a picture. That could represent any religion or no religion at all. It's just art. You have to be careful or you begin to rule out the freedom of expression of ideas. Ideas can never be outlawed anywhere or anyplace. Congress is commanded to be neutral which brings the ruling of whether or not something is put up in a court house to the state not the federal government. I think it should be up to the community. The ACLU should stay the heck out of everybody's business.
You go back in time to the Second Great Awakening. It was the Christians that were the social activist.
From this page on history on the Second Great Awakening
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/national.htm "Most notable among them was the American Bible Society, founded in 1816. Social activism inspired by the revival gave rise to abolition-of-slavery groups and the Society for the Promotion of Temperance, as well as to efforts to reform prisons and care for the handicapped and mentally ill."
So you see libs want to suggest they are the big heroes for social justice, when in fact Christians pioneered those movements. So be glad for our Christian heritage don't try to knock it unless of course you are all in favor of those old injustices.
Quote: The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Where I agree that the government cannot set up church or ask for special taxes. This doesn't have any bearing on monuments, or whether or not creation should be taught in school. Our founding fathers just didn't want to force people to do things they didn't want to do. They didn't want to prohibit ideas. Sorry dude libs whether nice guys or jerks still are heading toward a nicer form of nazism or communism. You can't stop men from thinking and be right.
Here's something else I found on the net.
Thomas Jefferson, stands in the shrine dedicated to his memory. "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/monument.htm I thought that was pretty cool.
Don't think I'm mad at you. I guess it helps me to express my views. You know you watch these news shows where people argue, and I want to jump in so bad I can't stand it. I just think to myself why don't they say this or that.
I'm getting tired so I better quit I guess, but hopefully I didn't mispell things and forget words.
But one last thing, just think of it like this. If atheists are right, what hope do we have for the future but total blackness? I would think everyone would cling to hope. After all hope for the future is one of those things that is very American and very human. __________________
Quote: It's not fair to be labeling anyone as ignorant D
Since when is life fair? Where is that written? Is it fair that I was picked on and had the tar beaten out of me repeatedly through elementary school? Is it fair that their was a massive riot at my middle school which forced a lockdown (while my mom was at the school)? Is it fair that some wacko came onto the high school campus and opened fire outside the ROTC room? No, there's no such thing. Everyone is, indeed in this country anyway, entitled to their opinion and the video is pure ignorance. __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Quote: Evolution and global warming are not 'out there'; they are scientific fact.
Wrong, there is scientific "consensus" among some scientists about global warming. While many other scientists dispute the claim of global warming. Again, calling global warming fact is ignorance because it is being declared as fact when there is none. __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Quote: I'm not 100% convinced you understand what evolution is D aside from someone obviously misinforming you.
Well, everytime I've read/heard evolution discussed in the past (no pun intended), the result of it is that what you started out with no longer exists. Yet, just because someone cross-breeds to kinds of dogs at one point, does not destroy the breeds of dogs. Beyond that even with cross-breeding dogs, you still wind up with dogs. __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 07:00 Last Edited By: dharvey1031
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4104
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote: I also wanted to comment on your previous post that there is no seperation between church and state. This is absolutely dead wrong. Fact is, if tax dollars pay for something then religion cannot be involved with it.
Sorry, you are mistaken here. Look at the U.S. currency, it clearly states "In God We Trust". Plus, I believe Tim already posted the quote from the Constitution which clearly states that there is separation of church and state. It simply says that there shall be no government directed/enforced/mandated religion. That is, the government cannot tell you that you must be a baptist, methodist, etc.
Quote: Had to do a little detective work here, but here is the very definition of that seperation as determined by the Supreme Court back in 1947.
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Again, this backs up what I've already said, that the government cannot force you to practice any said religion.
Quote: You wondered why the ACLU cared so much about the commandments being displayed in a courthouse? That's your answer. They didn't belong there in the first place.
The ACLU is a group of folks with too much free time on their hands. And as I just pointed out above, the Ten Commandments have every right to be displayed in a courthouse. __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Oh my goodness....hahahaa!!! This is getting funny again.
A lot of constitutional stuff is beyond me...Hey I'm a Canuck eh!!! hahahaha So I guess I'll lean on my hockey stick and watch you guys go at it!!! hahaha
Anyways, I've said my piece. __________________
Don't mess with me...I'm like a super BABY!!!
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 17:13
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4104
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote: Anyways, I've said my piece.
Piece of what? LOL!! __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Quote: A lot of constitutional stuff is beyond me...Hey I'm a Canuck
Doesn't Canada have something similiar? You know some kind of written rules for the government to follow. You guys vote on things don't you? __________________
1) Thou shalt not hit thy neighbor with thy hockey stick.
2) Thou shall not covet thy neighbors Beaver...
3) IF an American asks you for a beer, thou shall turn the other cheek and give him two.
4) thou shalt not bribe a police officer with a Tim Horton's donut.
5) After every sentence thou shalt use the word eh!
6) Thou shall own a canoe
7) marijuana thou shall not grow unless of course you have a medical problem...which we all do from time to time.
Thou shalt not do anything during a Hockey Game
9) If a foreigner comes to your door thou are to give to give him a Beaver, a Curling rock, a hockey stick, a puck, a donut, a beer, an oar, and a bottle of maple syrup, and give him a big hug and are to say...Welcome to Canada eh!
10) Thou shalt complain about many things, but do nothing about them, and drink a beer instead.
Seriously though, We have a charter of rights. Our Government set up is very close to the British System. Though in someways the U.S. system is a bit better but it has flaws too. I guess nothing's perfect. __________________
Don't mess with me...I'm like a super BABY!!!
Posted: 15 Jul 2007 22:39
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4892
Join Date: Apr 2005
So how come you don't say eh, in your writing all the time. I was wondering about that eh? __________________
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Quote: the Ten Commandments have every right to be displayed in a courthouse.
As a religious article they absolutely do not belong. The supreme court told us directly government and religion don't mix. No government in religion and no religion in government; they can't enforce or endorse. This is not up to any community or individual at this point. That whole little piece of literature I pasted above is what they said the first amendment means
You really think global warming does not exist? Please watch that documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' or at least do some research on it. It's a threat to the human race that's very very real and everyone should be at least aware of it. Look at weather patterns we've had for at least the last ten years and check out record breaking temperatures that are killing people and wildlife globally. Our entire ecology is in turmoil and if people want to continue to ignore it we will pay dearly for it.
Quote: While many other scientists dispute the claim of global warming.
Name one and show even a shred of evidence besides them 'not finding anything'.
I'm having fun with this too. __________________
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 16 Jul 2007 02:26
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4104
Join Date: Jan 2006
Yes indeed, global warming is a complete farce. I do not have the time to go into a long discussion, but here is one of many scientists that disputes global warming: Roy Spencer
Quote: The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming Font Size:
By Roy Spencer : BIO| 28 Jun 2006
Discuss This Story! (183) Email | Print | Bookmark | Save
Last week's release of a National Academies of Science (NAS) report entitled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" was the result of a congressional request to look into the controversy surrounding the now-famous "hockey stick" temperature curve. The media portrayed the findings of the NAS review panel as some sort of new statement about how warm the Earth is at present, and totally missed the real news: that the original claim of Mann et al. of unprecedented warmth in the last 1,000 years -- based mostly upon tree ring data, especially from the southwest U.S. -- was dubious at best.
For the last several years, the hockey stick has been a poster prop for manmade global warming. For instance, it figures prominently in Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." But the statistical and data analysis methods that Mann et al. used to arrive at their 1,000 year temperature reconstruction were strongly criticized by some. The hockey stick played down the warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period" of 1,000 years ago, as well as the later coolness of the "Little Ice Age."
Also, the uncritical acceptance of the hockey stick for inclusion in the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report on global climate in 2001 gave many scientists the impression that the editors of that report wanted to believe the hockey stick more than they were convinced of its validity.
In their attempt to not publicly scold Mann and his coauthors for questionable data analysis methods, the authors of the new report instead chose to restate the evidence for how warm the Earth has gotten recently. What the media didn't notice, however, is that the 1,000 year figure that was central to the whole hockey stick debate had now been replaced in the report by a figure of 400 years. Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the "Little Ice Age," the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity.
The report says that surface temperature reconstructions before this period (about 1600) have "less confidence" and that "uncertainties...increase substantially backward in time..." for any of these proxy estimates of ancient temperatures. One review panel member told me that the statisticians on the panel were amazed when it was revealed that the method underlying the hockey stick had essentially no statistical skill when validated.
This is pretty harsh language for an NAS report written by review panel members, several of whom are equivalent to foxes guarding the hen house. Researchers who have bought into the validity of using proxy measures for ancient climate reconstructions aren't about to throw away the "best" method the paleoclimate research community has, even if it can not be validated with real temperature measurements (the thermometer was not even invented until the 1600's).
One rather amazing characteristic of the hockey stick is the so-called "divergence problem": the strong warming in the late 20th century is not even indicated in the tree ring data that were used to reconstruct the last 1,000 years of supposed temperature variations. Much of the 20th century warming (the blade of the hockey stick) represents real temperature measurements, not tree ring reconstructions, since they don't show the warming. This raises a natural question, which the panel shrugged off: If tree rings do not show the strong warming of the late 20th century, how do we know there wasn't a similar temperature spike 1,000 years ago?
Keeping the door open to the possibility that Mann might be right anyway, the new report says that it is at least "plausible" that we are warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years. But this is a much lower level of certainty than has been associated with the hockey stick by the media, bureaucrats, and movie stars (like Al Gore).
But what was the biggest news in the media coverage of the NAS report last week? The biased nature of the media coverage. It almost seems like the media covering the report looked for familiar phrases that fit their global warming paradigm (e.g., "...warmer than the previous 400 years..."), without noting the important conclusions that addressed why the report was written in the first place.
Indeed, much of the press coverage managed to connect the words "warmer than" with a report reference to "2,000 years" to come up with widespread statements (not supported by the report) that the Earth is warmer now than when Jesus Christ walked the Earth. Apparently, sound bites are still preferred over truth.
The NAS review panel report admits that it is difficult to conclude that we are warmer now than 1,000 years ago, but that we are very likely warmer than anytime in the last 400 years. Since what this really means is that we are warmer now than any time during the "Little Ice Age" (and thank goodness for that), one wonders whether we really know anything about past climate reconstructions from tree ring data.
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.
__________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
I'm a weird Canadian I say hey a lot instead of eh...though I do say Eh once and awhile.
Haven't you seen me write that's so cool hey!
OR many other uses of hey too. hehehe __________________
Don't mess with me...I'm like a super BABY!!!
Posted: 16 Jul 2007 05:11
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 983
Join Date: Sep 2006
Ok, so this obvious skeptic has serious doubts about the methods used by the NAS and out of everyone at this press conference he was the only one to spot the 'real news' and one panel member whispered in his ear.....
Quote: Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the "Little Ice Age," the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity.
Then he tells us straight out that is in fact the warmest it's been in 400 years....
Outside of calling global warming 'manmade', I don't see any proof of your expert saying there is in fact no global warming.
Where's the evidence? __________________
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 16 Jul 2007 05:27 Last Edited By: pakratmak
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 983
Join Date: Sep 2006
Keeping in mind this looks like someone's campaign video, it presents actual facts amidst the brow beating.
Even Dubya is catching on and finally admitting it....
How about that evidence? __________________
Beneath this mask is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy and ideas are bulletproof.
~V~
Posted: 16 Jul 2007 05:28
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 2736
Join Date: Mar 2007
If N. America had a mile of ice over most parts of it 10,000 years ago and today there is no ice sheets until you reach the artic circle wouldn't it be safe to say that the ice is still melting today? That in another thousand years there maybe no ice shelf at all? Also last year had the most fierce solar flares ever. So maybe the sun is heating up too. I don't believe it's all man made what soever. __________________
Don't mess with me...I'm like a super BABY!!!
Thou shalt not do anything during a Hockey Game
