Climate change, blah, megadrought, blah, researchers, blah, scientists, blah. This is pure BS speculation. When we can’t even get accurate forecasts for next week, how the **** do they think they can forecast the weather 50 years from now? There have been so many incorrect predictions like this, it is a joke. Remember 5 months ago when everyone was saying there would be an “El Nino” and the drought would be over? Ha! Not saying that a megadrought couldn’t happen, but I find it hard to take these people seriously.

Mega drought….Mega douche….Go back and check the records. 1924-31 (a time I was not alive), there was a far worse drought in CA and NV than we are experiencing now. Historically bad. Do not be so quick to forecast out so far in the future. The far left has a political agenda with climate change. Do not just buy into it. Do your own research.

fromfrom: How old is your dad?

? says, “Scientist blah.” This is the latest climate change “denier” argument? Cant’ take Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, Geologists, Mathematicians or anybody that actually studies seriously… Well, you can’t fix ignorant.

rock: I was merely pointing out the fact that these “scientists” are constantly making outlandish predictions, which almost never come true.

Not everything that comes from “scientists” is real.
There are many scientists, doctors, physicists, geologists, and mathematicians that are just trying to push their own agendas. I take serious science seriously, not liberal propaganda.

P.S. I was imitating your “blah x” line that you use when someone posts something you don’t agree with.

? You really want to bad mouth Scientists and Scientific predictions like: Atomic Bombs, missions to the Moon, vaccines, Black Holes, the Speed of Sound, the Speed of the expanding Universe, DNA, Evolution, the Speed of Light, Comets, Meteors, the collision of the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy billions of year from now? You mean those sort of predictions you disagree with too?

And who is pushing the Fossil Fuel Agenda again? Salespeople for the Fossil Fuel Industry. They are the ones you want to listen.

Scientists have children and grandchildren too you know.

ps. I know you stole my idea but it does not help your ignorant argument.

rocks4brains: You act like I don’t believe anything from scientists. The only things on your list that I don’t agree with are evolution and the speed of the expanding of the universe. Evolution is clearly BS. If you believe that, you believe that you came from a rock. If evolution is false, then there most likely wasn’t a big bang, so the universe probably isn’t expanding.
I stole your idea, and it doesn’t help your ignorant arguments either.
I don’t listen to salespeople in the fossil fuel industry because they are crooks. I look at COLD HARD FACTS.

? Keep throwing insults at Science, that is all you are good for.

Harold Spencer Jones graduated from Jesus College and probably did not know how to calculate escape velocity.

Einstein did not know you could split an atom in 1932. The word atom comes from the word “atomos” or undivided. Later he said to FDR, “Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future.”

Thomas Watson was a bookkeeper, not a Scientist.

Orville and Wilbur proved Kelvin was in error and that it was mathematically possible to fly via machine eight years after the quote.

Actually, recent calculations by Scientists show the Milky Way is moving with the Universe and is expanding at a great rate of speed; about 2.1 million kph or 1.3 million mph.

Evolution is a hoax and probably no Big Bang. That’s it, insults and probably is all you have?

And how old is the Earth ?

And you want to argue with Stephen Hawking now? You are both narcissistic and ignorant. LOL!

Have you ever noticed that people who deny evolution are a little less… evolved?
Punctuation: You are throwing out a lot of red herrings and cherry picking. Science is a philosophy. Skepticism is built in to hypothesis testing.

“This is pure BS speculation. When we can’t even get accurate forecasts for next week, how the **** do they think they can forecast the weather 50 years from now?”
Oh dear, here we go again. Before we more on here… define climate, try using a number and unit of time.

“Do your own research.”
Mike, please post some research.

? Oh, a debate on Evolution! Excellent. You proposed the debate, you go first. How did life begin ?

“as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” – Charles Darwin
According to one of the originators of this theory, evolution is racism.

Climate: The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
Climate is not defined using a number and a unit of time.
Skepticism is not built into hypothesis testing when you decide that your hypothesis is correct before you test it then eliminate all the data that doesn’t support your hypothesis. Scientists today are trying to prove that climate change is correct, instead of trying to find out if it is actually happening.

I am not throwing out red herrings. You, nature, and rock, however, are guilty of argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad baculum. You might take a look in the mirror before you start throwing out accusations. It was actually Rock who changed the subject to climate change. I didn’t say anything about it in my first post.

Nature: Actually, you are a lemming. You seem to listen to what your divine scientists at NASA and Stephen Hawking say and never question a word of it. Stephen Hawking and NASA obviously have agendas, you can’t debate that. What is your worthless master’s degree in?

excuse me but you are all getting excited over this article when in the article it states it may never happen, this is called a disclaimer. They are just saying it may. I remember in the 70s scientist were sayong that within 20 years California would drop into the ocean. We are learning new things every day, new therories are thought up daily and old ones are disproved as we learn more. The really unevolved ones are the ones that feel that science is fact and unmoving, its not facts as we know them change as as science changes and moves with new knoledge, one guy who used to post under the name of caso something is like this, believes theories are fact and never change. Not really as much of a scienist as he would have us beieve.

Not so fast ?

1. ?’s first comment says “Climate change, blah, megadrought, blah, researchers, blah, scientists, blah. This is pure BS speculation.” So, your tangential argument that I changed the subject to climate change is obviously false.

2. ? says ” the only other way that life could have begun is if it was created by an intelligent, supernatural being.”

How ludicrous.

a. We have the Daubert standard rule of evidence from the United States Supreme Court which says that scientific expert testimony must be based from “scientific knowledge.”

b. The United States Supreme Court ruled that teaching creation science was unconstitutional in 1987. In short, intelligent design is a “religious” teaching and not legitimate scientific research.

Where is your falsifiable (testable) evidence of spontaneous generation of life by an alien being and how was it peer reviewed and verified?

rock: I will attempt to respond to your comment point by point.

1. This one is my bad. I should have read the previous comments more carefully. However, you were the one that accused me of being a denier, among other thing. I was quoting from the article in my comment. My apologies.

2. Explain how this is ludicrous, then tell me what actually happened.

a. “Scientific expert testimony must be based from ‘scientific knowledge.'” One can conclude from common sense that it is highly unlikely that life “spontaneously generated” from “chemical soup.” Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that evolution is false. Examine the following points:

If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.”
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

b. Again, Rock, ad baculum. Might does not make right. Just because the supreme court ruled something, doesn’t mean it is right. It is also interesting to note that the supreme court may have ruled this because of prejudice against the idea of a God existing. This goes against the Constitution, which says that the government will not interfere with any man’s religion. Therefore, one might conclude that this ruling is unconstitutional.

I never said anything about spontaneous generation and aliens, I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I hold to my statement that if evolution is false, there must be a God or supernatural being, who created the universe and life.
If you are interested in peer-reviewed science, show me peer-reviewed science that concludes that evolution must be real. I think you will have a very difficult time.

? a. Microevolution has been upheld by tests in laboratories with cells, plants, worms, fruit flies and birds.

Quick example. Look no further then the common Dog, Canis lupus familiaris, which descended from, Canis lupus or Wolf. The Wolf was genetically engineered by humans to look like a Pug (and other breeds) in short time.

Paleontologists are finding transitional intermediates in Hominids/humans, Aves/birds, Equus/horses, Cetacea/whales and more in the fossil records all the time.

Molecular Biology proves that all organism share most of the same DNA and RNA (genes) that started with a common descent some 3.5 Billion years ago.

I could find no reference that Niles Eldredge acknowledges anything other then evolutionary descent takes place in “fits and starts” separated by long periods of stability or stasis.

b. The Courts deal with DNA testing all the time; DNA testing is falsifiable (tested and peer reviewed.)

Again. Can you provide us with an example of spontaneous generation of life. Otherwise your statement(s) are simply religious opinion; not fact or testable.

Tell the folks on the east coast about dry weather–what a bunch of bs there is on this blog.

The skiing sucks, but it sure is great disc golf weather!

Well ?, this game is over. You can’t pick and choose the Science you want ?, just like you can’t pick and choose what Calculus, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Micro Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Cellular Biology you want.

You started this thread by say “Climate change, blah, megadrought, blah, researchers, blah, scientists, blah. This is pure BS speculation” with nothing but opinion to back it up except to belittle people like Stephen Hawking with a casual “he is incorrect.”

Climate Change is measurable, like Gravity is measurable, like CO2 levels in the atmosphere are measurable, like rising Ocean levels are measurable, like the retreat of Glaciers is measurable, like the Speed of Light is measurable, like the explosive equivalent of a Hydrogen bomb is measurable, like the color spectrum of distant Stars are measurable, like DNA similarities are measurable, like the rate of Genetic Mutation in new strains of Streptococcus are measurable, like radioactive decay is measurable and yes like Evolution is measurable.

And your claim that “life forms sprang up from chemicals on the earth… has never been done or shown” simply ignores ignores current Chemical research with RNA and DNA.

You claim that “scientists are simply eliminating the data that doesn’t support their theory, yet give nothing to support your argument of “creation by your God” except to say “I believe that a creator made the universe and initiated life” which is nothing more than ignorant banter.

Then to finish your opinion with “lazy,” “craziness,” “normal people who haven’t been brainwashed?” You simply don’t win the debate with those sort of comments.

I know what you are going through, believe it or not, I was raised Southern Baptist and Presbyterian with a little Catholic thrown in. I simply find Religion now to be a relic of the past.

Checkmate.

Hoho, the greatest men may make mistakes!
Checkmate? Not so fast!

“You can’t pick and choose the science you want” Where did I do that? You, on the other hand, have avoided discussing all my main points.

“Climate change, blah, megadrought, blah, researchers, blah, scientists, blah. This is pure BS speculation” I was referring to ONLY this article when I said this. The study in this article is predicting a megadrought in the next 50 years, but it provides absolutely no evidence to back up this claim, short of reciting the good ol’ climate change mantra.

I say Stephen Hawking is incorrect? Well just read his books and articles! He claims that the universe created itself out of nothing! Tell me Mr. Hawking, how did nothing create something out of nothing? That’s against the laws of physics. This seems more like a mental illness than sound scientific data. “he is incorrect” keep in mind that you have done exactly the same thing several times in this debate. Also, please keep this discussion on topic, we are talking about evolution here, not climate change and science in general.

“the rate of Genetic Mutation in new strains of Streptococcus are measurable” Um, duh again. This probably happens billions of times every day. My claim, however, is that microevolution of bacteria cannot produce humans and other animals. That is known as macroevolution. (macro)Evolution is measurable? Show me where! Give me one link to an article where scientists have seen MACROEVOLUTION occurring in a lab. Tell me what scientist has taken a bacterium and turned it into something other than a bacterium without genetic engineering by an intelligent being!

“your claim that “life forms sprang up from chemicals on the earth… has never been done or shown” simply ignores ignores current Chemical research with RNA and DNA.” Please show me an example of life being generated from simple chemicals. Tons of research has been done on DNA and RNA, but no one has produced life from a pile of chemicals.

“You claim that “scientists are simply eliminating the data that doesn’t support their theory, yet give nothing to support your argument of “creation by your God” except to say “I believe that a creator made the universe and initiated life” which is nothing more than ignorant banter.” Read my last few posts more carefully. I told you why I think evolution cannot happen, and logically showed that if evolution is false, the only other possibility is creation.

You have made many claims and not provided any evidence to back them up.
“Paleontologists are finding transitional intermediates in Hominids/humans, Aves/birds, Equus/horses, Cetacea/whales and more in the fossil records all the time.” I directly asked you for evidence to back this up, you failed to provide it.
“Molecular Biology proves that all organism share most of the same DNA and RNA (genes) that started with a common descent some 3.5 Billion years ago.” You do not provide anything to support this claim.”

“Evolution is measurable” Back this up.

“Then to finish your opinion with “lazy,” “craziness,” “normal people who haven’t been brainwashed?” You simply don’t win the debate with those sort of comments.” Those comments were to from from, not you, they were not intended as part of this debate.

“I know what you are going through, believe it or not, I was raised Southern Baptist and Presbyterian with a little Catholic thrown in. I simply find Religion now to be a relic of the past.” You know what I am going through? Exactly. My values, religion, and beliefs are under attack by a modernist atheist. That’s nothing new. I’m used to defending the truth! You were a christian? I must admit I’m surprised and it is sad that you’ve thrown away your morals and religion in favor of the modern world, but it doesn’t do jack for your argument.

“Checkmate?” Claiming you won the debate doesn’t mean you won it.

I believe that the vast majority of your arguments are characterized by a distinct lack of evidence, which clearly shows that there is not much supporting evidence for your beliefs. It is sad these days that the media, the schools, and Hollywood have convinced people that these lies are correct by eliminating the whole picture.

Please reevaluate your sources and try to provide more evidence to back up your claims.

In the mean time, anyone else have an opinion on this?

Had a conversation at work about El nino. To get back to climate change. I expressed the opinion that El Nino doesn’t mean much for Tahoe since we are on the edge of the effect. or rather in the middle. He took this as being a denial of the reality of El Nino, when all I was saying is that where we are it could go either way. Just because we did not see a lot of snow up here does not invalidate the model. Science is and always will be a work in progress. The tone of these posts address what we know now, what we discover remains to be seen. Would be fascinated to hear good information on the effect of El Nino on Tahoe.

Legal: My problem is that everyone seems to just assume that life progressed from virus like particles to human beings. In reality, we don’t know this. In fact, there seems to be a lot of evidence indicating that this is not true.

“______ (insert any modern scientific idea) is far, far from **proven** to anywhere near a scientific certainty.”

You obviously have an elementary understand of the scientific method.

“there seems to be a lot of evidence indicating that this is not true.”
List 3, or whatever source you have.
I’ve read a lot of typical BS from creationists, moving the goal posts, red herring, holding up one overly simplified concept as being the keystone when it isn’t, using fancy words you don’t understand.
Evolution has been observed in the modern era.
Your logical model is not predictive, which means it is useless. When “theories” (which you don’t understand the use of in science) lead to more understanding they are legitimized.
How old is the earth?

Prune: Continue denying reality all you want! Your last two comments simply denied everything I said, you didn’t say why I was wrong or provide any supporting evidence.

So you think God is untestable and unverifiable? Slow down.

1. Something exists.

That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anyone who would say “nothing exists” would have to exist to in order to say that, in which case he would be defeating his own statement.

My second premise is this:

2. Nothing does not produce something.

This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.

Nothing is no thing. No thing does not have the power to do any thing at all, does it?

One of the oldest laws of science is Ex nihilo nihil fit (“Out of nothing, nothing comes”). Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever, agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” (Feb. 1754).

So, if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows…

3. Something must have always existed.

Skeptic: “Why’s that?”

Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.

Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something” that now exists (in premise 1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something).

Skeptic: “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought something into existence?”

Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that the thing (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?

If that thing (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If it had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that thing (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.

Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that thing in point no. 3 must have always existed.

Let’s continue…

4. The universe has not always existed.

In 1948, a theory known as the Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal. It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct” the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator.” Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist for a while. But the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.

Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy
in the universe came into being.

And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is…

A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES

Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]

But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.

Imagine that I was to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:

This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:

“THE BIG BANG.” We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!

Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning, God created the heavens…”

A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind…

B. THE SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

[The first law says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change.]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.

Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.

If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.

Flashlight Illustration: Let’s say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning?” Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.”

Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?

Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like…

1. The Motion of the Galaxies

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

(and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson)

…that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.

Now, if my premises are all true:

1. Something exists.

2. Nothing does not produce something.

3. Something must have always existed.

4. The universe has not always existed

…then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.

6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.

I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.

To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true…for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.

So this premise is undeniably true as well.

Let’s take it further.

7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.

How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to wind, rain, the forces of nature, chance and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.

It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.

8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution does not stand up under close scrutiny with known scientific facts.

You think that creationist scientists aren’t smart? Think again.

Here are just a few of the men who gave us modern science who believed in God:

Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein
James Clerk Maxwell

I suggest you think a little about your theories before you post them on this blog.

duke: the !?! feature on this blog is apparently a logical fallacy incarnate, and should not be taken seriously. that’s why i backed out of the “debate”…

You might consider providing some supporting evidence to support your outlandish claims. Realize that what you believe is that you came from rocks. My proof is disproved? Show me how.

It’s entertaining to watch the atheists desperately trying to save the last remnant of their ridiculous theory as it swirls down the toilet with the rest of their communist BS. Meanwhile, creationists stand on solid ground, as they have for thousands of years…

Fromform: I think it is far more likely that you backed out of the debate because you found yourself not capable to debate on this subject because of the distinct lack of evidence on your side. I applaud you for realizing that you have no grounds on which to debate, you are clearly smarter than Rock and Prune, who don’t know when to stop pressing ridiculous ideas and making themselves look like fools.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” Psalm 14:1

Carry on…
Want to have a yawning contest nature?
YAWN

Wow, ?!? Is absolute narcissisist to the nth degree.

“Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them”
Ezekial 16:17

While we are on the subject of bible quotes, this one seems relevant.

One of the most efficient ways to show the world how dumb you are is bringing up Nazis randomly.

Global cooling was more popular in the media, and a small part of the scientific thought in the 70s.

puncuation you never answered my question: How old is the earth? We need to know what intellectual level you are operating on here.

Here’s all that matters to me. A learned geologist told us during a talk out by Kirkwood that we are now at 400ppb of CO2. The last time (from ice coring) it was only 200ppb all the ice on earth disappeared. The ONLY thing that hasn’t happened yet is us reaching the point of equilibrium. That is when the ice has yet to completely disappear but is certain to do so, based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. We won’t be here to witness it but this area will eventually look just like Baja California. Enjoy the season.
To Admin: I’d support you if you deleted all the comments that don’t pertain to the article. Thanks

I believe somewhere in America during the last century there was a geographical region know as “the Dustbowl” where thousands of farms went under and thousands more left for greener pastures because the drought was so bad. Where is that dustbowl now? Did not last forever did it?