Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Double speak. Simple ramblings. You didn't address my point.
For quite a few years recently (I will find the links if you insist) scientists predicted we would see some of the biggest storm seasons on records. We saw nothing of the sort. Nature didn't bother listening to the scientists.
I totally addressed your statement.
Quote:
According to a report by the reinsurance giant Munich RE, the number of weather-related “loss events” in North America has quintupled over the past three decades. The report attributed this trend to several factors, including climate change: “Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity.” The report was released just two weeks before Hurricane Sandy.
Besides the fact this is off topic, I will say this much for the anti-science crowd...they're are tenacious. Whether it be the science of evolution or climate science, they cannot except data or facts, therefore arguing or debating a point with them is a total act of futility.
No way, everyone in gods country know the universe is only a few thousand years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWhopper
I'm still trying to find out when God buried all those fake dinosaur bones in the ground to test us....
How presumptuous to think that a "year" in the universe means the same time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. What about when the earth and our star didn't yet exist? A "year" in God's universal terms is much, much longer than 365 earth days, wouldn't you think?
But go ahead and keep up the Christian/Bible-bashing since you think you're so much smarter than us...
No you are not alone. I don't think they have a clue. It is guess work.
I don't know what to make of the new numbers. Part of me understands that new theories become available when new technology (and the resulting new data) becomes available.
Part of me thinks these scientists have to come up with new pronouncements and finds on a semi-regular basis in order to justify receiving continued grant and research moneys.
Besides the fact this is off topic, I will say this much for the anti-science crowd...they're are tenacious. Whether it be the science of evolution or climate science, they cannot except data or facts, therefore arguing or debating a point with them is a total act of futility.
It always reverts to this. I am not anti-science. Science has done many great things for society. My point is just because a scientists says something, it does not automatically make it gospel.
How presumptuous to think that a "year" in the universe means the same time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. What about when the earth and our star didn't yet exist? A "year" in God's universal terms is much, much longer than 365 earth days, wouldn't you think?
But go ahead and keep up the Christian/Bible-bashing since you think you're so much smarter than us...
How long is a year in "God's universal terms"? And if dogmatic YEC Christians claim that the Earth is 6000 some odd years old, exactly how old is that in "God's universal terms"? Inquring minds want to know.
you can believe these scientist anymore, they fall in line with the weathermen, and politicians, they are just needing a job and will say whatever. when you see their teeth as they speak, you know they are lying.
It always reverts to this. I am not anti-science. Science has done many great things for society. My point is just because a scientists says something, it does not automatically make it gospel.
If it reverted, it was because while negating the science of the topic at hand, you threw in climate science for good measure. Two for two and btw, both if which your opinions appear to be based on just that...your opinions and possibly some biased or religious hooey. Science is not meant to relate to "gospel"...that's the point!
you can believe these scientist anymore, they fall in line with the weathermen, and politicians, they are just needing a job and will say whatever. when you see their teeth as they speak, you know they are lying.
A small percentage of bad scientists don't make the case against them all.
If it reverted, it was because while negating the science of the topic at hand, you threw in climate science for good measure. Two for two and btw, both if which your opinions appear to be based on just that...your opinions and possibly some biased or religious hooey. Science is not meant to relate to "gospel"...that's the point!
I posted scientific links to back up my assertions. You are right that science is not supposed to be gospel but for some, indeed it is.
Does this mean science is bad? Of course not. It does mean that just because a scientists says something, it doesn't automatically make it fact.
This shows why we can not be making bold accusations based upon a small time frame worth of studies.
I'll ask my question again. Small errors in calculations can make a big difference in the big picture. No?
The "Aristotle" in me chafes at "inflation" - if the universe is "everything that exists", into "what" exactly is it expanding???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
