Remember me
▼ Content

10 Reasons To Prove That Climate Change is a Hoax



Page 2 of 3<123>
31-01-2021 17:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2021 17:18
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


No one except you even disputes glacial moraines so you are in your own poker game with no other players yelling at make believe people.

31-01-2021 17:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:No one except you even disputes glacial moraines

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2021 18:07
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:No one except you even disputes glacial moraines

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


So you are denying that the last ice age happened.

Yawn
Edited on 31-01-2021 18:09
31-01-2021 18:48
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3189)
We haven't been around, for millions of years, communicating, writing, recording, measuring. That only started, maybe a few thousand years ago, even that's a guess. Science theory, often makes for great science fiction, both are the imagination of the writer. Both strive to figure out how an idea could work, and still be believable, could actually happen. Anything you can't observe and measure, repeatedly, is faith-based science, fiction. It's a guess, imagination, religion. You believe it's true, until you find out differently, or somebody else dreams up something you like better.

The estimate, for how much global warming we've had, since mankind started burning 'stuff', industrially, is 1-2 degrees Celsius. This is kept within a huge margin of error, for the measurements, and data sets available. Climate change, follows the rules, to keep it acceptable among scientists, even though it's exploitative, garbage science, it still falls within the excepted standards. Science is objective, you aren't allow to inject your subject opinion of other scientist's work, if you aren't prepared to back it up.
31-01-2021 18:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:No one except you even disputes glacial moraines
LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

So you are denying that the last ice age happened. Yawn

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2021 20:05
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:No one except you even disputes glacial moraines
LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

So you are denying that the last ice age happened. Yawn

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


Do you believe that the general population knows what tmiddles means?

Is your World fun?
31-01-2021 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


No one except you even disputes glacial moraines so you are in your own poker game with no other players yelling at make believe people.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. You do not get to speak for everyone. You are not God.

IBD does not stand alone.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
31-01-2021 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:No one except you even disputes glacial moraines
LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

So you are denying that the last ice age happened. Yawn

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


Do you believe that the general population knows what tmiddles means?

Is your World fun?

Tmiddles doesn't know what tmiddles means. He has managed to accumulate quite a few paradoxes while here, and refuses to answer basic questions put to him.

The population here on this forum generally know what tmiddles is. He likes to claim he 'knows' all kinds of crazy shit, that no one else knows, that he says everybody knows, and he is constantly denying science and mathematics to do it. He likes to create irrelevant contrivances to 'prove' his points.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 31-01-2021 23:23
01-02-2021 01:36
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:No one except you even disputes glacial moraines
LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

So you are denying that the last ice age happened. Yawn

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to me a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you lots of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


Do you believe that the general population knows what tmiddles means?

Is your World fun?

Tmiddles doesn't know what tmiddles means. He has managed to accumulate quite a few paradoxes while here, and refuses to answer basic questions put to him.

The population here on this forum generally know what tmiddles is. He likes to claim he 'knows' all kinds of crazy shit, that no one else knows, that he says everybody knows, and he is constantly denying science and mathematics to do it. He likes to create irrelevant contrivances to 'prove' his points.


So you are tmiddles

Now I understand
01-02-2021 01:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:So you are tmiddles
Now I understand

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to Into the Night a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you your premise of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2021 01:53
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:So you are tmiddles
Now I understand

LOL You are pulling a tmiddles and pretending to assign to Into the Night a bogus position for you to attack since you can't defend your own WACKY beliefs.

LOL I granted you your premise of ice having existed in all those area. You still have not shown why any rational adult should believe that the entire northern hemisphere was somehow under ice all at the same time as opposed to only individual localized regions being under ice at any given time, like say Greenland but not neighboring Iceland.

Crickets LOL

.


I never said that the entire northern hemisphere was under ice, if it was then there would not be glacial moraines where the ice stopped. I even provided a map

01-02-2021 04:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote: I never said ...

Sorry, you lose. You REFUSED to define unambiguously what you mean by "ice age" therefore you mean whatever others infer from what you post.

If you'd care to correct this oversight on your part then please do so ... and include your rational basis for believing that all of it was under ice at the same time.

The concern you need to address is that today we have Greenland that is buried under ice with neighboring Iceland *not* buried under ice. Ergo, there is no reason to assume that at any point in earth's history that if there was some place buried in ice that a neighboring location must therefore have been buried under ice as well. Once again, Iceland is not buried under a kilometer of ice; it is not somehow required to be just because Greenland *is* buried under ice.

Define away.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2021 07:04
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1015)
I am Tmiddles and so is my wife
01-02-2021 08:39
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1015)
Surtsey is a volcanic island located in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63.303°N 20.605°W, Surtsey is the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963.I already knew about this little sweety
01-02-2021 10:10
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago. I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.


Yawn
01-02-2021 16:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.

How do you know? Now you are suddenly claiming that ice covered MORE than just the United States???
Swan wrote:
I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

You keep claiming different things. Apparently all of them are part of your religion.
Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.

How do you know. It is not your Earth. You don't own Earth. You are not God. You say dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million year ago. How do you know? What about the American alligator? What about the komodo dragon? What about any lizard or bird out there?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 01-02-2021 16:36
01-02-2021 17:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
The close happens when you accept that the ice age of 20000 years ago both started and ended because of climate change and that climate change is still happening now, as it always has been

I explained that the primordial Earth had no climate and that the climate had to form and that this requires change. Not sure why reality is null and void to you

Continued fundamentalist chanting dismissed on sight.


LOL science is not fundamentalist religion,

Correct, but there has been no science in your posts. You've just been endlessly chanting your religious mantras.

Swan wrote:
you have to dismiss both and science and reality to live in your little World of fiction where cartoons rule

Define 'science'. Define 'reality'. You obviously have no clue what either one of them are...

Swan wrote:
Adults denying that there was an ice age so they can live in fantasy are sad

My underlying point in these exchanges with you is STILL flying right over your head, I see... I'll try it again... Adults denying that Noah's Flood occurred so they can live in fantasy are sad. Catch my drift now?

Swan wrote:
Very sad

Very sad indeed.

Swan wrote:
So make sure you do exactly what you are told



Swan wrote:
I bought Google and Apple and Netflix

I don't believe you.

Swan wrote:
What did you buy other than nonsense

The "nonsense" in our exchanges is not mine...
01-02-2021 17:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
LOL so in your opinion the Earth is or is not undergoing climate change depending on what I define here to you.

Sorry kid, just not true, but you keep trying.

Are you always so triggered, or are you just my friend?

You have not defined 'climate change', so there is nothing to have "an opinion" on with regard to it... It is simply a meaningless buzzword, and can be dismissed at the outset as such.

Define 'climate change'.
01-02-2021 17:35
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote: LOL

Lighten up a bit. You don't have to be so serious all the time.


.

Yawn?

Yawn.

LOL
01-02-2021 18:05
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
duncan61 wrote:
I have read this thread a few times and can not see why Swan is being given such a hard time.

Swan is being given a hard time for matters that extend beyond the confines of this particular thread. Additionally, much of what he is posting is erroneous.

duncan61 wrote:
F off with your define this and that do it yourselves.

No. The user of the word is the one who is making the argument. That person thus needs to be able to define their own terminology, or else their terminology will be called out for the senseless babbling that it is.

duncan61 wrote:
When the term fossil fuel is used who does not know what is being referred too.

In English, the correct spelling is "to" (a preposition). The word "too" is an adverb and would be used to modify or qualify another word.

The term "fossil fuel", in English, would be referring to the use of some type of fossil as a fuel of some sort. While I can fairly safely assume what the other person is attempting to say when they use that terminology, their chosen terminology is still in error.

duncan61 wrote:
There was an ice age.

If that's your religious belief, then fine. If you are claiming that to be science, then you are a gullible moron.
01-02-2021 18:42
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3189)
So, if you know that the ice age ended 20,000 years ago.. How long did the ice age last? I like a warmer climate, part of the reason I moved to Florida. Wouldn't a little more of that global warming right now. Might go out and burn some tires or something, to help it along... It's only 63 F, and going on noon. Al Gore is a moron.
01-02-2021 18:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.

The Earth was in a global flood 4,369 yeats ago.

Swan wrote:
I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.

Remember that my Earth is 6,025 years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out a few thousand years earlier.

Swan wrote:
Yawn

Yawn
01-02-2021 20:28
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.

The Earth was in a global flood 4,369 yeats ago.

Swan wrote:
I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.

Remember that my Earth is 6,025 years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out a few thousand years earlier.

Swan wrote:
Yawn

Yawn


Yea and noah lived 950 years

Grow up
01-02-2021 21:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that you just threw a tantrum as you can not refute that the Earth both makes islands as I proved and that glacial moraines were made by glaciers.

LOL you apparently aren't smart enough to stay on topic.

LOL You are the one claiming an entire hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. LOL Why are you asking me to refute islands (red herring) instead of explaining why any rational adult should share your WACKY beliefs?

LOL

.


The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.

The Earth was in a global flood 4,369 yeats ago.

Swan wrote:
I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

I have no idea what you are claiming that I am claiming coincided with this because I have made no such claim.

So try again Sherlock.

Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.

Remember that my Earth is 6,025 years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out a few thousand years earlier.

Swan wrote:
Yawn

Yawn


Yea and noah lived 950 years

Grow up

Yea and Earth was in a global ice age 20000 years ago

Grow up
01-02-2021 22:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.
The Earth was in a global flood 4,369 yeats ago.

Major bonus points. For all those people who wonder "Where are all the young-earth Christians when you need one?" I say they should perhaps gravitate towards Climate-Debate just to hedge their bets.

gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.
Remember that my Earth is 6,025 years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out a few thousand years earlier.

gfm7175, I fully appreciate your "parallel structure" style (truly I do) but could either you or Swan explain how the dinosaurs were wiped out prior to the earth having formed?

anyway gfm7175, your account is being credited.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 01-02-2021 22:12
01-02-2021 23:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.
The Earth was in a global flood 4,369 yeats ago.

Major bonus points. For all those people who wonder "Where are all the young-earth Christians when you need one?" I say they should perhaps gravitate towards Climate-Debate just to hedge their bets.

Thank you.

I can play a young-earth Christian quite well because I once WAS a young-earth Christian... Nowadays, I don't hold any particular belief regarding the age of the Earth, nor do I try to prove/disprove any particular belief. I now stand along the sidelines in the "I don't know, nor do I really care" camp.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.
Remember that my Earth is 6,025 years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out a few thousand years earlier.

gfm7175, I fully appreciate your "parallel structure" style (truly I do) but could either you or Swan explain how the dinosaurs were wiped out prior to the earth having formed?

I did make notice of that particular issue while crafting my response, but I decided to keep true to the parallel structure rather than break away from it. Another issue, that ITN pointed out earlier, is with the wording "my Earth", as if Swan is somehow the owner and/or creator of the Earth.

I think that what Swan was trying to say was that dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years ago (rather than 66 million years prior to Earth's existence)... I, however, will not speak for Swan and will let Swan respond to you on that issue.

IBdaMann wrote:
anyway gfm7175, your account is being credited.

.

Even though I believe that Noah lived 950 years??!!??
02-02-2021 01:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
anyway gfm7175, your account is being credited.

Even though I believe that Noah lived 950 years??!!??

I don't mind beating up on warmizombies who like to trash Christian religious beliefs and who claim that their own WACKY religious beliefs are actually thettled thienth ...

... but it is so much more satisfying to force warmizombies to face the isomorphism of their beliefs and the Christian beliefs that they trash ... and then to trash their beliefs with their own words.

I am forever responding to warmizombies that Christians preach the same thing, but this is unsatisfying somewhat because I am effectively pretending to speak for others. If only I had a young-earth Christian on hand whenever I discussed Global Warming with a warmizombie, I would be content to remaining within the confines of that context, e.g. ...

This is why Swan refuses to answer why the Great Flood could not have happened yet sea level rise of 15 cubits and terrible extreme weather can.

This is why warmizombies bash on Christians for looking to God as a source of justice ... while they nonetheless proclaim that precipitation is Climate's tool for dispensing justice in cases of humanity's carbon sins and while they desperately pray to Climate for generic justice the world over.






Warmizombies will reassure all who will listen that their Climate Thienth is determined by a consensus process eerily similar to Vatican II. Warmizombies have adopted the Big Bang theory as their Creation account, and when asked how they know that the earth is warming they give the same answer Christians give when asked why they believe in God, i.e. "Just look around at the world," "There is no debate" and "All the smart people recognize the obvious."

Hey, when you're right, you're right ... it's just that warmizombies can't see the religious nature of their own beliefs and having a Christian handy to throw their own trash-talk back at them is very satisfying.



So the answer is "yes."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2021 02:07
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3189)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:The Earth was in a global ice age 20000 yeats ago.
The Earth was in a global flood 4,369 yeats ago.

Major bonus points. For all those people who wonder "Where are all the young-earth Christians when you need one?" I say they should perhaps gravitate towards Climate-Debate just to hedge their bets.

Thank you.

I can play a young-earth Christian quite well because I once WAS a young-earth Christian... Nowadays, I don't hold any particular belief regarding the age of the Earth, nor do I try to prove/disprove any particular belief. I now stand along the sidelines in the "I don't know, nor do I really care" camp.

IBdaMann wrote:

I'm no bible scholar, but Genisis sort of glosses over much of the stuff, and gets right into the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve (Steve, in the democrat bible). Doesn't really say how long it took to plant the garden, what all had lived there, or whether it ever all got ripped up, plowed under, and replanted. God wasn't opposed to major remodeling projects. Turned on the sprinklers, for forty days, and forty nights, to rinse away the democrat stain (must have missed a spot). The bible is about people, and how they can live peacefully. Pre-human isn't relevant. why waste paper.
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Remember that my Earth is 5 billion years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years earlier.
Remember that my Earth is 6,025 years old, and the dinosaurs were wiped out a few thousand years earlier.

gfm7175, I fully appreciate your "parallel structure" style (truly I do) but could either you or Swan explain how the dinosaurs were wiped out prior to the earth having formed?

I did make notice of that particular issue while crafting my response, but I decided to keep true to the parallel structure rather than break away from it. Another issue, that ITN pointed out earlier, is with the wording "my Earth", as if Swan is somehow the owner and/or creator of the Earth.

I think that what Swan was trying to say was that dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years ago (rather than 66 million years prior to Earth's existence)... I, however, will not speak for Swan and will let Swan respond to you on that issue.

IBdaMann wrote:
anyway gfm7175, your account is being credited.

.

Even though I believe that Noah lived 950 years??!!??
02-02-2021 02:37
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1015)
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I have read this thread a few times and can not see why Swan is being given such a hard time.

Swan is being given a hard time for matters that extend beyond the confines of this particular thread. Additionally, much of what he is posting is erroneous.

duncan61 wrote:
F off with your define this and that do it yourselves.

No. The user of the word is the one who is making the argument. That person thus needs to be able to define their own terminology, or else their terminology will be called out for the senseless babbling that it is.

duncan61 wrote:
When the term fossil fuel is used who does not know what is being referred too.

In English, the correct spelling is "to" (a preposition). The word "too" is an adverb and would be used to modify or qualify another word.

The term "fossil fuel", in English, would be referring to the use of some type of fossil as a fuel of some sort. While I can fairly safely assume what the other person is attempting to say when they use that terminology, their chosen terminology is still in error.

duncan61 wrote:
There was an ice age.

If that's your religious belief, then fine. If you are claiming that to be science, then you are a gullible moron.


If I search the term climate change I can get at least 10 definitions from different sources.Some are quite rational however nearly all of them end with mankind is changing it I will go find one

a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

That one is just not true and we have proved it this one is better

Climate variability and change
Climate variability includes all the variations in the climate that last longer than individual weather events, whereas the term climate change only refers to those variations that persist for a longer period of time, typically decades or more.

I became frustrated as I enjoy this site in the morning with my coffee before I go to do tasks and it is so repetitive to say define this and define that.If the term fossil fuel is used we all know what it means it is petty to infer we are trying to run transport on dinasour bones.


fossil fuel
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

I am happy with this definition.Now we have synthetic oil and all sorts of goodies.I am sure the first fuel was vegetable oil and it was used to power diesel type engines for static farm machinery


duncan61
02-02-2021 12:02
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1015)
I was wrong diesel powered the first diesel engine,Coal dust and peanut oil were tryed later
02-02-2021 16:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
duncan61 wrote: If I search the term climate change I can get at least 10 definitions from different sources.

If you search for the definition of "human soul" you will get ten different definitions from any ten different sources. That's how it is with any sort of religious vernacular like "Rapture" or "fossil fuel."

duncan61 wrote: Some are quite rational ...

... to those of that particular faith ... but they are entirely meaningless to those of us on the science side of the fence. If that's your religion then great. I'm an atheist and if you try preaching your faith to me pretending that it is somehow thettled thienth then I will mock the fuuúk out of you until the cows come home.

duncan61 wrote: ... we have proved it this one is better

Climate variability and change

Let the mocking begin.

Duncan, have you never heard of a circular definition? Is "Climate Change" really the best definition for Climate Change that you can find? What does that tell you?

duncan61 wrote:If the term fossil fuel is used we all know what it means

Nope. You are going back to repeating your same tired mantras that are just wrong. We have established that morons who use the term "fossil fuels" specifically DO NOT know what the fuuúkk they are talking about ... and we agreed to start with you. Please illustrate for us ...

duncan61 wrote: fossil fuel

a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

I am happy with this definition.

We have established that morons are happy with this defintion so Duncan, write it explicitly ... announce to everyone on this board that when you use the term "fossil fuels" that you are including hydrocarbons, i.e. petroleum and natural gas, and that you believe that they were formed from the remains of living organisms.

Say it. Say it ... clearly and unequivocally ... so that you can be properly mocked for not knowing what hydrocarbons are and thus NOT KNOWING what the fuuúkk you are talking about when you use the term "fossil fuels" ...

... and then we can move on to the next moron of your choice who uses the term "fossil fuel" and mock the scheeet out of him ... and then to the next and then the to next and so on, until we have covered the entire list.

... but you first. Get to it. Say it.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2021 17:52
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
anyway gfm7175, your account is being credited.

Even though I believe that Noah lived 950 years??!!??

I don't mind beating up on warmizombies who like to trash Christian religious beliefs and who claim that their own WACKY religious beliefs are actually thettled thienth ...

... but it is so much more satisfying to force warmizombies to face the isomorphism of their beliefs and the Christian beliefs that they trash ... and then to trash their beliefs with their own words.

Wholeheartedly agreed! I've had loads of fun with these exchanges with Swan.

IBdaMann wrote:
I am forever responding to warmizombies that Christians preach the same thing, but this is unsatisfying somewhat because I am effectively pretending to speak for others.

I understand the feeling, and that's why I get even more satisfaction out of it (since I myself am a Christian). I am more than glad to jump into a discussion where a Christian presence would be beneficial, and it seems that ITN is as well.

IBdaMann wrote:
If only I had a young-earth Christian on hand whenever I discussed Global Warming with a warmizombie, I would be content to remaining within the confines of that context, e.g. ...

I've run into a few young-earth Christians on the numerous forums that I've participated in. It's sometimes fun to get into discussions with them about their young-earth beliefs (if they are fundamentalists), especially if they start treating me as if I am not a Christian because I dared to object to their belief as being "what we know" and dared to offer up alternative beliefs.

Being a former young-earther myself, I am quite familiar with their argumentation and can still "play the part" whenever I get into any discussions with fundamentalist old-earthers who claim that the Earth being billions of years old is "what we know...


IBdaMann wrote:
Warmizombies have adopted the Big Bang theory as their Creation account, and when asked how they know that the earth is warming they give the same answer Christians give when asked why they believe in God, i.e. "Just look around at the world," "There is no debate" and "All the smart people recognize the obvious."

Hey, when you're right, you're right ... it's just that warmizombies can't see the religious nature of their own beliefs and having a Christian handy to throw their own trash-talk back at them is very satisfying.

So the answer is "yes."

.

Indeed, and I do get enjoyment out of slinging religious beliefs right back at them and watching them flop around on the shoreline, trying to justify their own religious beliefs while simultaneously trashing my religious beliefs, even though the bare bones logical framework of both religions is the same.

There was also something especially satisfying about reverting back to my former young-earther self for a moment. I think its because young-earthers generally aren't viewed much better than flat-earthers are viewed...
02-02-2021 18:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
duncan61 wrote:
If I search the term climate change I can get at least 10 definitions from different sources.Some are quite rational however nearly all of them end with mankind is changing it I will go find one

None of them are rational. The only rational definition I have seen is the definition for Climate that is contained in IBD's Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual

duncan61 wrote:
Climate Change:a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

That one is just not true and we have proved it this one is better

The problem with that definition isn't the "truth" or "falsehood" of it, but rather that it is a circular definition. It is attempting to define 'climate change' AS 'climate change'. It is saying that 'climate change' is "a change in climate". Whoever came up with that definition should be a meteorologist, since they are claiming that weather over a long period of time "has a pattern" and can thus be predicted. Current meteorologists can't even get a same day forecast correct sometimes, let alone a 3-day, 7-day, or 10-day forecast...

duncan61 wrote:
Climate variability and change
Climate variability includes all the variations in the climate that last longer than individual weather events, whereas the term climate change only refers to those variations that persist for a longer period of time, typically decades or more.

This definition has the same issue that the other one has... it is still attempting to define 'climate change' AS 'climate change'. It is still a circular definition.

If I were to tell you that a 'flubberpus' is a 'flubberpus', would that mean anything to you?

Rather, if I instead told you that a 'flubberpus' is a spiritual being who assists in the oversight of persistent acne judgments placed upon people for their hygiene and/or dietary sins, then that definition would at least hold meaning and be a valid definition, would it not?

Do you see the difference? Do you now understand why people such as ITN, IBD, and myself keep persistently asking warmizombies to define their terminology that they keep tossing around, as if it actually in any way held any sort of meaning?

duncan61 wrote:
I became frustrated as I enjoy this site in the morning with my coffee before I go to do tasks and it is so repetitive to say define this and define that.

It is also frustrating to repetitively see meaningless buzzwords thrown around and nobody ever properly defining the terminology that is mindlessly being thrown around.

duncan61 wrote:
If the term fossil fuel is used we all know what it means it is petty to infer we are trying to run transport on dinasour bones.

It is still inaccurate terminology nonetheless.

duncan61 wrote:
fossil fuel
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

I am happy with this definition.Now we have synthetic oil and all sorts of goodies.I am sure the first fuel was vegetable oil and it was used to power diesel type engines for static farm machinery

Why not just say 'natural fuel', or 'hydrocarbons', or something along those lines? Why use the word fossil?
Edited on 02-02-2021 18:27
02-02-2021 18:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
gfm7175 wrote: I've run into a few young-earth Christians on the numerous forums that I've participated in. It's sometimes fun to get into discussions with them about their young-earth beliefs (if they are fundamentalists),

Back in a bygone era, I did the same thing except I was somewhat more of an ashsole. I'm not proud of it and I grew out of it but the sticking point for me was what I perceived as the dishonest denial of geological processes that, in my opinion, OBVIOUSLY took vast amounts of time to occur. The young-earther angle was always that God made it in the manner that we are seeing it, with the appearance of age. The base reference was that Adam was created as an adult and therefore was created on day one with the appearance of age. That's when I usually became a jerk and turned the discussion to how we were all in agreement that Satan was the deceiver and that the deity being worshipped here is the one who intentionally constructed an elaborate facade to deceive all of humanity ... ergo they must be Satanists.

After a few years of doing this I wondered why I cared about who has what speculation about the past or for what religious reasons. Those people who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old aren't trying to ruin my life, they just want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The kicker is that despite whatever I might believe, they might be right and if I wish to carry the pretense that I am being honest I have to admit that. This includes admitting disclaimers that radiometric dating is also a matter of faith, despite my own faith that radiometric dating is reliable and, at a minimum, informative. The truth is that radiometric dating establishes the upper limit for how old something is, but theoretically it could be much younger, i.e. merely having the appearance of age.

So that's around the time that I decided to leverage young-earthers as my exemplar belief system to counter those who dogmatically insist on their own speculation of the past, who claim that their faith is "the truth, the light and the way" and who cite their religious signs and prophesies (proxy measures) to bash on any heathen who does not believe the thettled thienth.

*THEN* Global Warming burst onto the scene ... and guess who was totally prepared. You get three guesses.

Did I ever tell you my story, about how I became a warmizombie-slayer?

gfm7175 wrote: Indeed, and I do get enjoyment out of slinging religious beliefs right back at them and watching them flop around on the shoreline, trying to justify their own religious beliefs while simultaneously trashing my religious beliefs, even though the bare bones logical framework of both religions is the same.

My absolute favorite is sea level rise, insisted by those who claim that the Great Flood account is total fiction. Those warmizombies make life sooooo worth living.

gfm7175 wrote: There was also something especially satisfying about reverting back to my former young-earther self for a moment.

I totally understand. I have, on three occasions, played along with warmizombies who, for some strange reason, insisted that I was a fundamentalist Christian. Imagine a warmizombie intentionally trying to offend me by referring my God as a stupid Bronze-Age myth and by insisting that the earth is old. I literally had to pause the first time before responding because I was at a loss. I just decided to play along and the Great Flood account is awesome because I can use it to get warmizombies to declare that sea level rise of 15 cubits (27 feet) cannot happen by the end of the century and that there can't be any existential threat to humans from extreme weather. It's why Swan won't answer my question, for example.

Noah can have lived for a millenium as far as I care. Go Noah! I assure warmizombies that there will be no sea level rise and they can verify this simply by the existence of rainbows. God made a promise and I think God is a little more powerful than Climate so we can lay that one to rest. Coffin nailed shut. Refrigerator door is closed, the light is off and the butter is getting hard.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2021 22:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I've run into a few young-earth Christians on the numerous forums that I've participated in. It's sometimes fun to get into discussions with them about their young-earth beliefs (if they are fundamentalists),

Back in a bygone era, I did the same thing except I was somewhat more of an ashsole. I'm not proud of it and I grew out of it but the sticking point for me was what I perceived as the dishonest denial of geological processes that, in my opinion, OBVIOUSLY took vast amounts of time to occur. The young-earther angle was always that God made it in the manner that we are seeing it, with the appearance of age. The base reference was that Adam was created as an adult and therefore was created on day one with the appearance of age. That's when I usually became a jerk and turned the discussion to how we were all in agreement that Satan was the deceiver and that the deity being worshipped here is the one who intentionally constructed an elaborate facade to deceive all of humanity ... ergo they must be Satanists.

Hahahaha I see where you went with that. I find it funny now that I am no longer a young-earther (and no longer a fundamentalist-style Christian), but I wouldn't've found it at all funny back in such a bygone era...

So, it seems as if you, back in the day, realized the religious beliefs behind young earther views (but not of your own views) and I likewise realized the religious beliefs behind radiometric dating and old-earther views (but not of my own views). Thankfully, we both have since learned the errors of our ways.

You do have the young-earther angle down pretty good, as that is the sort of stuff that I used to fervently consider as "what we know". Young-earthers also generally believe that the Genesis creation account, when it speaks of "days", is referring to literal 24 hour time periods, and they will typically refer to Bishop Ussher's dating calculations (that are based on the genealogy information contained within the Bible, as well as assumptions about historical calendars and what not) to come up with the roughly 6,000 year old figure for Earth, the same that I purposely quoted to Swan to mirror his own religious beliefs. I figured that he wouldn't like to see religious claims of a 6,000 year old earth when he's fervently making religious claims about a 20,000-year-ago "glacial maximum" and a 5+ billion year old earth and that sort of stuff, acting as if it is "what we know".

IBdaMann wrote:
After a few years of doing this I wondered why I cared about who has what speculation about the past or for what religious reasons. Those people who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old aren't trying to ruin my life, they just want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The kicker is that despite whatever I might believe, they might be right and if I wish to carry the pretense that I am being honest I have to admit that. This includes admitting disclaimers that radiometric dating is also a matter of faith, despite my own faith that radiometric dating is reliable and, at a minimum, informative. The truth is that radiometric dating establishes the upper limit for how old something is, but theoretically it could be much younger, i.e. merely having the appearance of age.

Indeed, and I went through a similar experience myself, and have come to similar conclusions. The tiny difference between us here is that I do not share your faith that radiometric dating is reliable. I do find it to be somewhat informative, however, and I no longer "war against it". My position on this issue is now akin to your position on the existence of god(s) issue, as I happen to be without faith (either way).

What caused me to drop my young-earth faith was my then-newfound understanding that the mention of "day" in the Genesis creation account does not refer to literal 24 hour days, and instead refers to longer periods of time. Old-earth-believing Christians will obviously make use of that particular understanding of the Genesis creation account, but like I said earlier, I do not consider myself to be an "old-earther" Christian either.

IBdaMann wrote:
So that's around the time that I decided to leverage young-earthers as my exemplar belief system to counter those who dogmatically insist on their own speculation of the past, who claim that their faith is "the truth, the light and the way" and who cite their religious signs and prophesies (proxy measures) to bash on any heathen who does not believe the thettled thienth.

Bingo! And around the time of my "conversion" was when I started to counter the dogmatic folks from the young-earther club that I was once a part of. It's interesting to see all of the insults and/or particular labels that get hurled one's way when one dares to question a particular religious dogma... Plenty of people consider me to not be a Christian for one reason or another.

IBdaMann wrote:
*THEN* Global Warming burst onto the scene ... and guess who was totally prepared. You get three guesses.

Did I ever tell you my story, about how I became a warmizombie-slayer?

You slay them quite well! When Global Warming burst onto the scene, I knew in my heart that the warmizombie way was complete hogwash, but I didn't have the knowledge/understanding of relevant science to know precisely why that was (likely due to my fundamentalist young-earther Christian days when I was warring against "heathen" "science", not realizing that what I considered to be "heathen" "science" was actually just differing religious beliefs rather than being any sort of science.) I've since learned a bit about science and have acquired some knowledge of it and how it works, and now I can fend off warmizombies with that knowledge of science.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Indeed, and I do get enjoyment out of slinging religious beliefs right back at them and watching them flop around on the shoreline, trying to justify their own religious beliefs while simultaneously trashing my religious beliefs, even though the bare bones logical framework of both religions is the same.

My absolute favorite is sea level rise, insisted by those who claim that the Great Flood account is total fiction. Those warmizombies make life sooooo worth living.

ITN seems to enjoy that as well, from what I have gathered.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: There was also something especially satisfying about reverting back to my former young-earther self for a moment.

I totally understand. I have, on three occasions, played along with warmizombies who, for some strange reason, insisted that I was a fundamentalist Christian. Imagine a warmizombie intentionally trying to offend me by referring my God as a stupid Bronze-Age myth and by insisting that the earth is old. I literally had to pause the first time before responding because I was at a loss. I just decided to play along and the Great Flood account is awesome because I can use it to get warmizombies to declare that sea level rise of 15 cubits (27 feet) cannot happen by the end of the century and that there can't be any existential threat to humans from extreme weather. It's why Swan won't answer my question, for example.

Bingo.

IBdaMann wrote:
Noah can have lived for a millenium as far as I care. Go Noah! I assure warmizombies that there will be no sea level rise and they can verify this simply by the existence of rainbows. God made a promise and I think God is a little more powerful than Climate so we can lay that one to rest. Coffin nailed shut. Refrigerator door is closed, the light is off and the butter is getting hard.

.

If there ever needed to be any evidence for why warmizombies have insisted that you are a fundamentalist Christian... look no further! You're now mentioning rainbows as being a symbol of God's promise to mankind... Heck, maybe I'LL start calling you a fundamentalist Christian now...

Edited on 02-02-2021 22:56
04-02-2021 19:51
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I've run into a few young-earth Christians on the numerous forums that I've participated in. It's sometimes fun to get into discussions with them about their young-earth beliefs (if they are fundamentalists),

Back in a bygone era, I did the same thing except I was somewhat more of an ashsole. I'm not proud of it and I grew out of it but the sticking point for me was what I perceived as the dishonest denial of geological processes that, in my opinion, OBVIOUSLY took vast amounts of time to occur. The young-earther angle was always that God made it in the manner that we are seeing it, with the appearance of age. The base reference was that Adam was created as an adult and therefore was created on day one with the appearance of age. That's when I usually became a jerk and turned the discussion to how we were all in agreement that Satan was the deceiver and that the deity being worshipped here is the one who intentionally constructed an elaborate facade to deceive all of humanity ... ergo they must be Satanists.

Hahahaha I see where you went with that. I find it funny now that I am no longer a young-earther (and no longer a fundamentalist-style Christian), but I wouldn't've found it at all funny back in such a bygone era...

So, it seems as if you, back in the day, realized the religious beliefs behind young earther views (but not of your own views) and I likewise realized the religious beliefs behind radiometric dating and old-earther views (but not of my own views). Thankfully, we both have since learned the errors of our ways.

You do have the young-earther angle down pretty good, as that is the sort of stuff that I used to fervently consider as "what we know". Young-earthers also generally believe that the Genesis creation account, when it speaks of "days", is referring to literal 24 hour time periods, and they will typically refer to Bishop Ussher's dating calculations (that are based on the genealogy information contained within the Bible, as well as assumptions about historical calendars and what not) to come up with the roughly 6,000 year old figure for Earth, the same that I purposely quoted to Swan to mirror his own religious beliefs. I figured that he wouldn't like to see religious claims of a 6,000 year old earth when he's fervently making religious claims about a 20,000-year-ago "glacial maximum" and a 5+ billion year old earth and that sort of stuff, acting as if it is "what we know".

IBdaMann wrote:
After a few years of doing this I wondered why I cared about who has what speculation about the past or for what religious reasons. Those people who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old aren't trying to ruin my life, they just want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The kicker is that despite whatever I might believe, they might be right and if I wish to carry the pretense that I am being honest I have to admit that. This includes admitting disclaimers that radiometric dating is also a matter of faith, despite my own faith that radiometric dating is reliable and, at a minimum, informative. The truth is that radiometric dating establishes the upper limit for how old something is, but theoretically it could be much younger, i.e. merely having the appearance of age.

Indeed, and I went through a similar experience myself, and have come to similar conclusions. The tiny difference between us here is that I do not share your faith that radiometric dating is reliable. I do find it to be somewhat informative, however, and I no longer "war against it". My position on this issue is now akin to your position on the existence of god(s) issue, as I happen to be without faith (either way).

What caused me to drop my young-earth faith was my then-newfound understanding that the mention of "day" in the Genesis creation account does not refer to literal 24 hour days, and instead refers to longer periods of time. Old-earth-believing Christians will obviously make use of that particular understanding of the Genesis creation account, but like I said earlier, I do not consider myself to be an "old-earther" Christian either.

IBdaMann wrote:
So that's around the time that I decided to leverage young-earthers as my exemplar belief system to counter those who dogmatically insist on their own speculation of the past, who claim that their faith is "the truth, the light and the way" and who cite their religious signs and prophesies (proxy measures) to bash on any heathen who does not believe the thettled thienth.

Bingo! And around the time of my "conversion" was when I started to counter the dogmatic folks from the young-earther club that I was once a part of. It's interesting to see all of the insults and/or particular labels that get hurled one's way when one dares to question a particular religious dogma... Plenty of people consider me to not be a Christian for one reason or another.

IBdaMann wrote:
*THEN* Global Warming burst onto the scene ... and guess who was totally prepared. You get three guesses.

Did I ever tell you my story, about how I became a warmizombie-slayer?

You slay them quite well! When Global Warming burst onto the scene, I knew in my heart that the warmizombie way was complete hogwash, but I didn't have the knowledge/understanding of relevant science to know precisely why that was (likely due to my fundamentalist young-earther Christian days when I was warring against "heathen" "science", not realizing that what I considered to be "heathen" "science" was actually just differing religious beliefs rather than being any sort of science.) I've since learned a bit about science and have acquired some knowledge of it and how it works, and now I can fend off warmizombies with that knowledge of science.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Indeed, and I do get enjoyment out of slinging religious beliefs right back at them and watching them flop around on the shoreline, trying to justify their own religious beliefs while simultaneously trashing my religious beliefs, even though the bare bones logical framework of both religions is the same.

My absolute favorite is sea level rise, insisted by those who claim that the Great Flood account is total fiction. Those warmizombies make life sooooo worth living.

ITN seems to enjoy that as well, from what I have gathered.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: There was also something especially satisfying about reverting back to my former young-earther self for a moment.

I totally understand. I have, on three occasions, played along with warmizombies who, for some strange reason, insisted that I was a fundamentalist Christian. Imagine a warmizombie intentionally trying to offend me by referring my God as a stupid Bronze-Age myth and by insisting that the earth is old. I literally had to pause the first time before responding because I was at a loss. I just decided to play along and the Great Flood account is awesome because I can use it to get warmizombies to declare that sea level rise of 15 cubits (27 feet) cannot happen by the end of the century and that there can't be any existential threat to humans from extreme weather. It's why Swan won't answer my question, for example.

Bingo.

IBdaMann wrote:
Noah can have lived for a millenium as far as I care. Go Noah! I assure warmizombies that there will be no sea level rise and they can verify this simply by the existence of rainbows. God made a promise and I think God is a little more powerful than Climate so we can lay that one to rest. Coffin nailed shut. Refrigerator door is closed, the light is off and the butter is getting hard.

.

If there ever needed to be any evidence for why warmizombies have insisted that you are a fundamentalist Christian... look no further! You're now mentioning rainbows as being a symbol of God's promise to mankind... Heck, maybe I'LL start calling you a fundamentalist Christian now...


Triggered is not pretty
04-02-2021 22:16
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I've run into a few young-earth Christians on the numerous forums that I've participated in. It's sometimes fun to get into discussions with them about their young-earth beliefs (if they are fundamentalists),

Back in a bygone era, I did the same thing except I was somewhat more of an ashsole. I'm not proud of it and I grew out of it but the sticking point for me was what I perceived as the dishonest denial of geological processes that, in my opinion, OBVIOUSLY took vast amounts of time to occur. The young-earther angle was always that God made it in the manner that we are seeing it, with the appearance of age. The base reference was that Adam was created as an adult and therefore was created on day one with the appearance of age. That's when I usually became a jerk and turned the discussion to how we were all in agreement that Satan was the deceiver and that the deity being worshipped here is the one who intentionally constructed an elaborate facade to deceive all of humanity ... ergo they must be Satanists.

Hahahaha I see where you went with that. I find it funny now that I am no longer a young-earther (and no longer a fundamentalist-style Christian), but I wouldn't've found it at all funny back in such a bygone era...

So, it seems as if you, back in the day, realized the religious beliefs behind young earther views (but not of your own views) and I likewise realized the religious beliefs behind radiometric dating and old-earther views (but not of my own views). Thankfully, we both have since learned the errors of our ways.

You do have the young-earther angle down pretty good, as that is the sort of stuff that I used to fervently consider as "what we know". Young-earthers also generally believe that the Genesis creation account, when it speaks of "days", is referring to literal 24 hour time periods, and they will typically refer to Bishop Ussher's dating calculations (that are based on the genealogy information contained within the Bible, as well as assumptions about historical calendars and what not) to come up with the roughly 6,000 year old figure for Earth, the same that I purposely quoted to Swan to mirror his own religious beliefs. I figured that he wouldn't like to see religious claims of a 6,000 year old earth when he's fervently making religious claims about a 20,000-year-ago "glacial maximum" and a 5+ billion year old earth and that sort of stuff, acting as if it is "what we know".

IBdaMann wrote:
After a few years of doing this I wondered why I cared about who has what speculation about the past or for what religious reasons. Those people who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old aren't trying to ruin my life, they just want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The kicker is that despite whatever I might believe, they might be right and if I wish to carry the pretense that I am being honest I have to admit that. This includes admitting disclaimers that radiometric dating is also a matter of faith, despite my own faith that radiometric dating is reliable and, at a minimum, informative. The truth is that radiometric dating establishes the upper limit for how old something is, but theoretically it could be much younger, i.e. merely having the appearance of age.

Indeed, and I went through a similar experience myself, and have come to similar conclusions. The tiny difference between us here is that I do not share your faith that radiometric dating is reliable. I do find it to be somewhat informative, however, and I no longer "war against it". My position on this issue is now akin to your position on the existence of god(s) issue, as I happen to be without faith (either way).

What caused me to drop my young-earth faith was my then-newfound understanding that the mention of "day" in the Genesis creation account does not refer to literal 24 hour days, and instead refers to longer periods of time. Old-earth-believing Christians will obviously make use of that particular understanding of the Genesis creation account, but like I said earlier, I do not consider myself to be an "old-earther" Christian either.

IBdaMann wrote:
So that's around the time that I decided to leverage young-earthers as my exemplar belief system to counter those who dogmatically insist on their own speculation of the past, who claim that their faith is "the truth, the light and the way" and who cite their religious signs and prophesies (proxy measures) to bash on any heathen who does not believe the thettled thienth.

Bingo! And around the time of my "conversion" was when I started to counter the dogmatic folks from the young-earther club that I was once a part of. It's interesting to see all of the insults and/or particular labels that get hurled one's way when one dares to question a particular religious dogma... Plenty of people consider me to not be a Christian for one reason or another.

IBdaMann wrote:
*THEN* Global Warming burst onto the scene ... and guess who was totally prepared. You get three guesses.

Did I ever tell you my story, about how I became a warmizombie-slayer?

You slay them quite well! When Global Warming burst onto the scene, I knew in my heart that the warmizombie way was complete hogwash, but I didn't have the knowledge/understanding of relevant science to know precisely why that was (likely due to my fundamentalist young-earther Christian days when I was warring against "heathen" "science", not realizing that what I considered to be "heathen" "science" was actually just differing religious beliefs rather than being any sort of science.) I've since learned a bit about science and have acquired some knowledge of it and how it works, and now I can fend off warmizombies with that knowledge of science.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Indeed, and I do get enjoyment out of slinging religious beliefs right back at them and watching them flop around on the shoreline, trying to justify their own religious beliefs while simultaneously trashing my religious beliefs, even though the bare bones logical framework of both religions is the same.

My absolute favorite is sea level rise, insisted by those who claim that the Great Flood account is total fiction. Those warmizombies make life sooooo worth living.

ITN seems to enjoy that as well, from what I have gathered.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: There was also something especially satisfying about reverting back to my former young-earther self for a moment.

I totally understand. I have, on three occasions, played along with warmizombies who, for some strange reason, insisted that I was a fundamentalist Christian. Imagine a warmizombie intentionally trying to offend me by referring my God as a stupid Bronze-Age myth and by insisting that the earth is old. I literally had to pause the first time before responding because I was at a loss. I just decided to play along and the Great Flood account is awesome because I can use it to get warmizombies to declare that sea level rise of 15 cubits (27 feet) cannot happen by the end of the century and that there can't be any existential threat to humans from extreme weather. It's why Swan won't answer my question, for example.

Bingo.

IBdaMann wrote:
Noah can have lived for a millenium as far as I care. Go Noah! I assure warmizombies that there will be no sea level rise and they can verify this simply by the existence of rainbows. God made a promise and I think God is a little more powerful than Climate so we can lay that one to rest. Coffin nailed shut. Refrigerator door is closed, the light is off and the butter is getting hard.

.

If there ever needed to be any evidence for why warmizombies have insisted that you are a fundamentalist Christian... look no further! You're now mentioning rainbows as being a symbol of God's promise to mankind... Heck, maybe I'LL start calling you a fundamentalist Christian now...


Triggered is not pretty

Who is Triggered?? Beauty is subjective.
04-02-2021 22:47
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I've run into a few young-earth Christians on the numerous forums that I've participated in. It's sometimes fun to get into discussions with them about their young-earth beliefs (if they are fundamentalists),

Back in a bygone era, I did the same thing except I was somewhat more of an ashsole. I'm not proud of it and I grew out of it but the sticking point for me was what I perceived as the dishonest denial of geological processes that, in my opinion, OBVIOUSLY took vast amounts of time to occur. The young-earther angle was always that God made it in the manner that we are seeing it, with the appearance of age. The base reference was that Adam was created as an adult and therefore was created on day one with the appearance of age. That's when I usually became a jerk and turned the discussion to how we were all in agreement that Satan was the deceiver and that the deity being worshipped here is the one who intentionally constructed an elaborate facade to deceive all of humanity ... ergo they must be Satanists.

Hahahaha I see where you went with that. I find it funny now that I am no longer a young-earther (and no longer a fundamentalist-style Christian), but I wouldn't've found it at all funny back in such a bygone era...

So, it seems as if you, back in the day, realized the religious beliefs behind young earther views (but not of your own views) and I likewise realized the religious beliefs behind radiometric dating and old-earther views (but not of my own views). Thankfully, we both have since learned the errors of our ways.

You do have the young-earther angle down pretty good, as that is the sort of stuff that I used to fervently consider as "what we know". Young-earthers also generally believe that the Genesis creation account, when it speaks of "days", is referring to literal 24 hour time periods, and they will typically refer to Bishop Ussher's dating calculations (that are based on the genealogy information contained within the Bible, as well as assumptions about historical calendars and what not) to come up with the roughly 6,000 year old figure for Earth, the same that I purposely quoted to Swan to mirror his own religious beliefs. I figured that he wouldn't like to see religious claims of a 6,000 year old earth when he's fervently making religious claims about a 20,000-year-ago "glacial maximum" and a 5+ billion year old earth and that sort of stuff, acting as if it is "what we know".

IBdaMann wrote:
After a few years of doing this I wondered why I cared about who has what speculation about the past or for what religious reasons. Those people who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old aren't trying to ruin my life, they just want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The kicker is that despite whatever I might believe, they might be right and if I wish to carry the pretense that I am being honest I have to admit that. This includes admitting disclaimers that radiometric dating is also a matter of faith, despite my own faith that radiometric dating is reliable and, at a minimum, informative. The truth is that radiometric dating establishes the upper limit for how old something is, but theoretically it could be much younger, i.e. merely having the appearance of age.

Indeed, and I went through a similar experience myself, and have come to similar conclusions. The tiny difference between us here is that I do not share your faith that radiometric dating is reliable. I do find it to be somewhat informative, however, and I no longer "war against it". My position on this issue is now akin to your position on the existence of god(s) issue, as I happen to be without faith (either way).

What caused me to drop my young-earth faith was my then-newfound understanding that the mention of "day" in the Genesis creation account does not refer to literal 24 hour days, and instead refers to longer periods of time. Old-earth-believing Christians will obviously make use of that particular understanding of the Genesis creation account, but like I said earlier, I do not consider myself to be an "old-earther" Christian either.

IBdaMann wrote:
So that's around the time that I decided to leverage young-earthers as my exemplar belief system to counter those who dogmatically insist on their own speculation of the past, who claim that their faith is "the truth, the light and the way" and who cite their religious signs and prophesies (proxy measures) to bash on any heathen who does not believe the thettled thienth.

Bingo! And around the time of my "conversion" was when I started to counter the dogmatic folks from the young-earther club that I was once a part of. It's interesting to see all of the insults and/or particular labels that get hurled one's way when one dares to question a particular religious dogma... Plenty of people consider me to not be a Christian for one reason or another.

IBdaMann wrote:
*THEN* Global Warming burst onto the scene ... and guess who was totally prepared. You get three guesses.

Did I ever tell you my story, about how I became a warmizombie-slayer?

You slay them quite well! When Global Warming burst onto the scene, I knew in my heart that the warmizombie way was complete hogwash, but I didn't have the knowledge/understanding of relevant science to know precisely why that was (likely due to my fundamentalist young-earther Christian days when I was warring against "heathen" "science", not realizing that what I considered to be "heathen" "science" was actually just differing religious beliefs rather than being any sort of science.) I've since learned a bit about science and have acquired some knowledge of it and how it works, and now I can fend off warmizombies with that knowledge of science.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Indeed, and I do get enjoyment out of slinging religious beliefs right back at them and watching them flop around on the shoreline, trying to justify their own religious beliefs while simultaneously trashing my religious beliefs, even though the bare bones logical framework of both religions is the same.

My absolute favorite is sea level rise, insisted by those who claim that the Great Flood account is total fiction. Those warmizombies make life sooooo worth living.

ITN seems to enjoy that as well, from what I have gathered.

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: There was also something especially satisfying about reverting back to my former young-earther self for a moment.

I totally understand. I have, on three occasions, played along with warmizombies who, for some strange reason, insisted that I was a fundamentalist Christian. Imagine a warmizombie intentionally trying to offend me by referring my God as a stupid Bronze-Age myth and by insisting that the earth is old. I literally had to pause the first time before responding because I was at a loss. I just decided to play along and the Great Flood account is awesome because I can use it to get warmizombies to declare that sea level rise of 15 cubits (27 feet) cannot happen by the end of the century and that there can't be any existential threat to humans from extreme weather. It's why Swan won't answer my question, for example.

Bingo.

IBdaMann wrote:
Noah can have lived for a millenium as far as I care. Go Noah! I assure warmizombies that there will be no sea level rise and they can verify this simply by the existence of rainbows. God made a promise and I think God is a little more powerful than Climate so we can lay that one to rest. Coffin nailed shut. Refrigerator door is closed, the light is off and the butter is getting hard.

.

If there ever needed to be any evidence for why warmizombies have insisted that you are a fundamentalist Christian... look no further! You're now mentioning rainbows as being a symbol of God's promise to mankind... Heck, maybe I'LL start calling you a fundamentalist Christian now...


Triggered is not pretty

Who is Triggered?? Beauty is subjective.


I love triggered aholes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs&t=1s
04-02-2021 22:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:I love triggered aholes

You'd have a blast at YAP then.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate 10 Reasons To Prove That Climate Change is a Hoax:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The SETI Hoax2028-12-2020 12:00
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
Brandolini's Law- Applicable to Climate Change Hoax028-06-2020 15:26
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
Best place to live in Europe( could also recommend some other place) for health reasons?1901-01-2020 10:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact