Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Climate Change in Action

I want everyone to lock the findings of this article in your brain. In about 20 - 30 years, let's revisit what it says and see what we find.

I have seen many articles over the last few months like this. Although they are never reported by the mainstream channels. The general tone is this: "scientists are amazed at something going on outside of our atmosphere", "these things haven't happened in a long time...when the earth was cooler", but "this will not change the warming affect that man has caused on the earth."

They present evidence that these events could lead to a cooler earth, then proceed to say that it has nothing to do with the cooler earth because they are automatically assuming that man has caused this carbon induced warming.

There is a lot of evidence out there that our globe could be affected by the sun, yet we are constantly told that there is no meaningful correlation. Only burning fossil fuels can cause such global catastrophe's. Carbon dioxide is the problem. We can't breath out without polluting the earth.

This is the perfect example of how this "science" and the legislating of laws based on fear-mongering from one side of the story promotes the idea that there is no god. The liberal-progressive-Darwinian science that everyone is taught to believe requires there be no god.

If there is a god, would he design us so that we pollute the earth when we breath out?

The science is far from settled on this "climate change" front. The scary part is that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has promised that climate change legislation (cap and trade) will be done by the end of the year. Taxes and Energy prices are going up if this happens. The rich aren't the ones that will stand by and let the government take all their money. It will be the lower and middle class that pay this bill. I would be happy for someone to show me how this will not be the case.

Let's have an honest debate about what we really know about the climate and how its temperature can be affected. Assuming that we know all we're going to know and cease all debate is a scary proposition. I guess this explains the need for quick action. If we don't act quickly, we might not have a problem to address.


  1. I guess I'll start the debate on this one. I studied this a lot in college, in Kansas, where evolution is not taught at public institutions. I had an excellent professor, who introduced us to both sides of the argument and let us make our own conclusions.
    I really hate that the issue of climate change has taken on the description of "fear-mongering." I'm sure it came about after Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." After that, global warming became liberal fearmongering propoganda.
    I admit that parts of that movie were far fetched, but movie served its primary purpose, which was to raise awareness of the potential problems we face on this earth.
    The biggest evidence of global climate change, in my opinion is just the sheer amount of human beings that popluate the earth. BILLIONS of people, who need food, water and shelter as a basic need. Then I think of the millions, perhaps billions of cars that are driven every day, as well as the physical changes humans have made to the very surface of the earth. Rationally thinking, I find it hard to belive that with all these changes in such a short period of time, how can we NOT be affecting the global climate?
    Now comes the scientific part. I began reading all kinds of articles for and against global warming. In class, we studied the intimate details of different studies including how the research was conducted, data used (or left out), and the funding for the study. The more of this we did, the more I believed that global climate change is real.
    The article you linked was interesting, but one part struck out at me:

    "In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice age".
    This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change."

    Perhaps the solar cycles do offset the impacts that humans have on the earth, but it doesn't make them go away. Would the earth's climate be different if the sun didn't have its cycles? Perhaps we are really lucky that it does...
    What I really wonder is this: regardless of whether global warming is real or not, why is it such a big deal to try to protect our planet? Is it just another excuse for the government to restrict and regulate more of our lives?
    Say that global warming was proven without a doubt to not exist. Would we then remove all of our emission standards and allow cars and factories to pollute at will? Would we scrap our hybrid cars and drill away? Would we do away with recycling and allow national forests and wildlife refuges to be pilfered for natural resources?
    I know that the above is not what you are suggesting...I just feel that this is one way where government intervention is definitely a good idea. We need to protect our planet. Period.
    I'll leave you with's not super detailed but gets pretty informative as you go on.


  2. I agree that we are commanded to take care of God's creation. But taking care of the planet has turned into something being used to create fear. God knew when he created this earth just exactly how many people would populate it in 2009. He knows how many people will populate the earth in 2109. None of these discoveries are news to God.
    I don't know what else to say...or rather how to say it. So that's all I'll say!

  3. Thanks for the replies.

    I sort of jumped the gun with the next post and spurred the debate along further without letting this set in.

    Many things go through my mind in regards to this debate. Here are some random thoughts.
    - Everything comes from the earth, humans, trees, skyscrapers, oil, cars. All were developed using resources of the earth.
    - If I assume for a moment that glaboal warming is mandmade, with billions of people and cars, wouldn't it be important for our earth to warm so that we can expand and live on more of the land. Think of all the frozen land in Alaska that could support life if it thawed out.
    - What if warmer climates cause greenhouse gases to be more prevelant? If true, we are blaming the cause on the symptoms. Someone probably has a real answer to this question.

    Blaming the warming people is concerning to me. It explains why abortion is so popular with many environmentalists as well. Should be just kill off half of the people so we can save the planet? Why have a planet if there are no people on it? This is another example of what assumptions drive our science...God or no God.

    Looking at the NASA link that was included above. I am very skeptical. The climate will always be in a state of change, so should we create lasting laws and sweeping changes based on something that has always and will always change. On top of data that shows much cooler periods in the past, there is data that shows much warmer periods as well, when no cars and trains existed...heck before people existed if evolution is our backdrop.

    The assumptions behind all the scientific data can be misleading, it all leads back to creation vs. evolution.

    I don't know what to say about scrapping the hybrod cars and drilling away. For those pushing emissions standards and hybrid cars, and no burning of fossil fuels, when does it end? We have been improving these things for the last 50 years and the last 50 years were getting warmer. Things have been cooling down for the last couple years, but does the issue is constantly pushed with false data. We hear reports about large chunks of ice falling of of antarctica, but don't hear the reports about how the rest of the continental ice is getting thicker.

    I think there are quality of life reasons to not pollute, I think we should constantly look for better energy alternative which is what we have done over the last 100 years. I also think there are economical reasons behind the "green" movement that are good for everyone as well. But to say that we will destroy the earth? My next post hit on this idea.

    I don't want to argue that polution is good, I can't see any benefit. But "science", after being routed through politicians, media, and anyone with an agenda is decieving and covering the real story.

    This is a great discussion to have and I appreciate any input. I really do want to hear the alternatives to my views, how else can I sharpen and hone them.

  4. Andrew,
    First of all, I just want to make it clear that I am totally and 100% against abortion, despite my views on the environment. I think it's a pretty big assumption to link environmentalists with pro-abortion. Did I say anywhere that killing babies was a good solution to global warming? I want to help planet without wanting to kill babies. Sorry, that just struck on a personal note. I have been accused before of being a hypocrite for having both the religious convictions as well as the political views I have. My biggest belief is in seperating the two, as our country was founded on.
    You have quoted him many times before so I will as well...Thomas Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
    Anyway, church and state is a whole different debate.
    On the same token with abortion, I am NOT suggesting that we kill half the humans on the planet in order to save it! I have honestly in my life never heard anybody suggest that. However, I think that if all 6 billion of us started caring just a little, we could make a BIG impact on the damage we do to the earth.
    Are you really suggesting that we should just let Alaska thaw for development? God created this planet for humans to rule. Yes, I agree. But I'm not sure that included ripping down all the trees and plants He created to put up skyscrapers. How will we see the beauty of the earth God created if it is completely covered in skyscrapers and development? What is the point of having a planet covered in buildings and pollution, if you can not experience the natural beauty of what God created? I do not look at Denver and think "wow, God created all of this!" However, when I am standing on top of a mountain in the fresh air with pine trees all around me, I think "Wow, God created this!" It's such an indescribable feeling...I want my kids and grandkids to have it too and really appreciate what God has done.
    Indeed, the climate has always been in a state of change. I am not trying to deny that! What alarms me is that global climate temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions have never increased at the rate they are currently, I just don't think it's a coincidence that it is happening simulatenously. Ice core studies that date temperature and carbon emmissions on the earth go back 650,000 years show this. They also show that the earth cools and warms in cycles.
    I don't mean to be a liberal fearmongerer. But if science is so evil, then why is it OK for scientists to prove that there ISN'T global warming, but it's not OK to suggest that there is?
    The media is another thing, and who really can disagree that they blow things out of proportion? Actually, wouldn't we expect anti-global warming tyraids in the media, now that liberal venues are dissapearing?
    Again, I'm not suggesting anything radical. It's not like we can really change much anyway, wheter or not global warming is real. Even if everyone just stopped driving cars today and factories stopped emitting CO2, it would take decades to see the impact. I'm just saying that we can all benefit if everyone became a little more environmentally conscious. This way, maybe our future gereations can still take in the beauty of the earth as we can. We should not take that feeling from them.

  5. Interesting debate. Yes, the earth was created for our and use and other creatures use, that is its purpose, however, using God as omnipotent is an interesting way to skirt the many, very real, environmental issues facing the world. The extent to which climate change exists in addition to what exactly alters the climate is debatable. So, I’ll put that aside for a moment. You don’t have to look far to find pollution and degradation of the environment, the problem is that here in the wealthy North, we largely don’t see it or experience its impact. (To be sure, there are pockets of the US where the environment is in bad shape due to unclean industry, coal mining etc., but not to the same extent.) It is externalized to other countries – poor, third world countries. To say that God knew how many people would be here and therefore created an earth capable of meeting all of their needs is a nice, neat little way out of really addressing the issues at hand. It effectively shrinks our responsibilities and limits our free will. Yes, God, knew what was going to happen, just like she knew you were going to steal a cookie, cheat on a test, or smack your sibling when your mom turned her back, but that doesn’t make it right or absolve you of your responsibility. I believe we have a nifty little thing called free will, do we not? The way we live in the North directly infringes on the livelihood of others. If you believe this and follow it to its logical conclusion it leads to the interesting question of “at what point does excessive consumption become a sin?” I once did a paper comparing John Locke’s Treatise on Government (I think?) and a book (can’t remember the name right now) outlining the current degradation and future disasters caused by our current rates consumptions. Locke proposes that the earth is for mans’ consumption and he has a right to the earth’s bounty. Man fixes his rights to the earth’s materials through his own labor. However, he binds this argument by saying that man should only utilize so much as he needs as to not create waste and his consumption should not infringe on his neighbors natural right to create his own livelihood. So the important question is not whether or not climate change exists, but how do my consumption habits impact my neighbor?

  6. Laura,

    No, you have not said anything that would suggest killing babies is good for the environment or any other purpose. I am sorry if I suggested that you have, that is unfair.

    I have a picture of the typical "liberal progressive" in my mind and I challenge that mindset, not you. ONE example is a comment that Nancy Pelosi made about how giving "stimulus" money for contraceptives would help the economy by reducing the population.

    "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." -Nancy Pelosi

    There are many in our government who are very extreme in areas, particularly abortion. Obama has also fought for the right to kill a baby if it accidentally survives an abortion. The philosophy behind these decisions is the part I really want to examine.

    Examining our assumptions behind our convictions will lead to many realizations. If evolution is the backdrop, then yes, letting Alaska, with the rest of the globe, thaw out is the logical choice. Survival of the fittest. Who are we to decide who lives and dies? I personally don't agree with that sentiment.

    Church and State is the debate in my mind. By telling us that global warming is man-made, based on science which assumes there is no god, then creating laws which do pick our pockets and tell us how to live. Our government IS telling us that there is no god and we should live by mans law. This is a stretch to some, but not to me.

    This is why life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be the ultimate goal. A conservative government as our founders intended would allow for the people to pursue whatever goal they wanted, be it environmental or not.

    The word "conservative" has been painted to mean that it is OK to put up a skyscraper in place of every tree and that the environment does not matter, but this is false. I agree that we need to care for the environment that God has given us. I just believe that we should each be given the freedom to choose, instead of having the government force these views upon us through taxation and control.

    I love your long and thoughtful comments. Much of what I say is not directed at you or anyone else, simply a philosophy that I see throughout our leaders.

    I do want to challenge you on one thing though.... You mentioned that we can see ice core samples going back 650,000 years. This is the perfect example of the role our assumptions play. Under my assumptions, the earth cannot even be close to 650,000 years old. So I cannot accept these numbers. These numbers come from the assumption that we evolved from bacteria over billions of years. They can only exist if there is no God, which would then again suggest that we are being told what to believe. Would you agree that by using the figure of 650,000 years, that we assume evolution is at work here? If so, how do you reconcile that with the idea that natural selection is at work (which to me implies that global warming is simply natures way of weeding out the weak)? You can disagree with the implcation above as well.

    Thanks for discussing this stuff with me. I am glad to understand more about where you are coming from.

  7. Andrew--One of the first farm forums that I attended at K-State when I first started farming in the mid 70's included an environmental scientist who told the group that by year 2000 the world would be starving and farmers would not be able to keep up with world demand for food. He said prices for commodities like wheat, corn, and soybeans would be 10 times what it was back in the 70's. Guess what? Commodity prices are pretty identical to what they were back then. The only way farmers have made any money to stay in existence was to increase efficiency and increase their production. We still have an oversupply of food and I have to laugh whenever I here a doom and gloom environmentalist warn us about wearing out the ground. The best environmentalists in the world are farmers. By the way Laura, Manhattan must be behind the times, because in St. John in the early 70's my teacher taught evolution! Kurt

  8. I have no problems defending evolution. But I know that you will immediately think that that I can't possibly believe in God if I support evolution, and not be hypocritical. Check this out...and please don't write it off because of the title of the article. You may not agree, but you'll see where I'm coming from at least.

    I'm not really sure how an innocent debate about climate change got us here, but here we are. Evolution is NOT a religion. Yes, it interprets a couple parts of Genesis differently through some undeniable scientific observations. It explains a different time line for the earth and for humanity and differs from the literal interpretation offered in the Bible. The scientific evidence is indisputable that the earth is older than 6000 or even 650,000 years, though I realize the implications of that are colossal.
    Here's the thing... Evolution explains HOW the earth was created and how it has changed over 4.5 billion years. But it doesn't explain WHY. The Bible tells us that part. The above article quotes scientists explaining that the more they look into it, the more they are convinced that the "why" part has to be God. I do not believe that science proves that God does not exist. I believe it makes a stronger case in favor of God.
    The Catholic church has accepted evolution. Saint Augstine in fact commented on this long before the issue of evolution was being debated.

    Do you feel that Catholics have rejected God by accepting a different interpretation of Genesis?

    As for the natural selection implications, I don't think it is the earth or nature that is "weeding us out," rather it's humans weeding ourselves out by the carelessness with which we have treated the planet. But as Charlton Heston said, "The earth has survived for billions of years. It will continue to survive, with or without us."
    Here is my issue with the "freedom to choose," deregulation and the environment. Say you are the owner of an oil refinery and the new conservative government has just removed all regulations for emissions from your plant. Do you continue to keep paying extra to clean up your emissions and control production to make sure you are not responsible for creating too much smog? Or do you do away with that immediately so that you can refine and sell as much oil as possible and increase your profit?
    If national forests are released from government protection, where is the first place lumber companies are going to go to get cheap local lumber, and lots of it?
    Do you see where I am headed? We can't protect the environment by leaving it up to the freedom to choose. Without restrictions on emissions or protection for nature preserves, the choice will always be to destroy and pollute the earth for our profit, no matter how many good intentions we begin with. It's human nature. (No pun intended.)
    As for Pelosi, I think her comment was misinterpreted a bit. First of all, the contraceptive part of the stimulus bill was the first to go, so I'm not sure why it is still an issue. Second, I interpret her statement to say that emphasizing family planning through contraceptives could reduce the number of people dependent on government aid (as well as number of abortions), therefore easing the fiscal crunch in the states and making funds available for health and education.


    I believe Kansas' ban on teaching evolution didn't pass legislation until the 90's or early 2000's. I remember it being a big thing in high school. So it doesn't surprise me that you were taught evolution in St. John. I would bet it's not happening anymore.


  9. In the years 2000-2001 the conservatives had the majority in the state board of education and they required that the teaching of evolution was not to be part of any standardized testing, but it was up to the 305 school districts in Kansas whether to teach it or not. Liberals were in the majority from 2002-2003 and evolution was the accepted curriculum in Kansas schools. Conservatives then won the majority in the next election and evolution and creation were allowed to be taught in 2004 and 05. The liberals have been in the majority since the 2006 election and evolution is the standard now. It's been going back and forth so much we've become the brunt of a lot of jokes. I guess you would have graduated during that first time period. Kurt

  10. "I agree that we are commanded to take care of God's creation. But taking care of the planet has turned into something being used to create fear. God knew when he created this earth just exactly how many people would populate it in 2009. He knows how many people will populate the earth in 2109. None of these discoveries are news to God.
    I don't know what else to say...or rather how to say it. So that's all I'll say!" -Jennifer

    Environmentalists, enraged at the possibility of an impending doom that could lie just over the horizon, are being called "fearmongerers". Instead of fearing the doom, they say, we should do nothing because it is in God's hands.

    In the same way, Conservatives, enraged at the possiblity of an impending terrorist attack that could lie just over the horizon, are being called "fearmongerers" by Progressives who argue that terrorism happens anyway and is unpreventable- in God's hands.

    Who is correct, and who has a radical policy.
    I see a direct comparison.

    Also, to you who may wish to see my viewpoints on the subject, I am announcing here to opening of my blog, "The New Deal" which can be found below. The second post is regarding this very topic.

    -Brennan Walter

  11. Brennan, I just saw your post here. I am having trouble keeping up with all these posts, but I will.

    Bear with me everyone who may be reading. Right or wrong, I have much to say.

  12. Laura,

    I will respond to the evolution debate now, there is too much to write in this small comment box, so I will split them up.

    I read the National Geographic article, and I understand what it says. When I read sentances like "One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution.", I find it hard to put much credibility into the document as a whole, because there is obvious bias.

    Science is about process, discovery...and assumptions. It saddens me that our "legitimate" scientists, who are seeking to explain the physical world around us, can get away with ignoring the assumptions they think less likely. Ben Stein's "Expelled" shows what "legitimate" science is all about. Everyone can be a scientist if all we have to do is rule out all the possibilities we don't think are probable, and then look for the solution.

    For instance, if we start with the idea that there is a God who created the earth, and we begin digging into the world around us, there is evidence that the stories about God COULD have happened. My friends at Answers In Genesis would probably label themselves "legitimate" scientists, and their findings show us how our world can fit in with Gods creation. There is nothing that disproves Gods creation in our world, unless of course we start with the assumption that there is no God.

    Evolution does exactly that, it starts with the assumption that there is no God. It answers the question, "how did we get here", but under the assumption that no intelligent being with supreme power of the universe decided we should be here.

    The part I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it, is how we take data from findings that assume there is no God and then stick God back into the equation to allow us to reconcile the "why". If we start with the assumption that there is no God, how can God be a factor at all?

    The indisputable scientific evidence that shows our earth is billions of years old starts with the assumption that there is no God. I find it very disputable, as do many scientists. It all comes back to our assumptions/presuppositions. If you start with God, you will never get the same answers that evolution provides.

    We are distorting Gods word if we start with the premise that there is no God, figure out how our species was created, then taking our finding and re-interpreting what Gods word says. If we can re-interpret part of Gods word, how can we trust any of it? If part of it is wrong, why believe any of it? National Geographic seems to suggest that we need to believe part of it to reconcile the holes in their science.

    I think the HOW and WHY will come together when the truth is found.

    I don't think Catholics have rejected God by accepting evolution, but I do think they are wrong. Perhaps that's why I'm not catholic.

  13. Brennan,
    My very first sentence says that we should take care of our planet. I wasn't implying that we should sit on our hands and ignorantly say "God is in control, we don't need to do anything." We have a responsibility to take care of it. I don't know you at all, but by your comments here, I would guess that we probably have differing views on God and His sovereignty.
    And I find it very hard to even compare the environment with terrorist.

  14. Brennan,

    You bring up an excellent point regarding the "fearmongering" argument. Our leaders all have an agenda, and this tactic has been used by issues that typically fall into conservative or progressive categories.

    I don't think you have framed the debate properly comparing environmentalism to conservatism. Conservatism, in general, fights for the limited role of government. For instance; National defense should always be a priority. The idea that we might not need some form of national defense is hardly debatable.

    The environmental concerns are much more subjective to world-view ideas, and data that we do not fully understand.

    We really don't have good evidence of man-made climate change.

    We do have good evidence that people around the world want to kill us.

    The use of "fearmongering" should probably not be used in either case, but it is because its effective. Neither side is correct in using fear to sell their ideas. But I would say that spending money on defense is much less radical than spending on unproven environmental restrictions.

    Jennifer's comment highlights the fact that we are coming from such different world-views that we might not understand what the other side is saying.

    That is why these debates are good and beneficial to everyone.

  15. Sam,

    I took too long to comment on your comment, but I do want to say a few things. Using God for a reason to not do something is not just "convenient" if it's true. That's about as convenient as Al Gore making millions of dollars by spreading half-truths about climate change. The "very real" issues are very debatable in my opinion. The issue itself is part fabrication on many fronts from the information I have seen. It changes constantly and the Al Gore's of the world have to change their position. God never changes.

    You make an interesting point about the correlation between wealth and pollution. It MIGHT be fair to say that wealthy nations pollute less. If so, why would anyone want to hurt our wealth creating capacity by the promotion of environmental causes? Cap and Trade would do just that.

    Interesting arguments.

  16. Andrew,
    I just found your additional comments. I really don't think I can provide much more argument from my end if the fact that a person who believes in evolution automatically equates to their non-belief in God. We are going to go in circles saying the same things back and forth.
    So I will end with this. The Bible tells us the story of creation. The earth itself tells us another story, and not just through some random "data," but through the actual observation of its physical elements and processes. A carbon decay test of a dinosaur fossil does not take away from the fact that God created such fascinating creatures, yet we know that dinsaurs existed 65 million years ago because of this test. Oil takes millions of years to form from shale, otherwise humans would be manufacturing it overnight if they could. A combination geological and chemical observations explain that process. It's not just random data.
    Medicine is a science. The scientists who make advancements in medicine use chemistry and physics and apply them to an intense study of the human body. Chemistry and phsyics are also used to study the physical properties and processes of the earth. The only difference is that chemistry and physics are applied the physical elements of the earth. Why does the suggestion of a 4 billion year old earth disprove the existence of God, but medicine does not? Same science, different application. However, medicine is not mentioned in the story of creation so we don't really think of it in the same light as evolution. How can we just pick and choose in which instances the same scientific principles are good or bad, righteous or evil?
    Just as you cannot accept the fact that the earth is "old," I cannot ignore the story that the earth itself tells us.I am not trying to say or prove that the Bible is wrong. Who am I to do so? I am not saying that Jesus didn’t exist or that he didn't die on the cross to save us. I just think Genesis 1 can have a different interpretation based on its literal words. There is no way that we humans, this earth and the creatures that populate it came to exist without the hand of God to create and guide us. God gave us our spirituality and created us in His image, this we know for sure. To say that accepting evolution is the same as denying the existence of God is untrue.

    And in response to your response to Sam, the top 3 polluters in the world are the U.S., Russia and China. The U.S. is also one of the wealthiest. If you are basing wealth on GDP, then of COURSE wealthy countries don't pollute as much...they don't have nearly as many people! Liechtenstein is the wealthiest country in the world by GDP. Its population is 34,761.


    Thanks for the background on Kansas' ban on evolution. What I was trying (unsucessfully) to get at was that I never really even considered what evolution was until college. Sure we learned about dinosaurs, rocks, plants, volcanos and weather in jr. high and high school, but when I was learning the basics about those things, I didn't even consider them as evolution, perhaps ingnorance on my part there. We went to mass on Fridays during grade school and junior high and learned the Bible's lessons there and during religion class. I guess I didn't even question or consider the contradiction until college.
    When we were delving into the deeper and more specific areas of science in college, the ban was in place, (at least off and on) and it somewhat limited the topics we covered. However, I'll admit that most of my professors assumed that the earth being 4 billion years old was commonly accepted, so I guess they erred against the legislation a bit and did in fact teach evolution. I am mistaken in that case.

  17. Laura,

    My response to Sam is assuming that her statement about wealth is true. Not sure or not. When environmentalists actually start sacrificing personal comfort and pleasure for their own cause, rather than just buying their way out of it with "carbon offsets" or taxing me to pay their salary, then I will start paying more attention to their cause and more strongly consider their positions.

    One thing you will find about me is that I can play the devils advocate in just about any scenario and I often do. I often fail to make it clear where I stand while I am challenging the philosophies of the people around me.

    Yes, the arguments circle back on themselves eventually. Important nonetheless. I think the earth does often contradict itself, and the history that we might only "believe" to be true.

    I think one important point that I have emphasized before is that accepting many of these theories as fact and legislating off of them is dangerous. Whether or not you agree with me, I along with many millions of people feel persecuted because "science" can only exist apart from religion, which is contrary to the evidence that we see. So it goes back to our constitution and the idea that we should be allowed certain freedoms. The conservative agenda allows for any belief system if it doesn't impede others', but the progressive agenda takes away these basic liberties gradually by promoting theroy as fact long enough until the majority believe it to be true.

    I am not a scientist, but the following article shows many signs that the earth has given us that suggest a much younger earth than evolutionists would claim. There is evidence through geology, physics, chemistry, etc... that also suggests a younger earth. To ignore all of it, rather than try to reconcile the differences would seem a dis-service to science itself.

    Don't get me started on medicine. :) I do think that many of it is distorted due to assumptions. If we start with the idea that God made a perfect body, then we would search for ways to allow it to work instead of manipulate its functions. I think ultimately, when things are done properly, side affects will cease to exist. The benefits of many modern medicines are undeniable though...but I can find a way if I want to. :)

    One of my favorite quotes about medicine comes from Thomas Edison: "The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest her or his patients in the care of the human frame, in a proper diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease."

    Thanks again for the discussions.

  18. Andrew,
    Thanks for your reply! This is getting to be quite a long debate! In your last reply, you said:
    "Whether or not you agree with me, I along with many millions of people feel persecuted because "science" can only exist apart from religion, which is contrary to the evidence that we see."
    You then pointed to toward the AiG website, which I had actually already been looking over a little.
    This website is dedicated to scientifically proving that God exists! How is that removing science and religion from each other? Is it then okay to use science to prove that God exists, while the same scientific principles are unacceptible if they lean toward evolution?
    I watched a couple segments of video about the Flood of Noah to educate myself. The presenter makes some notable interpretations of Genesis himself. For example, the Bible says that it rained 40 days and 40 nights. Then the presenter references one Hebrew paper which infers that it really rained all 150 days. The point being that 150 days is more believable when it comes to explaining a global catastrophic flood. I know that's not nearly as drastic as interpreting Genesis' creation story differently, but it is still not following the Bible exactly as it is written.
    I don't want to debate how many days it rained in the year 600. I'm just pointing out one of the many observations I had and that everyone interprets the Bible differently.
    I continue to stress that earth scientists are not making any assumptions either way about God when they study the earth. They look at the earth and present what they find as it is, unafficiated and completely seperate from religion. I know an answer to everything I have argued has been posted to a T on AiG. I read it all and felt like a completely predictable evolutionist after that. However, I understand how you can discredit Global warming based on the belief in a young earth. But please understand that "old earth" evidence tells a very different story, and it's not just a made up compilation of stuff by Al Gore to make money and instill fear in the people.
    I can see this is where we are going to have to part ways on this debate. I am done arguing evolution and we can't argue about climate change if we aren't considering the same time frame. As for myself, I will keep recycling, wear my socks made of recycled bottles :), and voice support for the protection of the environment.

  19. What I was trying to say was that science and religion can exist together. The common phrase among politicians and some scientists is that we must separate science from religion, which I disagree with.

    You are right that since we see the arguments within different frameworks, we will never agree on the subsequent issues. This allows me/us to move this discussion back into the political world. I'll get a new post out there eventually.

    One more question that comes to my mind...anyone can wiegh in on this.

    We have come to the place where we see that our assumptions about our origins affect our views and interpretations on the physical world around us, in this case Global Warming.

    Is it moral and right to create laws based on an issue like global warming, where the assumptions behind the issue vary greatly from one group of people to another, and are not considered FACT among the majortiy of people?

    Hopefully that question makes sense.

  20. Global warming aside, I'm still not sure why environmental protection laws are so controversial. Breathing clean air and drinking clean water are basic things that these laws provide. They are not taking away freedom, they are protecting our most very basic needs! It is not a moral issue to protect our needs, it is necessary!
    We could take away government protection of our "socialized" land (national, state and even city parks) and watch them be exploited and developed. Sure, it would increase revenue for the city, state and national government. But where would our kids play safely? Where would wildlife be relocated to if we continue to take away their refuge, or do we care?
    I am not saying cap and trade is the way to go. My jury is still out on that topic. :) But I don't agree that a free market would encourage lead to better environmental practices, especially when it comes to emissions and energy. As long as the oil companies have us in their back pocket, we will continue to be dependent on oil and nothing will change. Removing emission standards and water quality requirements would be a huge mistake.

  21. Andrew,

    I wasn't saying that wealthy nations pollute less, I was saying that they EXTERNALIZE their pollution.