[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian…
[/quote]
The hens on the first two pages would claim this is impossible.
[/quote]
You know, I find it a little curious that the people on this forum with advanced degrees (myself, Professor X, Steely, Aragorn) all seem to agree that God and science can coexist, but the ones who do not, don’t.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian…
[/quote]
The hens on the first two pages would claim this is impossible.
[/quote]
You know, I find it a little curious that the people on this forum with advanced degrees (myself, Professor X, Steely, Aragorn) all seem to agree that God and science can coexist, but the ones who do not, don’t.[/quote]
Yes, everyone without advanced degrees here is an atheist. Push is actually an atheist too, he’s just trying to buddy up with you ultra smarty types.
Push,
If Matt and other people here with advanced degrees are correct about isotope decay rated etc…
The young earth idea may be… off by just a little bit?
[quote]ranengin wrote:
Push,
If Matt and other people here with advanced degrees are correct about isotope decay rates etc…
The young earth idea may be… off by just a little bit?[/quote]
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian…
[/quote]
The hens on the first two pages would claim this is impossible.
[/quote]
You know, I find it a little curious that the people on this forum with advanced degrees (myself, Professor X, Steely, Aragorn) all seem to agree that God and science can coexist, but the ones who do not, don’t.[/quote]
Yes, everyone without advanced degrees here is an atheist. Push is actually an atheist too, he’s just trying to buddy up with you ultra smarty types.
[/quote]
I was referring to the people on both sides, not just the anti-religion groups.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
Push,
If Matt and other people here with advanced degrees are correct about isotope decay rated etc…
The young earth idea may be… off by just a little bit?[/quote]
You’ve been too busy snappin’ the bra straps on the girl sittin’ in front of you in class and not paying attention.
Get off your Sybian for a few minutes and go back and read the pertinent parts of the thread, honcho.[/quote]
I’ll take that as a yes.
You agree that the young earth idea is off by a billion or so years if the smarties are correct.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian…
[/quote]
The hens on the first two pages would claim this is impossible.
[/quote]
You know, I find it a little curious that the people on this forum with advanced degrees (myself, Professor X, Steely, Aragorn) all seem to agree that God and science can coexist, but the ones who do not, don’t.[/quote]
Yes, everyone without advanced degrees here is an atheist. Push is actually an atheist too, he’s just trying to buddy up with you ultra smarty types.
[/quote]
I was referring to the people on both sides, not just the anti-religion groups. [/quote]
No worries.
I was just ribbing you Matt.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
Push,
If Matt and other people here with advanced degrees are correct about isotope decay rated etc…
The young earth idea may be… off by just a little bit?[/quote]
You’ve been too busy snappin’ the bra straps on the girl sittin’ in front of you in class and not paying attention.
Get off your Sybian for a few minutes and go back and read the pertinent parts of the thread, honcho.[/quote]
I’ll take that as a yes.
You agree that the young earth idea is off by a billion or so years if the smarties are correct.
[/quote]
Well then your reading comprehension is off by a billion or so internet points because that’s not what I said. You’re so obsessed with playing the game of “Gotcha Push” that you’re failing to read all the posts.[/quote]
Your position seems to be that the majority of the advanced degree types are wrong about the age of the universe and your young earth beliefs are correct.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries. They haven’t quite got their god cards handed out to them just yet. In other words the omniscience thing is an elusive one for mere mortals.[/quote]
Yes I’m sure any day now scientists will find conclusive evidence that the universe is only 5,700 years old.
Then they’ll all get their “god cards” and throw a big party to celebrate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries.[/quote]
Hey, how’d that catastrophic “Global Cooling” in the 70’s work out for everyone?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries.[/quote]
Hey, how’d that catastrophic “Global Cooling” in the 70’s work out for everyone?
[/quote]
To be fair,the “Global Cooling” scare had more to do with sensationalist media claims then any actual scientific evidence or consensus. In fact, more then a few major publications and climatologists were beginning to predict an upward trend in global temperature.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries.[/quote]
Hey, how’d that catastrophic “Global Cooling” in the 70’s work out for everyone?
[/quote]
To be fair,the “Global Cooling” scare had more to do with sensationalist media claims then any actual scientific evidence or consensus. In fact, more then a few major publications and climatologists were beginning to predict an upward trend in global temperature.[/quote]
I imagine that would be the case after the fact.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries.[/quote]
Hey, how’d that catastrophic “Global Cooling” in the 70’s work out for everyone?
[/quote]
To be fair,the “Global Cooling” scare had more to do with sensationalist media claims then any actual scientific evidence or consensus. In fact, more then a few major publications and climatologists were beginning to predict an upward trend in global temperature.[/quote]
Oh, you mean a lot like anthropogenic global warming? 
It only takes a publication or two to unleash a shitstorm!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries.[/quote]
Hey, how’d that catastrophic “Global Cooling” in the 70’s work out for everyone?
[/quote]
To be fair,the “Global Cooling” scare had more to do with sensationalist media claims then any actual scientific evidence or consensus. In fact, more then a few major publications and climatologists were beginning to predict an upward trend in global temperature.[/quote]
I imagine that would be the case after the fact.[/quote]
An issue in 1959 that had an excellent article on a general increase in CO2 and global (not necessarily linked) temperature from 1850 to 2000.
“Science Past from the issue of May 9, 1959”. Science News: p. 30.
The Population Bomb, 1968. Dr. Erhlist was one of the first to bring up greenhouse gasses and
his research predicted a general increase in global temperature (not due to greenhouse gasses, his predictions were based on cyclical changes in global climate that I don’t have the expertise to fully understand.
World’s temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A
SCEP. “The 1970 SCEP report”. This was a study done by MIT researchers in 1970 that concluded that there would be a general rise in global temperature in the near future.
B. J. Mason, QJRMS, 1976, p 479 (Symons Memorial Lecture) This paper covers a lot of information, but on pg. 479 the author states that their research showed no evidence for an imminent ice age.
Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science. Report of the National Science Board. Government Printing Office. 1972. In 1972, a report from the National Science Board found no scientific evidence for global cooling.
I could not find any valid scientific research from that era supporting Global Cooling, just like I have a hard time today finding valid scientific research linking the increase in global temperature to human influence. My conclusion: the media likes to make sensationalist claims about drastic climate changes because it is good for ratings.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, the “smarties” have been right…and wrong…about many things over the centuries.[/quote]
Hey, how’d that catastrophic “Global Cooling” in the 70’s work out for everyone?
[/quote]
To be fair,the “Global Cooling” scare had more to do with sensationalist media claims then any actual scientific evidence or consensus. In fact, more then a few major publications and climatologists were beginning to predict an upward trend in global temperature.[/quote]
Oh, you mean a lot like anthropogenic global warming?
It only takes a publication or two to unleash a shitstorm![/quote]
Exactly. The exact same thing is happening with AGW, which we discussed earlier in the thread.