LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: It was so hot today......
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 6, 2010
Author: sneakypete
Post Date: 2010-07-06 23:27:25 by sneakypete
Keywords: hypocrisy
Views: 61234
Comments: 83
....that Goober Gore had to turn the thermostats in BOTH of his mansions down to68. ....That Babs Streisand had to shut down her southern Ca mansion and fly to one of her European mansions to chill out while watching her serfs hand up clothes to dry on a clothsline. ...that.....YOU fill it in.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: sneakypete (#0)
...that my dog is opening the freezer door.
that even global warming deniers are saying "it's really hot"
..... that the debunked and totally shamed global warming bullshit artists have crawled out from under their rocks and are at it yet once again!
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
That's because unlike Gorons,we are sane. Tell me,did it get hot before Goober discovered how to fleece the sheeple?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Five (5) mansions, sneaky.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Sheesh...let it go for a minute.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Sorry, your Sneaky pete broke the rule. #4. To: go65 (#2) that even global warming deniers are saying "it's really hot" That's because unlike Gorons,we are sane. Tell me,did it get hot before Goober discovered how to fleece the sheeple? So first, BE, you need to call in your attack dog. THEN, announce that this is a joke thread. See how that works? ;}
And, until you do, SP, with his remarks, opened up the debate. Big deal in a courtroom. I know you've seen it, when the defense asks a question that allows the plaintiff to open up. ;} Name the hottest year on record. Does that include the year we're in? LMFAO 8D
You global warming bullshit artists have become pathetic caricatures of yourselves. But I do have to say, watching you tugging on shirtsleeves trying desperately to resurrect global warming as a serious debate topic, is fun to watch. The Global Warming hoax has been exposed mcgowan. "It's dead Jim." A topic not anymore worthy of debate than, say, the existence of the tooth fairy. Maybe your time could be better spent trying to convince people the earth is flat.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
Global Warming isn't science, its a weird religion.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
How can anyone who observes the weather from one tiny little patch of dirt on this planet and proclaims that what they are experiencing is a harbinger of doom for the entire planet be considered sane?
Got me. Why not ask your pals who were posting all winter long about how cold it was where they lived, claiming that proved there is no global warming?
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
LOL! Not certain who you are talking about, but perhaps those "pals" you refer to are just saying that the crazies who are proclaiming the whole planet must be just like the small patch of dirt on which they are standing are just a little bit nuts.
You mean the ones who were saying how cold it was at their house last winter, thus disproving global warming. Yeah, those are the ones I'm talking about.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Once you realize 'global warming' is a religion, it all falls into place. And you don't give it any more thought than you do scientology.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The sun is measurably getting hotter and the precession of the earth slowly rotates the areas where the sun's influence is the greatest.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Won't it be just "peachy-keen" when your fellow statists - Zero and his pals - declare "deny-ing" a capital offense?
If I could, I would. If I could, I would. How can anyone who observes the weather from one tiny little patch of dirt on this planet and proclaims that what they are experiencing is a harbinger of doom for the entire planet be considered sane? boy!! that's a good one. who does that!? 8D
You global warming bullshit artists have become pathetic caricatures of yourselves. Except that we were 10 degrees over avg in the Imperial City today and according to NOAA, we're way above the Hottest year in history. anything else?
and according to NOAA, we're way above the Hottest year in history. anything else? Yeah. Go fuck yourself mcgowanjm. Global warming has been proven to be a fraud. End of debate. End of talk. Global warming is a fraud. Global warming died, dead as a doornail, and you are too stupid to realize it. But again, it is fun watching you desperately trying to sucker someone, anyone, into debating global warming with you. Global warming is dead. It's been exposed as a fraud. And all its supporters (that includes you) have been shown to be either con men, or those too fucking stupid to know when they're being conned.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
No doubt caused by burning fossil fuels and tobacco.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
And you don't give it any more thought than you do scientology. If only you realized evolution falls into the same category. And with it millions or billions of years.
You're finally getting it, Stoner.
Can you point me to this "proof"? And don't say "Glenn Beck", OK?
They can't. It's as silly as saying a record cold temperature in one part of the globe proves that there is no global warming. But, when you measure temperature data in the land and sea over a long period of time, say 130 years, and you see rising temperatures that can't be explained by anything other than rising atmospheric CO2, well, then you might be on to something.....
Another attempt to lure someone into debate. If you are so fucking stupid you missed the proof, it ain't my fault. Go find it on your own. "Global warming" is dead. It is OVER. You frauds have been exposed.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
Hi Fred, it got up to 105' today where I'm at, this heat is sickening...
Of course not.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Of course not. You're so fucking stupid you missed it too, huh, skippy? "Global warming" is dead. Proven to be a hoax. Period.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
Thanks for the proof woody.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Have spent past 2 decades following the new understanding of Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology,....vs the Bullshit mantra's of mainstream science. The Sun is Electric,....is not a thermonuclear furnace. The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology. NASA/JPL know the Sun is Electric,...but can't as yet come out and admit they have things entirely wrong. Holoscience...many excellent articles on the Sun,..here's a few
Fuck you skip.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
I don't think I'd like that. Try Mad Dog. I think you're more his type.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
You don't think, period, skippy. You're either a disinformation agent pushing global warming, or too stupid to know "global warming" is bullshit, and has been proven as such. Either way, you should be treated the same. As an idiot, and with scorn. Debates over on this. Global warming is bunk. Proven to be bullshit and a scam. You're either too fucking stupid to know it, or a perpetrator of the scam.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
If I am wrecking a comedy thread,...I apologize : ) below is an excerpt from the Sun,...our Variable star link. 2. Near the Sun, galactic transmission lines are in the form of 0.3 parsecs wide rotating Birkeland filaments (based on those detected at the center of the Milky Way). Their motion relative to the Sun will produce a slowly varying magnetic field and current density –' in other words a solar activity cycle. To that extent, all stars are variable. And just like real estate, location is vital. 3. An electric star has an internal radial electric field. But because plasma is an outstanding conductor it cannot sustain a high electric field. So plasma self-organizes to form a protective sheath or 'double layer' across which most of the electric field is concentrated and in which most of the electrical energy is stored. It is the release of that internal stored energy that causes CME's, nova outbursts, polar jets, and the birth of stellar companions. [end] coment.. Location,..location is true. The Sun has incredible buffer capability,...our Earths plasma magnetosphere,..also quite durable. The concept of celestial catastrophism was brought forward in the main via Immanuel Velikovsky.
It's great to see you idiots from LP coming here to trash this place too.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
In 1984 we had 21 straight days over 100 degrees during June and early July, the hottest day was 114. Of course our humidity tends to be on the low side. No air conditioning then at my workplace either.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
BTW, you do know that global warming and man-caused global warming are two different topics, don't you?
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Really NOT on topic. Wassamatter skippy?
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
Sell your bullshit somewhere else, skippy.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
Can't even answer a simple question can you woody? Why so angry? Are you drunk?
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Why so angry? Are you drunk? And with that skippy, I've shown everyone your tactics. Eat shit and die skip.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
All you've shown is that you're a stupid old drunk. Hey, are you SOD from LP?
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Hey, are you SOD from LP? I guess all you have left are personal attacks huh? Still ain't going to work. Global warming has been proven a fraud. There is no need for the victors in the battle to re-enter debate on the subject. Global warming is bullshit. It is DEAD. You lost. Fuck you.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't care what Palin says, he'll support her no matter what.
You still didn't answer the question. And since the historical record shows that the earth has naturally warmed and cooled many times in the past there is no reason to believe the future will be any different.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Yeah, I did. The fact you're too fucking stupid to see that, and do likewise, is not my fault.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
No you didn't. You just used it as an excuse to act out and do your usual name calling schtick.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Yeah, I did. The fact you're too fucking stupid to see it is not my fault. You don't even know what the real question and answer were, even though they were right in front of your face.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
LOL!! I think one would have to be incredibly stupid to join some climate doom cult because someone told them that the temperature has gone up by 0.4 degree over the last 130 years.
LOL!! How about those muttering about a doomsday heat wave because the average temperature is a fraction of a degree warmer than a century ago. I can not wait for the temperature to go down a fraction of a degree so they start agonizing about a new ice age for a change.
Not saying anything new. So you agree it is a young earth?
Most likely mind-altering drugs because the implication is mankind is behind this. Guess what,Buckwheat? The planet had hot spells and cold spells long before the Machine Age and mankind entered the equation.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
So you AGREE that man has some affect?
The only way to prove that is to rid the planet of mankind and see what happens. Wanna volunteer to be the first?
If I could, I would. Global Warming caused by MANKIND is a fraud,but Global Warming is a very real part of a natural warming and cooling cycle that has been going on ever since day one. Just like we had a mini-Ice Age in the 1800's,we are going through a mini-Hot Age right now. The problem is the left has seized upon this whole thing as a method of scaring the population into accepting draconian methods of government control to "prevent it from happening and save the world for the chil-runs". In other words,it has nothing to do with climate control,and everything to do with people control. Just like we can't really do anything to make it worse,we really can't do anything to make it better. It's out of our control.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
We went through that in the 70's,when the "Mother Earth" loons were predicting a on-coming Ice Age that would bury NYC under hundreds of feet of ice. Which doesn't really sound all that bad when you think about it.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
So you AGREE that man has some affect? How the HELL can you come to that conclusion from reading what I had written? I know your whole life is some sort of alternate reality,but there really should be SOME limits.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
A very small minority predicted that and for a very short period of time. Most environmental scientists were fairly sober in predicting climate effect and chose to focus more on the potential diseases that could proliferate from "pollution".
I think evolution is obvious among many types of animal life on this planet. I just don't see anything that proves it applies to Human's. I do know the planet is millions of years old, Stone. As I noted above, I literally have fossil evidence of it on my property...and on my coffee and end tables in my home.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
You used the phrase..."entered the equation" and coupled it to your introductory phrase of "hot spells and cold spells". You stated explicitly that climate is formulaic.
(chuckle)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
You stated explicitly that climate is formulaic. How bleeping anal can you get? "Equation" was NOT used in that context,and you know it. I could have just as easily used the word "question" or "discussion",and the content would have been the same.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I'm not a mind reader. Don't blame me because you're not precise in your language.
ROFLMAO! I know you suffer from having a northern PC education,but were you really so miseducated that you don't understand that context means everything,and that in the context I used "equation" it was the same as "Question"?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
They say Friday will be a cool 83 degrees high.
I've been pretty patient with you, considering that's all you've used on this thread since your first post.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Source, please. And I'm not forgetting. And Goldi's not here with her rabid dogs. And this thread won't go away when Goldi doesn't like it. ;}
Source, please. And I'm not forgetting. And Goldi's not here with her rabid dogs. And this thread won't go away when Goldi doesn't like it. OOPS. The Thread HAS been hidden. See East Coast breaks Heat records by 10 degrees. You stupid fuck. hell ain't 1/2 full. ;}
I look at it like this pete. "Global warming" is a catch-phrase of the bullshit scam made up by our would-be masters and embraced by useful idiots everywhere. What you call "natural global warming" I call the current temperature. The global warming scam was exposed and died. Those wishing to resurrect it HAVE to keep the argument going on it. They have to keep the term "alive". And they do THAT with terms like "natural global warming" and by attempting to keep the debate going. In fact, the more outrageous their claim in this thread, the more likely someone will debate them. Their mission here is not to win the global warming argument, but rather to keep it going. Our side won on this pete. There is no need for more debate on global warming. And those trying to resurrect it should not be debated, but rather told to STFU and be treated with the scorn and ridicule they so richly deserve.
(sneakypete)DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Mad Dog's reply) I don't know or F ing care. Pete, MD doesn't know or care what Palin says or writes, he'll support her no matter what.
How do you know its age? To form fossils you need dead things to be buried in mud before they rot or are eaten by scavengers or whatever. If the Bible is true and there was a worldwide flood. There should be evidence of this. What would you expect to find? Answer: Billions of dead things buried in mud laid down by water all over the earth. That is in fact what you find.
Where I live its flooded hundreds of thousands of times, you can see the geological evidence, again on my property, which features a cliff rising from the stream across our property, Stone. Millions of years worth of layers. Its not disputable. I don't take the bible 'literally', realizing it was compiled without the input of one half of our species (women) for starters. But the premise you offer up is easily debunked. If your view was factual, all these fossils on my land would be found in one single layer. They aren't. I'm not really interested in a long drawn out debate on this. Others are. I don't begrudge anyone's religious viewpoint - as long as it doesn't include killing or harming those that don't adhere to it - but we aren't going to agree on this topic. Ever. Enjoy.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Yes, there are most definitely some sound scientific explanations for a young earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp
What is the reason that it has to be millions or billions of years?
Of course there are. They are the only explanations that make sense. The evilutionists can't even explain how flowers that require things like bees and bees require them came into existence. They can't explain what came first the chicken or the egg. You ever planted grass? It can be hard. They can't explain the evolution of the grass and how it spread everywhere. Was there one blade of grass first. They have never witnessed any creature evolve. There are zero fossils that show anything evolving or in a earlier state of development. If the earth is billions of years old and man 100 thousand or whatever they choose on any given day. Where are all the dead bodies? There aren't enough. T they can't explain where why there isn't enough dust on the moon. They have zero answers. Zero credability. They never debunked anything contrary to what badeye says.
Oh and that is a most excellent organization you linked to. Answers in Genesis. I've seen Ken Ham speak a few times. Haven't made it to the creation museum yet. If badeye would meet me at the creation museum I would be tempted to buy him a ticket.
From your link by Tom Vail, Canyon Ministries December 22, 2005 The Grand Canyon in N. Arizona, USA is an awesome spectacle, a classic example of erosion unequaled anywhere on earth. Carved through sedimentary layers of limestone, sandstone and shale, and into the bedrock of schist and granite, this great chasm stretches 277 miles through the Colorado Plateau. It descends over a mile into the earth and extends as much as 18 miles in width. The Grand Canyon is also a place to find and explore the wonders of God’s creation. When viewed from a biblical perspective, the Canyon has “God” written all over it, from the splendor and grandeur of the entire area, to the diverse and unique design of the plants and animals that inhabit this “magical” place. They all display the magnificence of the hand of our Creator. AiG speaker, dinosaur sculptor and musician Buddy Davis (far left) enjoys the splash of cold water on last year’s trip through the Grand Canyon. Not only is the Canyon a testimony to the Creator, but it also presents evidence of God’s judgment of the world. It was a judgment by water of a world broken by sin. The Canyon gives us a glimpse of the effects and scale of a catastrophic global flood, the biblical Flood of Noah’s day. Visitors to the Grand Canyon generally find it to be awe-inspiring, but at the same time, too strange and overwhelming to be fully understood on its own—for the Canyon can’t tell us about itself. As humans, we tend to ask two questions as we view this vast, grand, mysterious hole in the ground: how and why? We do have the one and only true history book, the Bible, that can help answer these questions. Even though Scripture does not mention the Grand Canyon, we can do some theorizing based on the evidence that we see and examine in light of the Bible. The “how” As we consider the “how,” we find that virtually all geologists agree that the Grand Canyon was carved by water. The question is how quickly and when. If we examine the prevailing interpretive literature about the Canyon, we find that the views presented are predominantly based on evolutionary theories. For the Canyon, this means that the rock layers were laid down over literally hundreds of millions of years, and that the Canyon was later carved slowly by the Colorado River. These theories tend to deny God’s involvement. But, if we look at the Canyon through the eyes of a biblical, or scriptural, geologist (those who believe in the Bible’s timeline of a young earth), we will see a very different Canyon. These geologists see a young canyon carved with a massive amount of water, likely in a matter of just days, shortly after the global flood of Noah’s day about 4,300 years ago. So is there evidence to support a biblical model? Yes. Let’s briefly examine a couple of the areas which do just that. sandstone fold According to the biblical model, the vast majority of the sedimentary layers we see in the Grand Canyon (and in the rest of the world for that matter) were deposited as the result of a global flood that occurred after, and ultimately as a result of, the initial sin that took place in the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago. Let’s look at the folding that is found in the sedimentary rock layers of the Canyon. The picture to the left is a fold in the Tapeats Sandstone in Carbon Creek, one of the side canyons within Grand Canyon. You can plainly see here that the rock was bent, or as the geologist would say, “folded,” while still soft or pliable. Notice that this folding has taken place without cracking the rock. Folds like this indicate that the folding had to happen soon after deposition, and that the deposition and the upheaval responsible for the folding were in fact one event. Another area that supports the biblical model is the contact lines between the layers themselves. When evolutionists look at this contact point between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale, as seen to the right, they see 10 million years of “missing” time and material. contact line But the creationists, using the biblical model, don’t see “missing” material at all. They see classic flood geology, only on a scale so large that it boggles the mind of the evolutionist. Note the knife-edge line of the contact point; this contact is the same throughout the length of the Canyon. If this represents 10 million years of missing material, why don’t we see any sign of either physical or chemical erosion between the layers? So does this “prove” the Grand Canyon is the result of a global Flood or how it was formed? No. It does show, however, that there is a legitimate, scientific alternative to the evolutionary dogma that has permeated our society. The “why” As to the “why” of the Grand Canyon, that is somewhat more speculative. The Canyon is often called “Exhibit A” in support of a young earth, and with the wonderful design of its animals and plants, it also confirms the Master Designer, the Creator God of the Bible. The Bible says: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). What we see in the Canyon only supports and upholds what we read in the Word of God. And only from down in the Canyon can so much of it be seen. How about considering a thrilling raft trip as a special Christmas gift for your spouse, son or daughter, or even your pastor? Join expedition leader Tom Vail (the author of this article) in July (the June trip is already booked) for an AiG-sponsored raft trip through the Canyon, and learn how the Canyon’s formation can be best explained within biblical history. So is the Grand Canyon there to provide the skeptics with evidence that may be “clearly seen” if only they were willing to see? The heart of the issue is clearly addressed in Colossians 2:8 which reads, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” It is the elementary principles of the world (or those of man) that have developed the evolutionary theories that reject the Word of God and God Himself. As you view the Grand Canyon, remember that it is the result of God’s judgment of the world, not just His creative design. As with everything around us, a simplistic “God made this” is really inadequate, as what we see today is not the world He originally made, since it has all been corrupted by the global judgment of sin—Noah’s Flood. Could God have started a process (evolutionary uniformitarianism) that would have carved the Canyon over millions of years? Perhaps some would say yes, but the issue isn’t what God “could have done.” He could have done it any of a million ways. The issue is what God said He did in His Word. You can trust God’s Word, right from the very first verse, and the Grand Canyon is one of His most magnificent examples of that. Tom Vail is the author of Grand Canyon: a Different View and will be the guide on three AiG Grand Canyon river trips next summer. He is a twenty-five year veteran of guiding in the Canyon and with his wife, Paula, runs Canyon Ministries, which provides Christ-centered rafting trips through the Grand Canyon. Tom welcomes opportunities to share the biblical message of the Grand Canyon. You can find out more about their ministry and how to join them on one of their trips by calling (602) 254-5798 in the USA or visiting www.CanyonMinistries.com.
Just think you are siding with war, go65, skip intro, mininggold and every liberal on the board.
Start here. Open your mind and free it from liberal propaganda thinking. Creation Science Exposed - Stratigraphy and the Young Earth Global Flood Model - Part 1 by Greg Neyman © Answers In Creation First Published 26 Jan 2003 Answers In Creation Website Revised and Expanded February 2006 Is the young earth creation science flood model supported by the rock layers of the earth? In order to examine the young earth creation science model of sedimentation and stratigraphy, we will look at the stratigraphy of the Western United States, and determine its validity within the young earth flood model. You may be asking what stratigraphy is. Stratigraphy is the study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks. First, lets start out with some definitions: Disconformity – An unconformity in which beds above and below are parallel. An unconformity is a discontinuity in the succession of rocks, containing a gap in the geologic record. In simple terms, you may have a rock layer below, which is dated at 200 million years old, and the rock layer above is dated as 150 million years. The 50 million year gap is not represented by any rock layers Formation – A distinctive body of rock that serves as a convenient unit for study and mapping Limestone – A sedimentary rock composed mostly of calcium carbonate (Ca CO3), formed from the remnants of organisms, usually in calm, shallow seas Sandstone – A sedimentary rock composed mostly of sand-size particles, usually cemented by calcite, silica, or iron oxide Sedimentary Rock – Rock formed by the accumulation and consolidation of sediment Sediment – Material (such as gravel, sand, mud, and lime) that is transported and deposited by wind, water, ice, or gravity; material that is precipitated from solution; and deposits of organic origin (such as coal and coral reefs) Shale - A fine-grained clastic sedimentary rock formed by consolidation of clay and mud Stratum – A layer of sedimentary rock; plural is strata Stromatolite – Trace fossil pattern left in the rock by algae Transgression / Regression - The process where the shoreline moves toward land, then out from land. The constantly changing shore means that the deposition zones for sandstone (beaches), siltstones (continental shelf) and limestones are moving. This gives the pattern of interlayered rock types Now, lets begin by summarizing the young earth creation science proposal for the deposition of sediments into stratigraphic layers. This can be found in Selected Young Earth Articles The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Layers? Grand Canyon: Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood! Coal Beds and Noah’s Flood Were Grand Canyon’s Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? numerous articles, such as the one listed at right. The best source of information for the young earth model of the flood within the Grand Canyon is the young earth book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. I will refer to it often in the Grand Canyon portion of this article. The basic argument of these articles is that all rock layers were deposited during the Flood of Noah. In fact, they contend that this is the ONLY mechanism to create the vast layers of sedimentary rock that we have today. For proof, we turn to Henry M. Morris, and his article titled Geology and the Flood. He says, “Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.” Young earth creation scientists go to great lengths to prove this creation science model. However, you may notice that these articles mentioned above discuss single layers of sediment. No creation scientist attempts to tie them together into the bigger picture, that is, nobody claims to know how to deposit all the multiple layers of rock during such a short time as Noah’s Flood…they just assume that since they ‘think’ they can prove it for one layer, then it must be true of all layers. While they think they have a clue as to how individual layers are formed, they cannot produce a model that deposits all the layers. For thefirst of our discussion, we will consider the rock layers in the Grand Canyon. First, look at the picture of the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon. Remember, these are in order of formation (Graphic courtesy of the US Geological Survey). For starters, the tilted layers of the canyon at the bottom are said by young earth creationists to be creation week and pre-flood. Therefore, since we are discussing the Flood, we will ignore them. However, here is a listing, in case you are interested. 1. Bass Limestone – This is the lowest layer, 120 to 340 feet thick, approximately 1250 million years old. It is primarily limestone, with some interbedded shale. Its fossil record consists of stromatolites. 2. Hakatai Shale – Composed primarily of shale with some sandstone. Averages 1200 million years old 3. Shinumo Quartzite – Originally a sandstone, which was later metamorphosed into a quartzite 4. Dox Sandstone – Composed of sandstone interbedded with shale. Contains stromatolites and algae. Contains ripple marks. Average age is 1190 million years 5. Cardenas Lavas – Layers of dark brown basaltic rocks that flowed as lava. Up to 1000 feet thick, dated between 1250 and 1100 million years old 6. Not Shown – Unconformity above the Cardenas Lavas. 7. Nankoweap Formation – A layer of course-grained sandstone, about 1050 million years old 8. Unconformity above the Nankoweap Formation. A gap in the geologic record between the Nankoweap and Galeros formations 9. Galeros Formation – Consists of interbedded sandstone, limestone, and shale. Contains fossil stromatolites. 10. Kwagunt Formation - Primarily black shale and red to purple mudstone with some limestone. Also contains stromatolites. 11. Sixtymile Formation – Tan colored sandstone with small sections of shale. Thus ends the formations that make up the bedrock underneath the flat layers of the Grand Canyon. The layers above are tilted about 30 degrees due to the intrusion of the Zorgaster Granite. Now begins the horizontal rock layers, which the young earth flood model must account for. They are, from bottom to top… 12. Not Shown – The Great Unconformity – at the bottom of these horizontal rock layers there is an unconformity, which lasts from 825 million years ago to 570 million years ago. We are missing 255 million years worth of geologic record. 13. Tapeats Sandstone – 250 to 300 foot thick layer composed of medium-grained and course-grained sandstone. Ripple marks are common in the upper portion. It contains fossil trilobites, brachiopods, and trilobite trails. Average age is 545 million years 14. Bright Angel Shale – Composed primarily of mudstone shale, interbedded with sandstone and sandy limestone, thickness ranges from 325 to 400 feet. Average age is 530 million years. Fossils include trilobites and brachiopods. 15. Mauv Limestone – Composed of limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. Averages 515 million years old, and varies from 250 to 375 feet thick. Contains some trilobites and brachiopods. 16. Unconformity - No geologic layers present for the Ordivician and Silurian periods. A gap of about 165 million years 17. Temple Butte Limestone – Composed of freshwater limestone (in the east) and dolomite (in the west). Much thicker towards the west, the west end contains numerous marine fossils, and the eastern end contains bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. From 250 to 375 feet thick, and about 350 million years old 18. Redwall Limestone – Composed of marine limestones and dolomites. Many marine fossils, including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish, and trilobites. It is between 450 and 535 feet thick 19. Surprise Canyon Formation - A sedimentary layer of purplish-red shale, which only exists in isolated lenses up to 40 feet thick. 20. Watahomigi Formation - A slope-forming gray limestone with some red chert bands, sandstone, and purple siltstone. Between 90 and 175 feet thick. 21. Manakacha Formation - Cliff and slope-forming pale red sandstone, between 200 and 275 feet thick. 22. Wescogame Formation - Ledge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone, between 100 and 225 feet thick. 23. Esplanade Sandstone - Ledge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone, between 225 and 300 feet thick. NOTE: Layers 19-22 are part of the Supai Group. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles, and terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion , which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward. 24. Unconformity - Missing rock layers 25. Hermit Shale – Composed of soft, easily eroded shales. Fossils are ferns, conifers, and other plants, and fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians. Represents a swampy environment about 265 million years ago. It is from 160 to 175 feet thick 26. Coconino Sandstone – Composed of pure quartz sand. No fossils, but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows. Represents a desert dune environment about 260 million years ago. Ranges from 375 to 650 feet thick. Contains raindrop impressions 27. Toroweap Formation – A 200 to 250 foot thick layer of sandy limestone, containing brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, worms, and fish teeth. Averages 255 million years old 28. Kaibab Limestone – The top layer at the Canyon, consisting of sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. Contains brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, worms, and fish teeth. Age is about 250 million years In all, we have a sequence of 28 rock layers and unconformities at the Grand Canyon. The Flood model proposed by young earth scientists must account for the last 17 layers/unconformities (and the layers which are above the Grand Canyon stratigraphically, which is the subject of the following pages of this article, linked below). Therefore, let us try to see if we can come up with a Flood model to match this rock record. Discussion Chronologically, here is what must happen for the Noah’s Flood model to explain the Grand Canyon. The first eleven layers, which are tilted, are said to be creation week or pre-flood, thus they can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. The rains from Noah’s flood start, in the 600th year of his life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month (Gen. 7:11). It rained for forty days, and then stopped. The waters were dried from the land in the 601st year, the second month, on the twenty-seventh of the month. That means the water was on the earth a total of 370 days (some figures vary by 1-2 days). Of course, we couldn’t start laying the beds down until the water was high enough, but I’ll ignore that. So if we have 370 days, and 17 layers (counting unconformities) to put down, that gives us 21.7 days per layer. (Keep in mind this is only using the Grand Canyon rocks. There are many more layers above the Grand Canyon that must also be accounted for by the Flood. These will be discussed later.) Issue #1: Stokes Law At this point, it is relevant to mention another factor that must be considered in the young earth creation science model. Young earth creation scientists Baumgardner and Barnette developed a computer simulation model for patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during a global flood. The model for ocean circulation showed that cyclonic currents averaging 40 to 80 meters per second existed, with a top current of 194 miles per hour (The stronger velocities existed over the continental masses, thus providing the force to erode rock). The suspension of particles within a fluid is governed by Stokes Law. Sand varies from fine sand (.05 to .5 mm) to normal sand (up to 2 mm). Given that the larger sizes benefit the young earth model, let’s examine 2 mm sand particles. Stokes Law is: where Ws is the settling velocity, d is the particle diameter, Ps - P the density difference between the particle and the field, and µ the viscosity of the fluid. In other words, Stokes Law calculates the velocity of the water current necessary to carry a sand grain in suspension. The grain will stay in suspension, moving along with the current, until the water velocity drops below the threshold. To simplify matters, here is a plot of Stokes Law, showing the current at which particles settle out of suspension (click for larger view). Looking at the largest sand grains, which are 2 mm, they require a current of 30 cm per second to remain in suspension. This equates to a current of .67 miles per hour, or 2/3 of a mile per hour. This is not even 1 mile per hour current. Looking back at Baumgardner and Barnette, their minimum ocean current velocity (over the continents) is 40 meters per second, which equates to 89 miles per hour. It is difficult to imagine that the current in the open ocean at this time could be less than 1 mile an hour. Because of Stokes Law, sand particles (and the silt from the shales, and the limestones) would stay in suspension at the current speeds proposed by young earth creationists. In essence, during the prevailing portion of the flood (when water covered the entire earth, a period of 150 days, Genesis 7:24), with high water currents, no rock layers would be formed, because the particles would not fall out of suspension. Since rock layers could not form during this time, we must subtract it from the time available. If we subtract the 150 days which the waters prevailed upon the earth during the middle of the flood, the young earth flood model now has only 221 days to create the rock layers...the time before and after the middle part of the flood. (To be fair, they could claim that it was eroding over the continents and depositing in the deep ocean basins, but they have not addressed this, and it does not appear that their model would support it). To this, another adjustment must be made. In reality, there would be a period of time on each end of the 150 days, that would also be unusable for forming rock layers. During the first 40 days, a reasonable assumption would be 20 days, and during the recessive period of the flood (the final 180 days), anyone's guess is as good as any. However, since it took 40 days to "fill up" and 180 to "empty," this gives us a ratio of 4.5 to 1, thus 90 days would be eliminated from the end of the flood period, leaving us 20 days at the start of the flood, and 90 more days at the end (these are estimates only). In reality, the young earth model must divide the rock layers into these two time periods. This is further complicated with the fact that most fossils are in the upper rock layers. If there were two rock forming episodes during the so-called global flood, as Stokes Law indicates there must have been, then the fossils should all be in the lower layers. This is contrary to what we would see in the fossil record, as you will see in the discussion of the Grand Canyon layers. To be fair, I have not seen any young earth literature claim that there had to be two periods of rock-forming during the flood. This is an issue which they need to address. (Another point to consider...according to many young earth scientists, the continental masses did not have towering mountains. This is so that there is sufficient water to cover them during the flood (there is no evidence to support this claim...it is merely a requirement of the young earth model). With this massive erosion going on over the continents, the ocean basins would then fill up, and there would be a point in time when the earth's landmass during the flood were a smooth, even surface underneath the water.) Issue #2: Fossils One of the main problems for the young earth creationist is the fossil record. The young earther believes that all the animals we see fossilized in the rock record were killed during the Flood. Why is this? First, they claim there was no death before the fall of man. That means that no rocks from the original creation events of the first six days can contain any fossils, because no animals died. One only need look at fossil distribution to disprove the young earth creation science model. If you have a global flood, then all species of fossils would appear suddenly in the rock record. In other words, you would have trilobites (which went extinct 300 million years ago) in the same rocks as dinosaurs (extinct 65 million years ago) and humans. But, we can’t find any trilobites with dinosaurs, nor with humans. The fact that species are separated in the fossil record supports an old age, and proves that these animals were killed at different times. The young earth scientist will argue that the fossil record is getting more random all the time…but is it? Look at my rebuttal on this issue. If we look at the rocks of the Grand Canyon, the first 11 layers that we numbered above (the tilted, pre-flood layers, by the young earth model), only have the trace fossil stromatolite. The first flood layers (all the horizontal Grand Canyon layers) contain marine organisms, but no dinosaurs, mammals, or reptiles, or plants. The first reptiles and plants appear in the Esplanade Sandstone, or, if you add it up, about 2,000 feet of sediment was deposited by the flood before the first plants and reptiles appeared. Young earth creationists are fond of showing off examples of fossils which were buried rapidly. They do this to show that a great flood killed these organisms. In that case, the bottom layers of the Grand Canyon should show many examples of rapid burials of dinosaurs, mammals, plants, reptiles, etc. However, there are none! If the flood killed all those animals, where are their fossils? The only way the young earth creation science model can explain this is to say these animals treaded water for the first couple months of the flood! (Incidentally, there are no dinosaur fossils at all in the Grand Canyon rocks.) For the sake of this article, we will proceed anyway, ignoring the fact that the fossil record is completely contrary to the young earth model. Now that we have examined some problems, let us move on to look at the rock layers themselves, and the problems they present to the young earth model. Part 2 Comment on this series on its Blog Page
I agree with most of what you have written. There is no need for more debate on global warming. I agree with this too,but pointing out that the warming trend we are seeing now is a natural part of the temperature cycles of the Earth is not only NOT debating,but taking away the prime propaganda weapon of the left by highlighting the truth that mankind has nothing to do with it,and all the "cutting back" they want us to do will not so a single thing to either stop or make it milder. And those trying to resurrect it should not be debated, but rather told to STFU and be treated with the scorn and ridicule they so richly deserve. Well,it will really be a stretch for me to do that because it goes against my character,but I will try to do my best.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Where and when?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
(chuckle) It happens occasionally, I suspect it annoys them more than it does me. Its not an affirmative defense of your viewpoint Stone. But nice try! lol
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Okay...now I'm a bit confused as to YOUR POSITION, Stone. My view as stated is the earth is millions of years old...if not older. I don't subscribe to the 'earth is young' theory promoted by Evangelicals, to be blunt I find the '5,000 years old cause the bible says it' crowd amusing, usually well intentioned, but oblivious to reality by their own choice. As I've stated a couple of times, I have physical proof on my own property that I can see, touch, feel. so I'm puzzled as to what this article is supposed to convince me of.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#2. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#3. To: sneakypete (#0)
It was so hot today......
#4. To: go65 (#2)
that even global warming deniers are saying "it's really hot"
#5. To: sneakypete (#0)
....that Goober Gore had to turn the thermostats in BOTH of his mansions down to68
#6. To: go65 (#2)
#7. To: Badeye (#6)
#8. To: badeye, All (#7)
#9. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
Name the hottest year on record.
#10. To: Wood_Chopper (#9)
#11. To: mcgowanjm (#7)
That's because unlike Gorons,we are sane.
#12. To: eskimo (#11)
How can anyone who observes the weather from one tiny little patch of dirt on this planet and proclaims that what they are experiencing is a harbinger of doom for the entire planet be considered sane?
#13. To: Skip Intro (#12)
Got me. Why not ask your pals who were posting all winter long about how cold it was where they lived, claiming that proved there is no global warming?
#14. To: eskimo (#13)
but perhaps those "pals" you refer to are just saying that the crazies who are proclaiming the whole planet must be just like the small patch of dirt on which they are standing are just a little bit nuts.
#15. To: eskimo (#13)
#16. To: eskimo (#11)
How can anyone who observes the weather from one tiny little patch of dirt on this planet and proclaims that what they are experiencing is a harbinger of doom for the entire planet be considered sane?
#17. To: go65 (#2)
global warming deniers
But I can't, so I won't.
#18. To: sneakypete (#0)
It was so hot today......
But I can't, so I won't.
#19. To: eskimo (#11)
#20. To: Wood_Chopper (#9)
Name the hottest year on record.
#21. To: mcgowanjm (#20)
Except that we were 10 degrees over avg in the Imperial City today
#22. To: mininggold (#16)
The sun is measurably getting hotter
#23. To: Badeye (#15)
Once you realize 'global warming' is a religion, it all falls into place.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#25. To: Wood_Chopper (#21)
lobal warming has been proven to be a fraud.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#26. To: eskimo (#11)
How can anyone who observes the weather from one tiny little patch of dirt on this planet and proclaims that what they are experiencing is a harbinger of doom for the entire planet be considered sane?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#27. To: go65 (#25)
(Edited)
Can you point me to this "proof"?
#28. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone, ALL (#24)
(Edited)
#29. To: go65 (#25)
Can you point me to this "proof"?
#30. To: Skip Intro (#29)
Can you point me to this "proof"?
#31. To: Wood_Chopper (#30)
#32. To: mininggold (#16)
The sun is measurably getting hotter and the precession of the earth slowly rotates the areas where the sun's influence is the greatest.
www.Holoscience.com is one of the best sites on the net,..also linked to Thunderbolts and other similar sites.
This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter. This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000. The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges.
and...
The Surface Of The Sun, The Photosphere And Electrically Driven Solar Flares
so they leak little bits out at their brokerage houses like Space.com and write the articles in a way which gets the reader to think/believe they are ontop of things discovered.
Our Misunderstood Sun
THE SUN — Our Variable Star
'"After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.'" '- Halton Arp, What has Science Come to? Journal of Scientific Exploration.
#33. To: Skip Intro (#31)
Thanks for the proof woody.
#34. To: Wood_Chopper (#33)
Fuck you skip.
#35. To: Skip Intro (#34)
I don't think I'd like that.
#36. To: sneakypete (#0)
If the Galactic Birkeland current feed lines over amp the Sun/Electrically stress it,
it can compensate via CME's of very a large scale and duration,..even repeated bursters.
If your a planet in orbital proximity ...and your Plasma magnetosphere cannot deflect the power of the CME's,....you could get knocked back into the stoneage,
or roasted on a spit to near extinction level event.
Electric Universe...inside this collective of scientists and researchers,..comes a group who consider our solar systems history as being quite different than what mainstream science has claimed.
they consider it possible that our Sun was overstressed in earlier eons and superflared,
Saturn and Jupiter were also over stressed electrically ....and Nova sequenced themselves,
being Brown Dwarf stars in state,...eons agos,...and not the reduced state Gas Giants they are today.
Those who study Mythology and redactl record of ancient cultures and religions consider certain themes inside to carry imprint of celestial catastrophism.
candidly,....our solar system has just settled out recently from a series of catastrophic events,
our Sun is actually,....quite stable ...as variable stars go.
stable....until overstressed electrically : )
#37. To: Wood_Chopper (#35)
#38. To: Murron (#28)
Hi Fred, it got up to 105' today where I'm at, this heat is sickening...
#39. To: Wood_Chopper (#35)
Global warming is bunk. Proven to be bullshit and a scam.
#40. To: Skip Intro (#37)
It's great to see you idiots from LP coming here to trash this place too.
#41. To: Skip Intro (#39)
BTW, you do know that global warming and man-caused global warming are two different topics, don't you?
#42. To: Wood_Chopper (#41)
#43. To: Skip Intro (#42)
Can't even answer a simple question can you woody?
#44. To: Wood_Chopper (#43)
I've shown everyone your tactics.
#45. To: Skip Intro (#44)
(Edited)
All you've shown is that you're a stupid old drunk.
#46. To: Wood_Chopper (#45)
Global warming is bullshit. It is DEAD. You lost. Fuck you.
#47. To: mininggold (#46)
(Edited)
You still didn't answer the question.
#48. To: Wood_Chopper (#47)
The fact you're too fucking stupid to see that is not my fault.
#49. To: mininggold (#48)
(Edited)
No you didn't.
#50. To: go65 (#26)
But, when you measure temperature data in the land and sea over a long period of time, say 130 years, and you see rising temperatures that can't be explained by anything other than rising atmospheric CO2, well, then you might be on to something.....
#51. To: Skip Intro (#14)
You mean the ones who were saying how cold it was at their house last winter, thus disproving global warming. Yeah, those are the ones I'm talking about.
#52. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
#53. To: go65 (#26)
you see rising temperatures that can't be explained by anything other than rising atmospheric CO2, well, then you might be on to something.....
#54. To: sneakypete (#53)
The planet had hot spells and cold spells long before the Machine Age and mankind entered the equation.
#55. To: w.a.r., sneakypete (#54)
So you AGREE that man has some affect(sic)?
But I can't, so I won't.
#56. To: Wood_Chopper, Skip Intro (#45)
Global warming has been proven a fraud.
#57. To: eskimo (#51)
I can not wait for the temperature to go down a fraction of a degree so they start agonizing about a new ice age for a change.
#58. To: war (#54)
The planet had hot spells and cold spells long before the Machine Age and mankind entered the equation.
#59. To: sneakypete (#57)
...when the "Mother Earth" loons were predicting a on-coming Ice Age
#60. To: A K A Stone (#23)
If only you realized evolution falls into the same category. And with it millions or billions of years.
#61. To: sneakypete (#58)
How the HELL can you come to that conclusion from reading what I had written?
#62. To: sneakypete (#58)
#63. To: war (#61)
You used the phrase..."entered the equation" and coupled it to your introductory phrase of "hot spells and cold spells".
#64. To: sneakypete (#63)
"Equation" was NOT used in that context,and you know it.
#65. To: war (#64)
I'm not a mind reader. Don't blame me because you're not precise in your language.
#66. To: Murron (#28)
Hi Fred, it got up to 105' today where I'm at, this heat is sickening...
#67. To: Wood_Chopper (#45)
I guess all you have left are personal attacks huh
#68. To: Wood_Chopper, All (#21)
Yeah. Go fuck yourself mcgowanjm. Global warming has been proven to be a fraud.
#69. To: Wood_Chopper, All (#68)
Yeah. Go fuck yourself mcgowanjm. Global warming has been proven to be a fraud.
#70. To: sneakypete (#56)
Global Warming caused by MANKIND is a fraud,but Global Warming is a very real part of a natural warming and cooling cycle that has been going on ever since day one.
#71. To: Badeye (#60)
I do know the planet is millions of years old, Stone. As I noted above, I literally have fossil evidence of it on my property...and on my coffee and end tables in my home.
#72. To: A K A Stone (#71)
#73. To: A K A Stone (#71)
#74. To: Badeye (#72)
#75. To: no gnu taxes (#73)
Yes, there are most definitely some sound scientific explanations for a young earth.
#76. To: no gnu taxes, badeye (#73)
#77. To: no gnu taxes (#73)
#78. To: Badeye (#72)
#79. To: Badeye (#72)
#80. To: Wood_Chopper (#70)
ur side won on this pete.
#81. To: A K A Stone (#76)
#82. To: A K A Stone (#78)
Just think you are siding with war, go65, skip intro, mininggold and every liberal on the board.
#83. To: A K A Stone (#79)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]