Have at it.
I posted that on the wrong thread. Sorry.
I predict this popular support for the new rules will erode under the propaganda campaign already unleashed by the Counter Climate Change Movement.
Sen. Paul has called the new rule "illegal."
Sen. McConnell has called it "an end run around Congress."
Rep, David McKinley, in his press release, spoke of Obama "circumvent(ing) Congress."
Of course they mispeak, since the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of this move before Obama even became President. The SC said the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act.
The propaganda and lies are already flying. If past is prelude, they will change public perception,
But they can't change the laws of physics. That's why Heartland honcho Joe Bast may boast of winning the policy and opinion debates, but lament being frustrated by the scientific debate.
"When it comes to religion and science, there is no reason that they cannot coexist."
As I said before, I think they can.
When it comes to religion and science, there is no reason that they cannot coexist.
As for the literal view of creation, most people that follow the Abrahamic faiths don't believe in the literal story of Genesis and never really have.
"But the 5 terrorists who were released by Obama will most certainly kill more innocent people."
Yes, but they won't be our responsibility anymore. Nor are the actions of these men our responsibility. We can't proceed with what could happen because anything could happen.
"I am a Christian and believe in God as well as the saving grace of Jesus."
Well, I am glad for that.
"I have presented evidence or at least reasons I come to my conclusions but you reject them and that's fine."
I have rejected your conclusions because of the lack of evidence. You attempt to deflect by saying what is possible against that which is fact.
You cannot say there is no global warming and it's is all a political ploy and not provide facts. The fact that their are government agencies that provide funds for climate change research does not mean that the research is tainted. This is were you have always failed at....showing the connection.
"It is not my plan to convert you."
No, it's your plan to offer up your opinion and try to back it up with facts. You fail at this. You also fail to answer relevant questions when given to you.
It is irrelevant to me how many days it took. Climate Change will also not be of any substance But the 5 terrorists who were released by Obama will most certainly kill more innocent people.
Tired, of course I think people can come to different conclusions from avaialable evidence.
However, when most people have a different viewpoint, they tend to explain their different viewpoint and show how the evidence supports it.
You don't do that. That's not an insult but a fact.
So you're done with insults, Tiredofit?
Good to hear. I always knew you were better than that.
"You have not a shred of actual evidence of climate change or global warming other than what a small group of well paid people tell you."
No, unlike you...we actually think and are not sheep. As for me, I take in all viewpoints I can from all sides and think which makes the most sense.
You fail at making your viewpoint on climate change relevant.
Good catch, Tiredofit. I should not have said "God had a hand in the process."
That unfortunate statement reflects neither the poll nor my views. I retract it. Sorry for the confusion I caused when I used it.
God did not "have a hand in the process." God was the process.
Thanks for bringing this up and letting me correct myself.
Again. According to the Gallup poll, that 40% of scientists accept both the Biblical account and the geologic evidence.
So what definition of creationism are you using?
Your right that the 1991 Gallup poll found only 5% of scientists to be creationists --using THEIR definition of creationism. Using YOUR definition, it's 45%.
"We can argue all day but the fact is you are on the wrong side of scientific opinion."
True, but not by far. I believe God had a hand in creation. According to the Gallup poll you cited, 55% of scientists believe God had no hand and 45% believe, as do I, that God had a hand.
Did you even read the poll you cited?
"So now you speak for gods will????"
Nope. You can read Romans 1:20 in any Christian Bible.
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Quite true. And as far as I know, no climate scientist has said these things would cease.
"You seem to be critical because a person is leaning on faith over science on this topic."
Actually, Kendall, you're right. Tiredofit's argument is silly. He accuses me of hypocrisy because he imagines I accept one body of science and reject another.
He's silly for 2 reasons. First, he's wrong. I accept both bodies of science.
Second, notice how he won't express what HE believes. He can't. If he adopts the absolutist position he demands of me, he either shows himself to be the hypocrite he accuses me of (by accepting the geological record in the creation instance and rejecting climate science) or enhances the case that he denies science (by rejecting both the climate science and the geologic record).
Let me be clear--I'm not labeling him. His own words and deeds will show who he is.
Myth wrote, "And the path to knowing more is science."
Maybe not the only path, but it is certainly a path God expects us to take.
And by the way, the Bible encourages us to accept observable science. Romans 1:20 says "...God's eternal power and divine nature...can be understood by what has been made."
In other words, the fossil and geologic record are important because they show God's characteristics.
So I believe the earthly record and the Biblical account can be reconciled. I base this belief on the Bible.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891