This is partly true- however I would state that while the sky is not falling, there are definite, serious problems with it that if not addressed will cause a whole lot of trouble for future generations of mankind down the road. Unless we get hit with a giant asteroid in a cosmic game of billiards, smashing our little ball of rock into lots of smaller bits of rock, earth will still be here for a long time.

History is full of examples of concerned folks who warned of impending disasters and calamities far ahead of time, only to be shooed down. Then of course when it hapenned, their voices were essentially drowned out amidst all the furor of the moment.

Check and see how many hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money is available and you will understand. Scientists are whores when it comes to grant money. If the rent is due they will do a study on the benifets of Adolf Hitler to the Jewish race. They don't have to believe in the study they just have to get the grant money to study it. That grant money pays the bills as well as produce a result. why do you think that congress awards grants to study cow farts and their impact on global warming? How about because it brings money into the congressmans state. We call these grants earmarks. Does anyone profit from scientific studies? SURE! The scientist, the community the scientist lives in because he can now pay his bills. Did you really think that the grant money paid only for the actual study?



I must vigorously disagree with you here. First a scientific study is just that a study. The study produces a theory, the theory is then tested by peer review and duplication. No one has tried to duplicate any of the studies to test the validity of global warming caused by man. The climate models are way off according to the peer review, that alone should cause everyone to stop and take a closer look but instead they accept the study as fact skipping the duplication and peer review. Everything I have posted on global warming is at least ten years old and has been through the peer review process at least twice.

NASA, after careful review has said that the earth is getting hotter and will continue to do so until the earth is cooked and all life is brought to an end. Find a scientist that disagrees with this. You can’t because it has been peer reviewed to death during the time when the kooks were screaming that the next ice age is only 10 year away. For some reason unknown to smart people the earth did not turn into a ball of ice in 1985 as predicted so with the new evidence in hand they scream that we are only 10 years away from being killed by global warming and man is the cause. Well the ice caps on Mars are melting just as they are on the Earth and we don’t have any man made pollutants causing it. That would strongly suggest that man is not the cause of global warming on Earth because everything we have sent up to Mars was either solar powered or nuclear powered. So the planets Venus, Earth and Mars are all warming up at the same rate what part of the warming on the Earth is man’s fault? NONE.

So man made global warming does not fit the facts, the environmentalist have changed the facts to fit the theory. Every climatologist knows that CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming and a predictor of coming cooling. The nut jobs want to reverse that so CO2 is now a predictor of global warming. Scientists have spoken out saying it is wrong but it does to fit the agenda so it gets little or no press. Once you point out that 37 of every million molecules of gas on the earth is CO2 and that we would have to continue our pollution at current levels for five years to change that to 38 molecules out of a million. The nut jobs change direction and start talking about SO2. The atmosphere is currently at 80% nitrogen, 19 or 18% oxygen and the rest are trace elements including methane, Co2, S, So2 and so on. Our atmosphere is 21 miles thick covering 24, 900 miles of the earth. For man to reduce the oxygen levels enough to make any difference at all we would have to bring it down to 10% in less than 5000 years in order to pollute faster than the oceans, and trees can clean it up then we would have a run away greenhouse effect. Do you see man being capable of doing this intentionally? Hell, we can’t!

hahaha...yes TW but NOT ALL of it is from my POV as you know. I liked the last sentence especially well.



Well there are lots of geneologies in scripture and unless there are gaps (and there may be a few but would be insignificant) I would be dating the earth from Adam on and we know that Adam was created on the 6th day. Each day was one 24 hour period (according to the language experts)and the Jews use these timelines to come up with the earth being about 6,000 years old.

I'm not sure what you mean by God's chosen people and modern mankind? All we know is God created the earth in six days and that was the beginning of history. Out of these people he chose Abraham as the beginning of his chosen people. We can see clearly that Abraham comes right along from the line of Shem, one of Noah's sons by looking at the geneology.

I'm still trying to figure out what "pre-historic" really means.

Here is where I disagree with you. Mankind may have been here longer that that. Cain was banished for killing Able and he took a wife. That alone would mean that there were others besides Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were God’s first fruits and chosen to tend his garden. At the same time or a few years after that other humans were created and lived outside the garden.



How long were those days?

I am not of the belief that Cain married his sister. If God is the same yesterday as he is today, and will be in the future then I believe that even without the law he would not approve of incest, think of it like this there was no law against murder yet the murder of Able offended God. All Cain would have to say is, but God, you did not say I can’t kill my brother so why are you mad at me?



Sorry I still don't see it.

Oh crap, did global warming switch into religion?

How does that happen?

*sigh*

~Zoo

Nope. Started out that way.

It started out that way, anytime you have the belief in things unseen you have the definition of a religion. If you believe in the power of a dollar bill then your religion is money, you believe that a dollar will buy things. If you believe in global warming with out any facts to back it up you have a religion. Does a dollar have power? Only to the people that also believe in it. If I go to Sweden my money does not have the power it does in the United States so the religion of money is a local one.

The religion of global warming or global climate change is one that has little basis in fact only conjecture and hypothesis. It rains did God make it rain or did man, or did the accumulation of water vapor above a certain area? It all depends on what religion you believe in. This is what people are really fighting over, the temperature is going up, science says it is the Sun and this has happened in the past and is happening now, and will happen in the future. EnvironMENTAList believe it is man’s disregard for the Earth, and in order to save the planet and mankind we have to impose draconian laws that will wreck any nation that tries it. While people of my religion believe that the earth is getting hotter because it says it will happen in the bible and you can’t change what God is going to do. You chose which you wish to believe in, I can discuss it from both the religious and the scientific points of view. Which one is correct we will not know in our lifetime.

Not at all my friend! The trouble is the interpretation. Adam and Eve were the first, the model that all other humans were based on that also had a similarity to God. If you recall God says let us make man in our image. The only place on Earth where the tree of knowledge of good and evil lay was in the Garden of Eden. The only people that had access to it were Adam and Eve. No where have I read that God did not make other humans, just like you don’t see the bible explain how many animals were created, just that God created them and Adam named them. The only thing that was forbidden was to eat of the knowledge of good an evil and once that was done the entire world was polluted. God cursed and punished mankind for the act of two people. Did you think that Adam and Eve would keep the secret that they were naked from the rest of the world? Would the deaths of Adam and Eve have cleansed the earth of this knowledge? It all started with one simple law. Don’t eat that! From that came all the other laws because mankind learned about evil.

If Adam was the father of mankind as you suggest then how is it that all other races are not directly related to Adam? Only one other race can make that claim the people we call the Arabs. The Old Testament only chronicles the lineage of Adam and people of note that were added to the family line like Ruth. The whole purpose of the book of Ruth was to keep the line straight as she married into the family and was not a Hebrew but her children are in a direct line to Jesus. And as you well know if Jesus is to be the son of God and a Jew he has to be able to trace his family down to Adam. Both Joseph and Mary were of the linage of David and back down to Adam. Your view is one that I have to disagree with as it goes against the word of God in so many directions in order to make it true. Either way we will know for sure soon enough.

George Washington is the Father of our nation does that mean that all the people in America are related to him?



So if Ruth was not of the liniage of Adam as you wrote... I am not saying that there was no proof that he did not creat others I am saying there is no proof that Cain married his sister. This is getting far of field and so far off topic. Start a post on this topic and i will be happy to debate it with you but not in this forum.

yes it is