Another timeline

It's quite obvious to me that Chris Clarke has never studied theology. His cavalier dismissal of the Genesis account reveals his profound ignorance of Christianity as well as a deep seated hatred towards believers.

Marvelous!

There is no other way to describe Chris Clarke's narrative. And it's sad to see that folks like Todd Adamson are blind to that. But then that's what blind faith in ignorance can do to one.

Marvelous!

There is no other way to describe Chris Clarke's narrative. And it's sad to see that folks like Todd Adamson are blind to that. But then that's what blind faith in ignorance can do to one.

Todd, you let Chris off way too easily--you can drag it out a lot further by accusing him of cavalierly dismissing panspermia, exogenesis, and the intricacies of pre-Reformation apologetics. And that's just to start with.

In fact, if you play your cards right, no matter how many "facts" he has, you've always got one more arcane detail up your sleeve to accuse him of not having studied or being qualified to talk about "science". After all, every culture's got gods, and he can't have gotten around to all of them, now can he?

Keanus, I think Todd is simply channeling our previous discussion with theology apologists on another thread, though in this post-ironic age, it really is so hard to tell anymore.

Awesome timeline! That is certainly timely considering all the recent discussion about young earth creationist books.

I hiked into the Grand Canyon and stayed a few nights. After the scenery, the next best part of the experience for me was the daily lectures and Q&A sessions presented by the rangers. The geology of the Canyon was a primary focus of those talks. I hope the NPS' new policy doesn't include muzzling those rangers - creationism and young earth issues just don't belong down there.

RavenT, you failed to even mention J.N. Darby's seven dispensations of God's Law. Science worshipper.

RavenT, you failed to even mention J.N. Darby's seven dispensations of God's Law. Science worshipper.

Now *that's* more like it. Now I can come back at you for not taking into account the differences between the language of the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud, nor the finer points of the various Buddhist hells, when you mentioned Darby.

And while we argue, we can still agree that Chris is wrong, and tag-team him for his "facts"--truly, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Then riddle me this: Given all of the plate shifts, and the multiple rising and falling of the oceans and seas over the millenia, why are so many people freaked out about the potentially minor effects (in the big picture of things) that global warming could cause. If it is happening then I can't argue that humans are partially the cause. (I don't feel guilty about that, and I will not jump on the fear-mongering and Bush-hating bandwagon. There are 6 billion of us, and growing - you do the math.)

But obviously the climate of the earth is not static - it constantly changes over time. I don't think for a second that we could significantly alter the course of nature in a few short decades, given the scale of naturally-occuring changes that occur over the course of millions of years. Do you?

Just wondering as a non geologist; if all that stuff washed out of the canyon, why is there no delta at the rivers mouth. Should there not be one way larger than the Mississippi delta?

What? There's no Colorado River delta anymore?

It won't significantly alter the course of Nature, you're right. Nature has experienced greater changes over time.

We're selfish. We're concerned about the changes affecting us. If you don't mind radical changes to your environment, including lasting changes to agriculture, go right ahead—wave the problem away and don't worry about it.

There are 6 billion of us, and growing

And that is exactly the problem.

Matt: Good for you, resisting the bandwagon of panic-stricken liberal global-warming alarmists. You're right! Global warming won't destroy the earth! The annual mean surface temperature of the planet could go up 400 degrees (C or F, it hardly matters) and it wouldn't destroy the earth.

But of course, PZ is right, too: Don't for a moment believe that "Save the Earth" rhetoric means much more than "Save Our Butts." To paraphrase George Carlin, "The earth will get along just fine without us... I don't think the people down in Mexico City [after a devastating earthquake] feel like much of a threat to the earth, do you?"

Regardless, there's no need to feel guilty about mankind's contributions to the current global warming trend. However, you might consider how you feel about showing a complete lack of concern about what sort of environment we leave for our descendents. They might forgive you for ignorance, but not for willful myopic selfishness in the face of compelling evidence.

Todd: Nice deadpan at the top of the thread. ;-)

No-one has even attempted to answer the question of: Given the evidence of tremendous naturally-occurring climactic shifts over the history of the earth, do you truly think that we can meaningfully alter the course of nature (and its effects on humans, as you are all keen to point out) without significantly degrading the economic welfare of the world? I honestly don't think so. We are but specks on the surface of the earth. (And believe me when I say - I am non-relgious. I am biased by common-sense, not religion).

That is a good and sensible question, Matt, but I can answer that:

"Maybe."

Oh, ye of little faith! ;-)

Sure, we are specks, but our ability to impact our environment is magnified by our technology. Your opinion is noted, and I grant you may be right and I may be wrong, but the ease with which you throw up your hands and claim impotence surprises and dismays me.

Matt No-one has even attempted to answer...

The problem with common sense is that it's highly dependent upon where and how you derive it (some people derive their common sence from talk radio and experiences in the neighborhood). Another problem is applying common sense derived from the scale of everyday life to the scale of climatic changes. The answer to your question is yes, man-made effects can be imposed on the environment that will superimpose onto naturally occurring climatic cycles. The relatively recent dramatic rise in CO2 and the relatively recent advent of a global warming cycle supports at least a partial anthropogenic input. The greater rate at which climate change appears to be occurring now as opposed to previous changes, along with the correlative exponential rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gases inputs, further supports an anthropogenic-caused change.

You don't have to trust scientists on this and, of course, you don't have to trust scientists regarding germ theory or gravity either. But it's not really such a wise idea to automatically reject the hypotheses based on gut-feeling or because someone else with political/financial motivation tells you to do so.

There's an abundance of data available via Google, your local libraries and your local colleges/universities. Common sense has a way of broadening with increased information. Be sceptical (good scientific quality) but then again don't be pig headed as some people become.

But of course, PZ is right, too: Don't for a moment believe that "Save the Earth" rhetoric means much more than "Save Our Butts." To paraphrase George Carlin, "The earth will get along just fine without us... I don't think the people down in Mexico City [after a devastating earthquake] feel like much of a threat to the earth, do you?"

In other news, the cure for all human cancers has been found in the liver of the passenger pigeon. Now all we have to do is breed huge flocks of pas . . .

Oh, never mind.

You can make an entirely self-serving justification for any pro-environmental position, even for the bits we don't now exploit, like the snail darter, or maybe the spotted owl. We might need that genetic diversity later on.

I found Chris' timeline well-written and informative, and told him as much; nevertheless I'm a bit apprehensive about the congratulatory comment I left. If he doesn't remember me I suppose it will be a relief...

I remember you, Azkyroth, and you're welcome to comment any time.

No-one has even attempted to answer the question of: Given the evidence of tremendous naturally-occurring climactic shifts over the history of the earth, do you truly think that we can meaningfully alter the course of nature (and its effects on humans, as you are all keen to point out) without significantly degrading the economic welfare of the world? I honestly don't think so. We are but specks on the surface of the earth. (And believe me when I say - I am non-relgious. I am biased by common-sense, not religion).

Matt: Your question is a commonly asked one, and is a good one. The problem here is that it is easy to bring up this kind of critique but it requires some energy to answer it.

See this blogand this site for some information and commentary.

One way to think about it is like this: So climate changes, and when that happens bad things happen (see the links). But since this happens anyway, why all the fuss about global warming? Well, there is a difference between a bad thing happening (Joe Schmo dies, as do all Schmos) and the same bad thing happens because YOU caused it (Matt runs over Joe Schmo with his big SUV because he is in a hurry).

Sorry matt, the site I was trying to point you to was this one:

http://www.climate.org/topics/health/index.shtml