The Barbarian

By definition, you can't have mornings without a sun to have them. But sun didn't show up the first few days. This is why the account has long been considered to be figurative by Christians.

The text itself says that they were not literal days. I don't think you're lying. You're so indoctrinated that you can't accept it God's way. You already learned that's not true. St. Augustine, for example, showed long before that, that the "days" of creation could not be literal ones. And no one challenged him on that. He remains a respected theologian in all three major branches of Christianity. C'mon. YE creationism is an error, not a heresy. Perhaps you don't know what "heresy" means. What do you think it means?

For example, when the Black Sea basin was flooded, the mountains around the basin were covered. Why is that surprising to you? Which is why the mountains in the flooded basin were covered, but not mountains at higher elevations. You got the concept, but you're a little weak on applying it in the real world. It applies to all the land dwelling animals in the land. This is what the Bible teaches. You're a little confused here. You see, creationists, faced with the fact that the Ark would not have been even close to big enough to hold seven pairs (or two for unclean) of all the animals existing on the Earth today, suppose that there was some kind of hypersuperevolution that produced all the others in a few thousand years. But if they were right, that would mean new species popping up every month. And no one thought it was worth mentioning. Ironically, your new beliefs require more evolution than science can support. Thus, to support your revision of the Bible you have to endorse evolution (but only for a while, and much, much faster than evidence shows). You seem to do this effortlessly.

Example of the evolution of an entirely new enzyme system in bacteria. ... and humans are still primates. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be an adequate excuse for observed evolution.

Yes. Because assuming "kind" as in the Bible is a taxonomic term, is a semantic error. As I pointed out, "bird kind" in the Bible includes bats. It's a functional definition. Whales are considered "fish kind." So trying to do biology with such a definition, will always mislead people.

Even most creationists now admit that new kinds of living things evolve from existing kinds. Remember, "kind" is not a taxonomic term; it's just means a particular group of things. Well, let's test that. Give us a testable definition of "kind." If it's not testable, it's merely a belief without foundation. Since the Bible says that bats and birds are the same kind, (even says that bats are birds) that would be a rather broad category. The classification system in the Bible is a functional one e.g. "vertebrates that fly." And biological classification systems are by descent. Entirely different things. But let's see if you can show us a testable definition for "kind." Then we'll go out and see how well it works.

Your guys maybe. Climatologists were saying "stronger storms", but I don't see any saying "more storms." As you saw, there have been slightly more storms in recent decades, but the big deal is that they tend to be much stronger now. Sounds kinda emotionally-driven to me. Bottom line? Warming is proceeding as predicted decades ago, and increasingly large storm losses on the Gulf coast are making some places uninsurable. That's the reality. The Beast and one world government, not so much at least for the forseeable future.

No, that's the original story. Your new story is when you added "global" to the original. As you learned, the Bible says land (erets) was covered, but does not say the entire world (tevel) was covered. "Under Heaven" was a saying dating from the time the Hebrews thought the world was flat , and covered by a solid dome of sky, above which was a vast store of water, and then Heaven. The account also says that the gates in that solid dome opened up to let water through. You've focused on what the Hebrews didn't know about the world, and miss the whole message God is giving you. For example, when the Black Sea basin was flooded, the mountains around the basin were covered. Why is that surprising to you? The word was "erets" (land), not "tevel" world. This is the part of His word that you will not accept. It applies to all the land dwelling animals in the land. This is what the Bible teaches. This is truth. I don't think you're lying. You're just so indoctrinated in that modern revision that you can't accept what it actually says.

"Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one..." The text itself says that they were not literal days. Pretending they say otherwise makes you look foolish. Why not just be honest enough to say that you don't believe the Bible?

That is an addition to scripture believed by a minority of the world's Christians. In fact, the adherents of this man-made doctrine debate it constantly. You're wrong. Your new doctrine is man's revision of God's word. Not a serious debate issue. Another "just so" story to deal with the problems in your new doctrines. It leaves traces in the rock around it. As it does at Oklo. You don't know what it is, or how it works, so all of this is a surprise to you. The 2-Ga Eburnean Orogeny in Gabon and the opening of the Francevillian intracratonic basins: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163107131630092X#fig0010 It only had to be down enough for water to filter down to it. That would be deep enough. It is in water permeable sandstone, but underlaid by impermeable granite upthrust eastward, putting it low enough in the slope for water to moderate the reaction. No. You seem confused. Or just erosion of rock. A sudden flood would not produce sandstone. You're just making up stories, now, without even trying to make it fit scripture or the evidence.

A friend of mine is of French Canadian descent. He tells me about how the people there were incredibly self-reliant and resourceful in smaller communities.

No, that's the original story. Your new story is when you added "global" to the original. In the end we have to choose whether to believe you or the word of God. I'll go with God.

When we were much younger, my wife was patient services coordinator for a chapter of the Muscular Dystrophy Association. That's one she doesn't know about. (Barbarian checks) It is associated with French Canadian ancestry, as you say. I checked on Cajun populations in Louisiana, and it turns up there too, suggesting the mutation was present in Canada before the French and Indian War.

That is an addition to scripture believed by a minority of the world's Christians. In fact, the adherents of this man-made doctrine debate it constantly. The rocks show a given amount of radiation. Shorter time, more radiation in any given time. Which, if shortened from billions of years to thousands, would have killed everything. You imaginary different physics is irrelevant. The evidence shows that God made physics right the first time and kept it. Posted a link for you. You don't know enough about the subject to even read it, do you? (wants to know how plate tectonics happens) You clearly didn't know. So I told you. Don't bother saying "I knew it all the time." That was your story. I merely noted what the evidence shows. You tried to cover up by pretending God changed physics to make your story fit. The 2-Ga Eburnean Orogeny in Gabon and the opening of the Francevillian intracratonic basins: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163107131630092X#fig0010 It only had to be down enough for water to filter down to it. It is in water permeable sandstone, but underlaid by impermeable granite upthrust eastward, putting it low enough in the slope for water to moderate the reaction:

The rocks show a given amount of radiation. Shorter time, more radiation in any given time. Which, if shortened from billions of years to thousands, would have killed everything. Posted a link for you. You don't know enough about the subject to even read it, do you? (wants to know how plate tectonics happens) Convection currents in the mantle. Which are easily observed by seismic means. Again, because you have no idea how any of this works, you keep making simple mistakes. Middle school science. C'mon.

The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. Not for someone who takes scripture as it is. For those who want to revise the Flood to be worldwide, it's an unsolvable problem.

As you learned, the text itself says that they are not literal days at all. No point in denial. Only if you revise it to be a literal history does God's word conflict with His creation.

As you learned, even in the 1970s, most climatologists realized that the Earth was going to be warming up, not cooling:

We're discussing the rise in temperatures on Earth, driven by human increases in CO2 emissions. Specifically, we're pointing out that your sources got it completely wrong, as the data show. see above. Perhaps that's why scientists say they are young. It's not like the moon. There is an atmosphere capable of eroding, and solid water than can be melted by various things.

That's a testable assumption... first, there was not a prediction of more hurricanes. Didn't see that in the literature, but whoever did say that, got it right. As you see, there was a slight increase in the number of hurricanes over that time. Notice though, that you sources discuss it happening, not predicting it. Anyone can do that. The key is that climatologists accurately predicted the increase in severe storms. I don't think Charles is a climatologist. (Barbarian checks) Nope. He is a scientific crank, though. Well, let's take a look. An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006... As you see, there was a significant rise in global temperatures since then. Your source is stuffed with prunes. Heat waves in Europe? The data: Seems like your guys got everything wrong.

See my response above. Look at the graph of over a half-century of storms. Severe storms are much more frequent in the last 20 years. As predicted. If you thought about it, it would be obvious. Hurricanes are heat engines. The more heat in the oceans, the stronger the hurricane. See the data. No point in denial, now.

Property damage caused by tropical storms, particularly tropical cyclones like hurricanes, has been on the rise in the country, leading to significant insured losses since the early 1990s That's a testable assumption... first, there was not a prediction of more hurricanes. The prediction was that there would be more severe (class 3 and up) hurricanes. So let's see how that worked... Actually, there have been more hurricanes, but as you see, there was a significant increase in the number of severe hurricanes, as predicted. Desalinization used in places where water is desperately needed, like Saudi Arabia. Not very viable for most places. If people didn't need water, it wouldn't be a problem. But they do. Agriculture depends on water, and as you just learned, warming means the American West gets less water. And as you now realize, desalinization isn't economically feasible yet. And you're wrong; China is capitalistic. It's not state-owned. You were really misled there. It's private companies. With private enterprise, a stock market, and a lot of millionaires. You really didn't know that? Turns out humans put put more CO2 in a month than any major eruption. Washington state is continuously producing CO2 emissions. So is Mt. St. Helens. But not nearly as much. Maybe every few hundred years, it puts out as much as a large forest fire. Which Washington State has every few decades. Those ranchers in the high plains and the property owners on the Gulf Coast are probably not in a mood for excuses like yours.

People living on the Gulf Coast, who have seen their insurance rates go out of sight. Comes down to losses. And... The latest report from DBRS Morningstar highlights the potential long-term consequences of a concerning trend in coastal properties, including the possibility of declining property values along the US coast if insurance coverage becomes inaccessible or too costly. Property damage caused by tropical storms, particularly tropical cyclones like hurricanes, has been on the rise in the country, leading to significant insured losses since the early 1990s. This upward trend has raised concerns about the availability and affordability of insurance coverage. As the private insurance sector grapples with these increasing losses, there's a growing reliance on government programs, such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Florida's Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. However, at present, this surge in catastrophe loss exposure does not have negative credit rating implications for the rated insurance companies, as they are effectively managing the associated risks. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/catastrophe/coastal-properties-at-risk-of-becoming-uninsurable--report-464532.aspx Reality, again. Can't get away from it. Rancher on the Great Plains, who are struggling with droughts. Turns out, warmer climate means less snowpack every winter, (snowline is now higher than it was before) and so less snowmelt and less water. Not hard to figure out. It's been used in places where water is desperately needed, like Saudi Arabia. Not very viable for most places. Lots of engineering studies on using solar desalinization. Not economically feasible for now. Well, people in the United States will be having more and more difficulties in the far West and the Gulf Coast. China is capitalistic. Thought you knew. But yes, it's a world issue. What once nation does, involves the whole globe. Wrong. Lots of people die every year from just that. https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths I don't think we have to choose either clean air or Jesus. Which produces more CO2, in a month, humans or a major volcanic eruption? Wrong. Turns out humans put put more CO2 in a month than any major eruption. That has nothing whatever to do with CO2. Sulfur dioxide droplets in the air reflect infrared and temporarily cool the Earth after a major eruption. The planet will continue regardless. Life will survive our effects. We will almost certainly survive. But it will be more interesting and challenging in many places. No one knows. He doesn't tell us specifically to keep us from obsessing about it. Live as you should, and you don't need to be obsessed with it. Failing to do what we should, is why the climate is causing problems for us. Blaming others, even when others are contributing to the problem, may make us feel better. But it won't do any good.

You've been misled about that. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere is not from humans breathing. We generate a lot more by operating machinery, manufacturing, fires, etc. Let's test that assumption. Which produces more CO2, in a month, humans or a major volcanic eruption? Show your work. The planet will continue regardless. Life will survive our effects. We will almost certainly survive. But it will be more interesting and challenging in many places.

People living on the Gulf Coast, who have seen their insurance rates go out of sight. Rancher on the Great Plains, who are struggling with droughts. On the other hand, herders in sub-Saharan Africa are pleased, as the desert retreats and the area greens up. Winners and losers. You can't drink seawater. But even before the seas were rising, there would have been enough water, if it wasn't salty. Well, people in the United States will be having more and more difficulties, but those herders in the Sahel will be happier.