Global Warming

[Khristeeanos]

You're kidding, right? Roald Amundsan, the first man to reach the south pole, docked his ship near the Ross Ice Shelf....this was in 1911. Fabian von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Petrovich Lazarev lead an expedition in the 1820's and ran into ice fields 20 miles off the coast of Antartica.

As for "maps from hundreds of years ago" it doesn't matter. No one had ever discovered Antartica, much less the South Pole. It was believed it was a lush land and this belief existed until the late 1700's...it was destroyed when people realized it was nothing more than a giant block of ice with land under it. Are you suggesting that, within just 100 years, it developed ice shelves miles thick?

Wow!

What a disrespectful way to get your point across.

I have the map in a book.

I said hundreds of years like as in 500 years ago.

[apothanein kerdos]

You're kidding, right? Roald Amundsan, the first man to reach the south pole, docked his ship near the Ross Ice Shelf....this was in 1911. Fabian von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Petrovich Lazarev lead an expedition in the 1820's and ran into ice fields 20 miles off the coast of Antartica.

As for "maps from hundreds of years ago" it doesn't matter. No one had ever discovered Antartica, much less the South Pole. It was believed it was a lush land and this belief existed until the late 1700's...it was destroyed when people realized it was nothing more than a giant block of ice with land under it. Are you suggesting that, within just 100 years, it developed ice shelves miles thick?

Wow!

What a disrespectful way to get your point across.

I have the map in a book.

I said hundreds of years like as in 500 years ago.

If you're going to use maps that date 500 years back as justification for a point, then how is someone suppose to handle that?

500 years ago Antartica hadn't even been discovered....shoot, the Western world had just been discovered.

Unless you meant it as a joke (in which case I apologize)...you really shouldn't have expected a response any better than what I gave.

[Aviator227]

Hey all,

I think that this is one of a great number of small issues we face today in this world mainly because it isn't totally and directly related to salvation. Whether or not the whole global warming thing is true or not, our salvation is not affected by this at all.

If you do believe that global warming is true (which I believe is your personal choice) then it is likely to be as someone said, because of sin entering the world.

To me, its just another thing I learnt in high school, and I don't think too much of it. Remember that plenty of clear warnings are given for us against false teachers and teachings. We need to be discerning as believers as to what is true or not, and where something such as global warming isn't spoken much of in the Bible, I label it is pretty much irrelevant.

[apothanein kerdos]

I think that this is one of a great number of small issues we face today in this world mainly because it isn't totally and directly related to salvation. Whether or not the whole global warming thing is true or not, our salvation is not affected by this at all.

There is more to this life than what relates to Salvation. We are called to cultivate the earth as well...this means we are the protectors of God's creation. Guess what, NOTHING relates to salvation except witnessing....therefore life is absolutely meaningless unless you're witnessing to people. The fact you posted contradicts your own belief.

Genocide isn't related to salvation...so should I just ignore the fact it occurs? Was William Wilberforce a bad Christian because he refused to go into the ministry and instead stayed in politics? Trust me, salvation is great, but there's more to being a Christian than "being saved."

[Khristeeanos]

If you're going to use maps that date 500 years back as justification for a point, then how is someone suppose to handle that?

500 years ago Antartica hadn't even been discovered....shoot, the Western world had just been discovered.

Unless you meant it as a joke (in which case I apologize)...you really shouldn't have expected a response any better than what I gave.

Oceanographers 500 years ago were making maps of places that they came across. I don't understand what your issue is with this.

How can you say that the Western world had "just been discovered" when there are huge civilizations like the Myans and Native Americans who had been here for hundreds and maybe even over a thousand years before Columbus.

Perhaps you are so indoctrinated with some belief that you don't look for the other side of things.

[apothanein kerdos]

If you're going to use maps that date 500 years back as justification for a point, then how is someone suppose to handle that?

500 years ago Antartica hadn't even been discovered....shoot, the Western world had just been discovered.

Unless you meant it as a joke (in which case I apologize)...you really shouldn't have expected a response any better than what I gave.

Oceanographers 500 years ago were making maps of places that they came across. I don't understand what your issue is with this.

How can you say that the Western world had "just been discovered" when there are huge civilizations like the Myans and Native Americans who had been here for hundreds and maybe even over a thousand years before Columbus.

Perhaps you are so indoctrinated with some belief that you don't look for the other side of things.

Wow, you were serious? Wow......

Anyway, no, oceanographers were not always accurate and likewise they were making maps off of what they supposed was there, not just off what they had discovered. If you look you see sea monsters still, and there is no Pacific Ocean. Balboa was the first to see the Pacific (1513)....yet no one even discovered Antartica until 1821....yet you're telling me historians are absolutely wrong? What you're looking at is a land that was thought to be connected to Africa and later Australia. Up until 1774 the land was thought to be huge, populated, and partially lush. This was dispelled by Captain James Cook when, crossing the Artic circle, they discovered it was quite frigid. However, the first verifiable siting of it did not occur until 1821. In other words...are you seriously using maps from 500 years ago, when Antartica had never been seen and recorded, to justy your claim? If so...please, just leave this debate....you have no place in it.

As for the Western World being discovered....they had just been discovered by Columbus. When historians talk about the "new world" or "western world" (in the ancient sense), we are referncing the land, peoples, tribes, and cultures.

I'm just still baffled that you're using these maps as justification. Basically, if you are saying that 2 miles of ice just magically appeared on Antartica in less than 500 years? Wow.....

[other one]

I think that this is one of a great number of small issues we face today in this world mainly because it isn't totally and directly related to salvation. Whether or not the whole global warming thing is true or not, our salvation is not affected by this at all.

There is more to this life than what relates to Salvation. We are called to cultivate the earth as well...this means we are the protectors of God's creation. Guess what, NOTHING relates to salvation except witnessing....therefore life is absolutely meaningless unless you're witnessing to people. The fact you posted contradicts your own belief.

Genocide isn't related to salvation...so should I just ignore the fact it occurs? Was William Wilberforce a bad Christian because he refused to go into the ministry and instead stayed in politics? Trust me, salvation is great, but there's more to being a Christian than "being saved."

I agree, and one of the first things we covered after salvation was how to treat people....... appearantly you have never given that much thought to that subject....... your way of dealing with people is an embarrassment to many other christians.

[apothanein kerdos]

I think that this is one of a great number of small issues we face today in this world mainly because it isn't totally and directly related to salvation. Whether or not the whole global warming thing is true or not, our salvation is not affected by this at all.

There is more to this life than what relates to Salvation. We are called to cultivate the earth as well...this means we are the protectors of God's creation. Guess what, NOTHING relates to salvation except witnessing....therefore life is absolutely meaningless unless you're witnessing to people. The fact you posted contradicts your own belief.

Genocide isn't related to salvation...so should I just ignore the fact it occurs? Was William Wilberforce a bad Christian because he refused to go into the ministry and instead stayed in politics? Trust me, salvation is great, but there's more to being a Christian than "being saved."

I agree, and one of the first things we covered after salvation was how to treat people....... appearantly you have never given that much thought to that subject....... your way of dealing with people is an embarrassment to many other christians.

I also learned that conspiracy theories are generally a distraction from the real issue, but that's neither here nor there.

Basically, how are you suppose to treat people who lack historical facts, scientific facts, logic, and then call you uneducated? We have Leonard pretty much calling people crazy for believing in it, Kilad saying that anyone who argues for Global Warming is just using scare tactics, Marnie saying that those of us that believe in it need to be educated (reference the other GW topic in World News), and the facts I present called nothing mroe than a "load of hooey." But go ahead Other One, don't be fair, just pick out on one thing that you see wrong. Lord knows that if someone uses facts the best thing anyone can do is attack the manner in which it is presented and not the actual facts.

When you have someone saying, "Well maps from 500 years ago show no ice" when you know that Antartica wasn't discovered until 200 years ago....and then they keep on that point even after pointing this out....it's hard to say, "Well that's a good point but...."

[Khristeeanos]

If you're going to use maps that date 500 years back as justification for a point, then how is someone suppose to handle that?

500 years ago Antartica hadn't even been discovered....shoot, the Western world had just been discovered.

Unless you meant it as a joke (in which case I apologize)...you really shouldn't have expected a response any better than what I gave.

Oceanographers 500 years ago were making maps of places that they came across. I don't understand what your issue is with this.

How can you say that the Western world had "just been discovered" when there are huge civilizations like the Myans and Native Americans who had been here for hundreds and maybe even over a thousand years before Columbus.

Perhaps you are so indoctrinated with some belief that you don't look for the other side of things.

Wow, you were serious? Wow......

Anyway, no, oceanographers were not always accurate and likewise they were making maps off of what they supposed was there, not just off what they had discovered. If you look you see sea monsters still, and there is no Pacific Ocean. Balboa was the first to see the Pacific (1513)....yet no one even discovered Antartica until 1821....yet you're telling me historians are absolutely wrong? What you're looking at is a land that was thought to be connected to Africa and later Australia. Up until 1774 the land was thought to be huge, populated, and partially lush. This was dispelled by Captain James Cook when, crossing the Artic circle, they discovered it was quite frigid. However, the first verifiable siting of it did not occur until 1821. In other words...are you seriously using maps from 500 years ago, when Antartica had never been seen and recorded, to justy your claim? If so...please, just leave this debate....you have no place in it.

As for the Western World being discovered....they had just been discovered by Columbus. When historians talk about the "new world" or "western world" (in the ancient sense), we are referncing the land, peoples, tribes, and cultures.

I'm just still baffled that you're using these maps as justification. Basically, if you are saying that 2 miles of ice just magically appeared on Antartica in less than 500 years? Wow.....

I can tell that discussing anything with you is pointless because you are so dogmatic in your beliefs and won't even consider any evidence that contradicts what you have been trained to believe.

But . . .

This picture is from the magazine with the note:

Antartica shows prominently on the map made by Oronteus Finaeus in 1531. The details of the south polar continent are surprisingly accurate, even showing mountain ranges and rivers that are now under ice more than a mile thick. Some were not discovered until 1957 using sonic reflection devices.

Source: Unlocking the mysteries of Creation Page 211

[Gerioke]

I would like to ask the know it all, if pollution is the cause of global warming, then what caused the ice age? Fresh air?