The Barbarian

That's surprising, since the consensus of climatologists was that we wouldn't see much flooding until the end of this century. Do you have a name or a link? The meeting at Woods Hole gathered together about 10 distinguished climate scientists, who also sought advice from other scientists from across the world. The group was led by Jule Charney from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected atmospheric scientists of the 20th century. The Report lays out clearly what was known about the likely effects of increasing carbon dioxide on the climate, as well as the uncertainties. The main conclusion of the Report was direct: We estimate the most probable warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3°C with a probable error of 1.5°C. In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66°C, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5°C warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction. https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502 When we looked at demographics, we found that today’s flood risk is predominantly concentrated in white, impoverished communities. Many of these are in low-lying areas directly on the coasts or Appalachian valleys at risk from heavy rainfall. But the increase in risk as rising oceans reach farther inland during storms and high tides over the next 30 years falls disproportionately on communities with large African American populations on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Urban and rural areas from Texas to Florida to Virginia contain predominantly Black communities projected to see at least a 20% increase in flood risk over the next 30 years. https://theconversation.com/new-flood-maps-show-us-damage-rising-26-in-next-30-years-due-to-climate-change-alone-and-the-inequity-is-stark-175958 As suggested, it is more complicated than merely sea rise (which until recently was mostly due to thermal expansion of warmer water, rather than melting glaciers).

But you can't show your new doctrine is true. God merely that a human life span was three score and seven. But He could extend the life spans of others as He chose. Why won't you just believe Him? Now you're wising up. Well done. Out of excuses. But you seem to have finally accepted it His way.

You showed God extended the lives of a few humans beyond the three score and ten normal for humans. But you offered no evidence for this being the norm. Indeed,God says otherwise. Why won't you believe Him? Other than God's word? That's enough for me. It's sad that His word isn't enough for you. But that didn't stop you from declaring otherwise, did it? You're still a bit confused. We know that three score and ten is a pretty good average life span. And 120 years is close to the maximum, but God never said it was a hard limit. Perhaps you're in the wrong forum, This one is for those who believe in the Lord.

Ancient dinosaurs, no. But I had a nice meal of fried dinosaur recently.

Actually, it does. As noted, we see the same processes happening in the solar system, happening in other systems. Imagining that there's some magic differences, with no evidence whatever for that, is just feeble excuse-making. Why not just accept creation as God made it? Belief foisted on all evidence makes the evidences look young to the died on the wool true believers in the creationist religion. See how easy it is to reverse name-calling? So long as you ignore scripture and the evidence, that's how it will go for you. Set aside your pride, and try to deal with the reality God has given you.

You showed God extended the lives of a few humans beyond the three score and ten normal for humans. But you offered no evidence for this being the norm. Indeed,God says otherwise. Why won't you believe Him? You keep trying to point out errors in the perfect word of God, but in so doing, you only demonstrate either total ignorance or total dishonesty.

But we do have God's word on human lifespan, and it's not hundreds of years. Why don't you just believe Him? He does. And you should just believe Him. You were the one who showed us that God said human lifetimes were not hundreds of years. If you think so, you weren't reading very well. I pointed out to you that very recently someone exceeded that age. Whether you go with 120 years or seventy years as God says elsewhere, it contradicts your assumption that humans used to live longer than they do now. Likewise, only a few people are listed by God as having ages of hundreds of years. I just had to show you why your assumption is contradicted by God's word. Why not just accept it His way? Nor is it evidence of existence. It's more likely that it wasn't mentioned because it didn't happen. Think. If "Big light in the sky" was morning, then moonrise would be morning. So your assumption fails. There's really no way to get around God's word. Why not just accept it as it is?

I pointed out to the ICR writer that those ages were limited to patriarchs and prominent people in the Bible and were never given as an average age for people of that time. That's what I just said. You printed out a lie. But we do have God's word on human lifespan, and it's not hundreds of years. Why don't you just believe Him? Nor does it mean that it wasn't. We have no reason to think that God was wrong when He mentioned how long a human lifetime was then. What is your evidence that He was wrong? My name isn't listed in the roll of presidents of the United States.. That doesn't mean I was president of the United States. Likewise, only a few people are listed by God as having ages of hundreds of years. That doesn't mean that God was wrong when He said 120 or 70 for a human life span. Why do you think He's wrong? And you've apparently never read the Constitution, if you think I'm not covered by it. It doesn't mention a few important people who have rights. It says all persons. You should be very careful with that kind of accusation. It suggests unflattering things about you. Because God said otherwise. You admitted that He said 120 as a human lifespan. Why won't you just believe Him? And as you learned, the fact that the creation story mentions mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, makes it very clear that the days are not literal 24 hour days. Why not just accept it God's way? Once you let it be His way, it won't trouble you any longer.

I bother to look things up in science journals They are quite useful for debunking creationist revisions of Genesis and other books of the Bible. I pointed out to the ICR writer that those ages were limited to patriarchs and prominent people in the Bible and were never given as an average age for people of that time. You posted it for me. Just a few people, no everyday ordinary people. You assumed that God extended the lifetimes of everyone, ignoring what He actually said about it. You don't believe Him, because He doesn't agree with your new doctrines. But I believe Him. Is there anything in the Bible that you accept as it is? the "days" of creation are not literal days. The text itself says they are not. God says it is. I believe Him. You should, too.

You're constantly getting blindsided by facts, because I bother to look things up in science journals. And yes, knowing what one is talking about, is a huge advantage. Wow, that's an old one. I remember some guy from the ICR saw a curve in biology book and found that if he messed with the X axis a bit, it would fit the ages of patriarchs. I pointed out to him that those ages were limited to patriarchs and prominent people in the Bible, and that God specifically stated human lifetimes were much shorter. Three score and seven or 120, depending on interpretations. So it went away, at least at that time. One place He says three score and ten. Another he says 120. Why won't you just believe Him? As you learned, the "days" of creation are not literal days. The text itself says they are not. Why won't you just believe Him? Since you absolutely reject God's testimony in Genesis, you're constantly getting caught in your own contradictions.

Which is how we know that human lifetimes haven't changed significantly over tens of thousands of years. Evidence from ancient graves shows that people didn't live extremely long lives. If you have to invent silly ideas and insist that I believe them, that's a pretty good clue you're out of excuses. Is there anything in the Bible, however obscure, with which you agree with it as it is? Show us that. Hint: God lengthening the lifetime of a few patriarchs does not overrule His word that human lifetimes are about a century long. You're not satisfied with his word, so you've invented your own doctrines. By God's own testimony, they are much longer than the lifetime God set for humans.

That's your addition to scripture. But you have no evidence for it. In fact, you just cited evidence against it: And as you know, someone recently lived longer than that. So clearly ages haven't changed very much. It's not just God's word that you reject. Evidence from ancient graves shows that people didn't live extremely long lives. Would you like to learn how we know? If God chose to lengthen the lives of patriarchs,that doesn't mean that everyone had a longer lifespan. Maybe one of us does.

The second law doesn't say that everything is in a constant state of degradation. Why not learn a bit about thermodynamics so you can discuss this issue without making such errors? You've confused heat with matter. Heat can cease in a closed system (which as another person here noted, means that one has to assume that the universe is a closed system). But the end of heat does not mean the end of matter. Please learn a bit about these things before you tell others about them. Perhaps you don't know what a scientific law is. What do you think it is? They do predict what scientists expect to see under specific conditions. However, they are not always universally applicable. Newton's laws of motion, for example were once considered to be universally true. NASA still uses them to navigate spacecraft through the solar system. But relativistic effects are large enough at those speeds and distances that it's not exactly right. Kepler's 3rd law applies only to our solar system, and so on. Never heard that, but there is a tiny, but non-zero probability that all the oxygen molecules in your room might move to one corner and suffocate you. Law of large numbers makes that so unlikely as to be effectively impossible, but it could happen. Happened at least once. Have some faith in God. The question is whether He used some other created thing to make this universe, (as he did for everything else) or if He created our particular universe from nothing. He doesn't say. I've always been intrigued by the creationist obsession with 747s and junkyards. It's not a thermodynamics problem, BTW. See above. You've been misled by that. They are human-discovered rules. Some, like Cope's Law, turned out to be only applicable to certain conditions. Others, like the laws of thermodynamics seem to reflect the rules within this particular universe. The difference between me and you as that I accept God's creation as it is and you seem to believe He is bound by the physical laws of the universe He created.

Well, of course. Seventy years is a reasonable average lifetime. Which doesn't mean that God couldn't lengthen the lives of specific humans for whatever purpose He had in mind.

The Bible says that mans life span is 75 years, and in another place says 120 years. (but recently someone broke that limit). Your new doctrine was that most humans once lived hundreds of years, which (as you admitted) God's word denies. If God let some humans live much longer, that doesn't mean He let everyone live that long. Your story is just an addition to his word you inserted to make it more acceptable to you. That's your addition to scripture. But you have no evidence for it. In fact, you just cited evidence against it. That was the problem with agriculture. Herding or hunting and gathering tended to allow longer lives. It clearly didn't, since at least one person recently lived longer than that. And of course, God lengthened the lives of a number of patriarchs. Nevertheless, your admission shows that lifetimes were not intrinsically different in earlier times. But that didn't stop you from assuming that it was, in spite of God's word to the contrary.