New climate study deals blow to skeptics

:thumbsup: Agree.

 

No doubt Jefferson would be on your ignore list. I wonder who your earthly hero is InTheDark . . . Ben Bernanke? Amscel Mayer Rothschild? I know it's gotta be some crook bent on defrauding the United States with some form of usury. They seem to be the ones you defend the most adamantly. :smilewinkgrin:

Oh wait, you can't read this because I like Jefferson am on your ignore list.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I agree ARBO, some here seem to be getting their knickers in knot for no reason, except that they like to throw around the "lib" label.

 

Thanks! I look forward to meeting you in person when I get there.

 

Scripture, please (of course, I know you won't give one, cause there is not one...)

 

Nope. Cause we'd be drilling and be able to use much less expensive crude oil. The corn could be used to actually feed the hungry....

 

To me it is a simple thing. It doesn't matter whether you are a con or a lib.

 

Uh...in Genesis?

 

I got no problem with conserving the earth and all but let's do it based on real facts and scientific study instead of fake reports and fear mongering propaganda.

 

:thumbsup: A sensible approach.

 

Give the scripture...

I am asking you, because this "Good stewardship" of the trees and cattle thing is much like the "God helps those who help themselves" verse...everyone seems to think its there, but its not....

 

Gen 1:26-30.

 

I am assuming your joking, since those are not actual Bible verses (I believe Genesis 8 ends at verse 22).

:wavey:

 

Gen 1:26-30.

 

Nothing in their about protecting the earth.

We are to SUBDUE (Kabash) the earth (literally to "tread down" or to conquer. It is a very negative word, that is used in several places in the Old Testament to denote annihilating an opposing army).

We are also to have dominion over the earth (radah). This also means to tread down, and is also a very negative term. For instance, Israelites are not to "radah" there brethren... "

Again, nothing in the scriptures about protecting trees, animals, and the environment. These things are all looked on as property of man that he is free to use however he desires.

 

But we can still be rational about it. One generation hasn't the right to deprive the next of say clean air and water for example.

 

I have no problem with reasonable protections of the environment. I just don't like people trying to invent Bible verses to support it.

 

As I understand the concept of being granted dominion over creation, as in vs. 26, there is a responsibility for its proper use.

 

Who invented what verses?

 

I reject the premise that rejection of propoganda means I want to destroy the earth. It is a liberal trick. The same argument they use that if we aren't pro-choice, we want pregnant teenagers to die in alleyways. It's ridiculous.

And the idea that conservatives banned DDT is a lie. If that was the case, the liberals would be on record demanding it be used to save the lives of the poor they claim to care about. They aren't, and they won't be. I believe that allows me to speculate on why.

And lastly, I believe Paul doesn't seem to sure about his salvation. He should worry more about eternity, than temporal things. I got that advice out of the same book he's trying to beat us with.