She's a false prophet.

Actually, you've hit upon what I believe to be the difference between science and religion. All universal truth (scientific or other) comes from God. I must be received through faith and the Holy Spirit. Science chips away at this absolute truth and changes as we understand more about God's creation. Theories can be postulated but generally they are not accepted until proven by experiment. Science can't explain the deeper truths that lie beyond our time/space existence. It will never be able to explain the ultimate answer to questions like "Where did we come from" and :Where are we going" for individuals as well as the universe as a whole. The Bible doesn't explain these incremental advances in Science. How can we stop smallpox and polio? How do you build a space vehicle. Why is the weather changing so remarkably in recent years? It's approach towards science is taken from the culture at its time. Both are significant. Of course Biblical truths are by far the most significant ultimately but it helps to have science discover a vaccine for polio.

 

The first problem is that the word science has not been defined. A thread like this belongs in creation/evolution, secondly. Thirdly, is the discussion to include deep time, evolution, and big bang, or what?

 

I didn't start the thread. please address that concern to the person that did. Define science? Are you kidding?
Definition of science
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

• the science of theology

b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

• have it down to a science

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

• cooking is both a science and an art

 

Oh, sorry. I was unintentionally ambiguous. I meant to say that a thread on science belongs in creation/evolution.

There is a second type of science other than operational science and that is historical science, which cannot be repeated in the laboratory, obviously. It is the type of science, as you know, used by a forensic pathologist, for example.

 

Forensic pathologists use the science of medicine with some crime investigation mixed in. I don't put science over my faith but I don't believe that the Bible should be interpreted as a science textbook. It tells me about the most importan thing. That's the love of God that was demonstrated in sending his Son to die on the cross for poor sinners like me.

 

I think that Ken Ham told Bill Nye the Science Guy at the Noah's Ark debate a couple of years ago that the Holy Bible is a history book. As such Scripture refutes uniformatarianism by saying there was a global flood 4300 years ago (followed by an Ice Age of 700 years). Geological science, an historical science, confirms a catastrophic global flood 4300 years ago. Creationist scientists have explained the Ice Age, whereas deep time people have 60 theories of the Ice Age. Are you an uniformitarianist?

 

The last I looked, the scientific method was not collapsible into the method of consensus building.

Do those ends justify any and every means?

Do you want the next generation to live under a system of green communism, with the equal impoverishment and lack of freedom of all (except an elite)? Why?

 

To FollowTheWay, please be careful about greenwashing. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere. I even sympathize with you to a point. I used to get almost every wildlife calendar there is in the mail for years and years. I used to belong to Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and more. I participated frequently in the Student Environmental Action Coalition list serves. I did environmental education in schools, reading school children The Lorax and planting trees with them on Arbor Day. I remain a consumer of organic foods and a hiker.

My eyes were opened, FollowTheWay, to the fact that all the while I thought I had it all figured out, somebody had me right where they wanted me. We are all capable of being manipulated. I think it happens to all of us sometimes. In fact, it has been said that we live in an inverse totalitarian society -- meaning not a Police State, but a Manipulation State.

One thing that helped me to open my eyes was that I read a well documented expose about the originators and backers of the environmental movement. Please see this link: The 1001 Club: Bankers and Raw Materials Executives Striving for a Sustainable Future

If you bother to click on the link and read it, you will see that it is not a conspiracy theory. It is "fact heavy" and "interpretation light".

Now, just because the devil can come as an angel of light, it doesn't make the light bad. In other words, just because an agenda can be greenwashed, it doesn't make "being green" bad. But you need to look not just at words, but look at "what really happened."

FollowTheWay, you will learn if you care to open your eyes that Prince Philip founded the WWF and that he is the same person who shot an endangered mother black rhino, orphaning her baby black rhino. And that is only the start.

 

I don't endorse every opinion and inclination of the author I linked to in the post above. I am mainly interested in the collection of facts that he has documented.

 

This is a more complete reply to add to my previous one.

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

"Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times."

 

And don't forget about Climategate, or the hacked emails that showed the establishment was suppressing scientific evidence that did not support the global warming consensus. Please make sure you don't miss the part where "Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."

Is that the scientific method you learned about? It isn't the one I learned.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

"There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based."

 

The smoking gun? This is quoted from page 115 of the first edition of the The First Global Revolution, by written by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, subtitled a report by the Council of the Club of Rome.


"THE COMMON ENEMY OF HUMANITY IS MAN
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

 

I am a retired engineer with 40 years of service. I reject the short earth theory.

 

There was not a consensus building exercise on global warming caused by man. There was a study on how a concensus arose independently among the experts.You have to be more specific when asking about the means. I'm saying that reducing pollutants improves the environment and is in line with the stewardship responsibility God gave man.Do you think making a profit overrides this commandment of God?

 

This is not an American political issue. Every other country in the world is in agreement that climate change caused by man is real and they are doing something about it. We used to lead the world in science and engineering. Now we are the most backward in this regard.

 

Why?

 

Do you think we should put blind faith in the dogmas of those who would have everybody in the world worship the creation instead of the creator?

 

This has nothing to do with my faith which is in the Lord God Almighty. Saving God's creation from destruction is honoring Him.

 

It makes no sense scienti9fically.

 

That's bias. Young Earth is highly scientific. For example, only Creationists have explained the Ice Age as a result of Noah's Flood as I have posted before. Evolutionists have sixty different theories, each one of which has scientific problems. Old Earth began at the time of the French Revolution as a speculation by Deists and atheists and has severe scientific problems.