Ice core evidence of human impact on CO2 in air

[AlonzoMourning23]

Air from the oldest ice core confirms human activity has increased the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years, scientists said on Monday.

Bubbles of air in the 800,000-year-old ice, drilled in the Antarctic, show levels of CO2 changing with the climate. But the present levels are out of the previous range.

"It is from air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 percent in the last 200 years," said Dr Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey and the leader of the science team for the 10-nation European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica.

"Before the last 200 years, which man has been influencing, it was pretty steady," he added.

The natural level of CO2 over most of the past 800,000 years has been 180-300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of air. But today it is at 380 ppmv.

"The most scary thing is that carbon dioxide today is not just out of the range of what happened in the last 650,000 years but already up 100 percent out of the range," Wolff said at the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich, eastern England.

CO2 was close to 280 ppmv from 1000 AD until 1800 and then it accelerated toward its present concentration. Wolff added that measurements of carbon isotopes showed the extra CO2 coming from a fossil source, due to increased human activity.

The ice core record showed it used to take about 1,000 years for a CO2 increase of 30 ppmv. It has risen by that much in the last 17 years alone.

"We really are in a situation where something is happening that we don't have any analog for in our records. It is an experiment that we don't know the result of," he added.

Professor Peter Smith, of the University of Nottingham in England, said the study showed more needed to be done.

"There is an urgent need to find innovative technologies to reduce the impact we are having on our climate," he told the science conference.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-09-04T184708Z_01_L04289117_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-CO2.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-scienceNews-2

[false_creeds]

wow, the earth increased CO2 levels around 100 parts per million...

Do you realize how small of an amount that is and how beneficial that is to plant life?

but we're all going to DIE unless we elect Gore and go back to living in huts.

Give me a break.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Ice core data is junk science:

But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.

First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.

The official “rationaleâ€� for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminatedâ€� by the contemporary atmosphere –Â* but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html

[sbannon]

Hmmm, Dr. Jaworowski says ice core estimates are unreliable, hundreds of top climatologists (people who specialize in this field) all say he's wrong... who to believe?

One thing I know of Jaworowski (much like the paid-for-his-opinion Dr. Lindzen) is that for most of his refuting or big claims, he always seems to be his own authority source. That's just not good science by any standard. I've read several of his publishings in the past, they all had that trait so I've stopped wasting my time.

I'm not going to say flat-out that Jaworowski is wrong here, everyone should look into it and decide for themselves. But without serious collaborations his findings begin as suspect for me simply based on his poor standards and form.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I'm not going to say flat-out that Jaworowski is wrong here, everyone should look into it and decide for themselves. But without serious collaborations his findings begin as suspect for me simply based on his poor standards and form.



Actually it is up to the scientists using ice core data to prove they are reliable, and non have, they simply select the data that fits their pre-concieved belief and discard the rest that doesn't.

You can't even call that science, much less bad science.

[Anti-Racism]

wow, the earth increased CO2 levels around 100 parts per million...


Which is a 35% increase, which tells us exactly how influential that amount is...

[false_creeds]

I was actually rounding up with that as well.

60ppm is the number I've seen used most. You are talking about what amounts to a dog fart in a domed football stadium.

I'd be more concerned with other 'greenhouse gasses' than the level something has has been far higher in the recent geological past of the earth and has been shown to actually be beneficial to life.

There is even good evidence that the increase in global temps actually caused the increase in CO2 which brings up the chicken and the egg comparison in a way.

[Mayberry]

You are talking about what amounts to a dog fart in a domed football stadium.
HaHaHa HA HA ha ha:P So we're 80 PPM above the Earth's historical high. O.K. We've also made great strides toward reducing emissions. Today's cars put out a tiny fraction of what cars did 20 years ago. Industry has also reduced emissions significantly. I have great confidence in our ability to reduce emissions even further. Have we effected the atmosphere? Sure. Do I buy into all the doom and gloom from the environmental whackos? No. There is so little about the Earth's workings that we actually understand that everything we hear today is pure speculation. Hell, the "meteorologists" can't even get tomorrow's forecast right. How can anyone predict what the climate will be like 50 years from now?

[BoogyMan]

Air from the oldest ice core confirms human activity has increased the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years, scientists said on Monday.

Bubbles of air in the 800,000-year-old ice, drilled in the Antarctic, show levels of CO2 changing with the climate. But the present levels are out of the previous range.

"It is from air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 percent in the last 200 years," said Dr Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey and the leader of the science team for the 10-nation European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica.

"Before the last 200 years, which man has been influencing, it was pretty steady," he added.

The natural level of CO2 over most of the past 800,000 years has been 180-300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of air. But today it is at 380 ppmv.

"The most scary thing is that carbon dioxide today is not just out of the range of what happened in the last 650,000 years but already up 100 percent out of the range," Wolff said at the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich, eastern England.

CO2 was close to 280 ppmv from 1000 AD until 1800 and then it accelerated toward its present concentration. Wolff added that measurements of carbon isotopes showed the extra CO2 coming from a fossil source, due to increased human activity.

The ice core record showed it used to take about 1,000 years for a CO2 increase of 30 ppmv. It has risen by that much in the last 17 years alone.

"We really are in a situation where something is happening that we don't have any analog for in our records. It is an experiment that we don't know the result of," he added.

Professor Peter Smith, of the University of Nottingham in England, said the study showed more needed to be done.

"There is an urgent need to find innovative technologies to reduce the impact we are having on our climate," he told the science conference.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-09-04T184708Z_01_L04289117_RTRUKOC_0_US-SCIENCE-CO2.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-scienceNews-2



Which dating method was used against this sample? Was it carbon14? Did you know that one of the factors is carbon14 dating is an assumed age of the sample? Hmmmmm

[piratemonkey]

Which dating method was used against this sample?Â*Â*Was it carbon14?Â*Â*Did you know that one of the factors is carbon14 dating is an assumed age of the sample?Â*Â*Hmmmmm


You are factually incorrect.

Show me in the following link where "assumed age" is anywhere in the calculations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating

[BoogyMan]

Which dating method was used against this sample? Was it carbon14? Did you know that one of the factors is carbon14 dating is an assumed age of the sample? Hmmmmm


You are factually incorrect.

Show me in the following link where "assumed age" is anywhere in the calculations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating


Hahahahahha!

I love it. You hold up some information from a 'disinterested third party' as a definitive source of information.

Assumed age IS and HAS BEEN a factor in carbon 14 dating schemes since their inception.

[piratemonkey]

Hahahahahha!
*snicker*

I love it.??You hold up some information from a 'disinterested third party' as a definitive source of information.??
That's what we call "unbiased."Â*Â*If the third party has not horse in the race, they're going to call it more fairly.Â*Â*Where's your evidence?Â*Â*link?


Assumed age IS and HAS BEEN a factor in carbon 14 dating schemes since their inception.


Then it should be completely trivial for you to find in my objective 3rd-party source where it says this.

That's 1 post where you haven't done it.Â*Â*Let's keep count how many it takes you to give us the slighest bit of evidence...

[BoogyMan]

Hahahahahha!
*snicker*

I love it.??You hold up some information from a 'disinterested third party' as a definitive source of information.??
That's what we call "unbiased." If the third party has not horse in the race, they're going to call it more fairly. Where's your evidence? link?


Assumed age IS and HAS BEEN a factor in carbon 14 dating schemes since their inception.


Then it should be completely trivial for you to find in my objective 3rd-party source where it says this.

That's 1 post where you haven't done it. Let's keep count how many it takes you to give us the slighest bit of evidence...


This is 2. I will post a third later tonight. You can google just as well as I can.

[piratemonkey]

Yes, #2

This is 2.Â*Â*I will post a third later tonight.Â*Â*You can google just as well as I can.


It's not my responsibility to provide evidence for your false claims.Â*Â*That's not how it works here and the idea doesn't even make sense.

There is NOT an assumption of age in radiocarbon dating.Â*Â*That's wrong, false, factually incorrect... however you want to put it.

In the wiki link provided, they go into very explicit detail how these calculations are made... nowhere in them is an assumed age.

You are wrong.Â*Â*I've provided unbiased evidence showing that you are wrong.Â*Â*Please do the intellectually honest thing and admit it.

[BoogyMan]

Yes, #2

This is 2.Â*Â*I will post a third later tonight.Â*Â*You can google just as well as I can.


It's not my responsibility to provide evidence for your false claims.Â*Â*That's not how it works here and the idea doesn't even make sense.

There is NOT an assumption of age in radiocarbon dating.Â*Â*That's wrong, false, factually incorrect... however you want to put it.

In the wiki link provided, they go into very explicit detail how these calculations are made... nowhere in them is an assumed age.

You are wrong.Â*Â*I've provided unbiased evidence showing that you are wrong.Â*Â*Please do the intellectually honest thing and admit it.


Since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the simple science behind radiocarbon dating and the FACT that certain assumptions are made including an assumption that for the life of the material there must have been a constant ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere, that material diffusion of carbon MUST HAVE happened, that carbon isotopes in the material must not have undergone any kind of modification other than radiocarbon decay for the period described in the constancy assumption, and finally that there has been no input of carbon from other sources, it is easy to see that an assumption is made about the life of the material even from the first assumption listed above. Since the abundance of radiocarbon is at the heart of this discussion and the previous example assumes constancy the age is most definately assumed and part of the comparison.

Take a look at what McGraw Hill has to say about this topic.
Link Here (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html)

[piratemonkey]

It seems we have a Creationist in our company.


Since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the simple science behind radiocarbon dating
I teach science for a living.Â*Â*It's possible you know more than be about this topic.Â*Â*The blatant errors in your analysis suggest otherwise.


and the FACT that certain assumptions are made including an assumption that for the life of the material there must have been a constant ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere,

Incorrect.

Not only is this wrong, it shows that you:
1) Didn't even look at my source.
2) Are probably getting your information from Creationist websites, because they're the only people who would state something that ridiculously wrong.

How do I know you didn't look at my source?
Sentence #1 of the Calibration section:
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated.
Where does one see people saying it must be constant for radiocarbon dating to work?
Another assumption made in radiocarbon dating is that the ratio of C12 to the radioactive C14 has remained constant for thousands of years.
http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/old.htm
That's www.barr-family.com/godsword/old.htm

Let's look at what you said again:

and the FACT that certain assumptions are made including an assumption that for the life of the material there must have been a constant ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere,


Crazy, how you almost lifted that word-for-word from an insane Creationist website.

That site claims to debunk the idea that the ratio has remained constant.Â*Â*As my source indicates, no such claim has ever been made by scientists.Â*Â*In fact, the need for Calibration arises from the fact that it has not been constant.

I'll keep picking apart your faith-based Creationist attacks on science when I have time later.Â*Â*At least we know where you are coming from, now.

[BoogyMan]

Crazy, how you almost lifted that word-for-word from an insane Creationist website.

That site claims to debunk the idea that the ratio has remained constant. As my source indicates, no such claim has ever been made by scientists. In fact, the need for Calibration arises from the fact that it has not been constant.

I'll keep picking apart your faith-based Creationist attacks on science when I have time later. At least we know where you are coming from, now.


I have not attacked science, I have questioned (and validly so) the 'science' of radiocarbon dating.

I have not even seen your creationist sites and am amused that you choose to completely ignore the fact that I used information from a McGraw Hill site which was posted in my reply.

Academic dishonesty doesn't suit you well Pirate.

[piratemonkey]

I have not attacked science, I have questioned (and validly so) the 'science' of radiocarbon dating.

I have not even seen your creationist sites and am amused that you choose to completely ignore the fact that I used information from a McGraw Hill site which was posted in my reply.

Academic dishonesty doesn't suit you well Pirate.

Academic dishonesty?Â*Â*How about claiming you cited something you did not?Â*Â*That's dishonest.

What you cited was NOT McGraw Hill.

What you cited was NOT a McGraw Hill website.

You cited a Minnesota State University - Mankado online museum which is blatantly for children and non-scientists.Â*Â*A source obviously very superficial in it's analysis. Take another look:
Link Here (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html)

Â*Â*If you really think that C12/C14 ratio has to remain constant, please read this:
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
The original link I gave you not only states that it has NOT been constant, but explains how Calibration easily gets around this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating

The only people I've ever seen attack the validity of radiocarbon dating were Creationists.

Are you claiming that you are not a Creationist?

[BoogyMan]

Read the content at the bottom of the page Pirate, it is a web content module provided to the school posting it that was created by McGraw Hill. The site is not hosted by McGraw Hill, no. If that is what you were expecting I would have to claim error on that part, but McGraw Hill is the reference for the material the page includes.

Once again you are setting up a strawman to deflect from any criticism of your ideology. My being a creationist is not at issue here, the simple fact that I question radiocarbon dating is not the real issue either, the real issue is academic dishonesty on your part.

Go back and re-read your texts on scientific theory and the scientific process. You should remember that any hypothesis supported by the findings of experimentation is not proven by the finding but is merely supported as such.

Don't come in here claiming that I copied and pasted from some site that I have never heard of because your ego won't let you ask an honest question of the content at hand.

My point STANDS. Radiocarbon dating has assumption of constancy (which includes age) as part of its process which, in my mind, creates a cloud of doubt around its usefulness as a tool to determine the age of anything.

[piratemonkey]

Read the content at the bottom of the page Pirate,
I did.
Did you?

it is a web content module provided to the school posting it that was created by McGraw Hill.
Wrong (again).
Let's look, eh?
Reference

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology-volume 15 pages 136-144.

McGraw Hill was referenced.Â*Â*It wasn't "created" by McGraw Hill, as you continue to falsely claim.

You do know what a "reference" is, don't you?Â*Â*By your semantics above, it doesn't appear so.

How you can be factually wrong, time and time again and not even understand that fact is amazing.Â*Â*Astounding, even.


The site is not hosted by McGraw Hill, no.Â*
So when you said this:
I used information from a McGraw Hill site
You were wrong.Â*Â*Why is admitting error so difficult?


Â*If that is what you were expecting I would have to claim error on that part, but McGraw Hill is the reference for the material the page includes.
That difference being a McGraw Hill website and some web page likely written by a museum technician who looked at an encyclopedia.

BIG difference.


My being a creationist is not at issue here, the simple fact that I question radiocarbon dating is not the real issue either, the real issue is academic dishonesty on your part.
It makes a huge difference.

It shows clearly that you are using religious criteria to evaluate scientific claims.

That's not rational and it basically invalidates most of your analysis.


Go back and re-read your texts on scientific theory and the scientific process.Â*Â*You should remember that any hypothesis supported by the findings of experimentation is not proven by the finding but is merely supported as such.
You're lecturing me on science when you don't even seem to know what a "reference" is.

That's rich.


My point STANDS.Â*Â*Radiocarbon dating has assumption of constancy (which includes age) as part of its process which, in my mind, creates a cloud of doubt around its usefulness as a tool to determine the age of anything.


Care to actually argue the science now?Â*Â*

How about addressing the point I made about Calibration in one of these many posts of yours?

Not only have C12/C14 levels NOT been constant, radiocarbon dating accounts for this.

Your reply? ____________________________________

I'll make this easy for you: Show me any quote from any valid scientific source that questions the validity of radiocarbon dating.

That all you need to do to show us that you aren't making a Creationist argument.

[BoogyMan]

You're lecturing me on science when you don't even seem to know what a "reference" is.

That's rich.

Since this is borne out of little more than your overblown estimation of your own intellectual capability I will dismiss this remark.

Care to actually argue the science now?Â*Â*
How about addressing the point I made about Calibration in one of these many posts of yours?

Not only have C12/C14 levels NOT been constant, radiocarbon dating accounts for this.

The point I have been trying to get across to you is that for the evaluation of radiocarbon concentration to be a valid method of dating the assumption of constancy is used as well as the added assumption that radiocarbon decay is constant in all sampled material and that no outside interferance has modified the rate of decay.

I know that you wish to put forth any and every disingenuous argument you can to obfuscate this FACT, but there are real holes in the radiocarbon dating process.

[piratemonkey]

You're lecturing me on science when you don't even seem to know what a "reference" is.

That's rich.

Since this is borne out of little more than your overblown estimation of your own intellectual capability I will dismiss this remark.

So again I've shown you to be entirely incorrect in a comment you made and you ignore that fact.

If you can't admit the slightest error when everyone looking at the thread knows you are wrong, what's the point of discussing anything with you?Â*Â*It won't lead anywhere.

Admit that you made a mistake, either in saying it was a McGraw Hill "content module" or that it was a McGraw Hill site.

Both were wrong.Â*Â*I showed you that both were wrong.

You are lecturing me on intellectual honesty.Â*Â*Let's see how intellectually honest you are.Â*Â*Admit your blatant errors and this conversation can continue.Â*Â*Otherwise, I'm talking to a brick wall.


The point I have been trying to get across to you is that for the evaluation of radiocarbon concentration to be a valid method of dating the assumption of constancy is used as well as the added assumption that radiocarbon decay is constant in all sampled material and that no outside interferance has modified the rate of decay.

Heh.

"Assuption of constancy" is NOT USED.Â*Â*How many times to you have to be shown this quote?!?!??
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated.

Wow.

It's must be tough to completely ignore facts and remain "intellectually honest." :rolleyes:


I know that you wish to put forth any and every disingenuous argument you can to obfuscate this FACT, but there are real holes in the radiocarbon dating process.

Inane creationist drivel.
Next you will tell us that human footprints were found next to dinosaur footprints.

Everyone please note that Boogyman won't deny he's a Creationist.

If it walks like a duck...

[BoogyMan]

Everyone please note that Boogyman won't deny he's a Creationist.



Hahahahahha. You KNOW I believe in creation and you are trying to make it into a huge issue as if it is something I should be ashamed of. Keep patting yourself on the back in your fallacy.

[piratemonkey]

Everyone please note that Boogyman won't deny he's a Creationist.
Hahahahahha.Â*Â*You KNOW I believe in creation and you are trying to make it into a huge issue as if it is something I should be ashamed of.Â*Â*Keep patting yourself on the back in your fallacy.


Let's explore this...

Do you use exclusively scientific criteria when evaluating scientific data?
I have yet to meet a Creationist that does.Â*Â*It's impossible to believe in the Creation myth and not have it conflict with scientific data... like say radiocarbon dating.

The Creation story in the Bible is a myth.Â*Â*It's an absurd myth that nobody who thinks rationally believes to be true.Â*Â*Creationism isn't, by any definition, rational.

Your belief in Creationism shows that your evaluation, at least with respect to subjects like evolution and ice core data, isn't rational.

I asked you for a scientific source that casts doubt on the validity of radiocarbon dating.Â*Â*Do that and we have something to talk about.Â*Â*Otherwise, tell me about your Ark myth.Â*Â*That's another one that makes me laugh.

[BoogyMan]

Everyone please note that Boogyman won't deny he's a Creationist.
Hahahahahha.Â*Â*You KNOW I believe in creation and you are trying to make it into a huge issue as if it is something I should be ashamed of.Â*Â*Keep patting yourself on the back in your fallacy.


Let's explore this...

Do you use exclusively scientific criteria when evaluating scientific data?
I have yet to meet a Creationist that does.Â*Â*It's impossible to believe in the Creation myth and not have it conflict with scientific data... like say radiocarbon dating.

The Creation story in the Bible is a myth.Â*Â*It's an absurd myth that nobody who thinks rationally believes to be true.Â*Â*Creationism isn't, by any definition, rational.

Your belief in Creationism shows that your evaluation, at least with respect to subjects like evolution and ice core data, isn't rational.

I asked you for a scientific source that casts doubt on the validity of radiocarbon dating.Â*Â*Do that and we have something to talk about.Â*Â*Otherwise, tell me about your Ark myth.Â*Â*That's another one that makes me laugh.


I gave you a source that disagrees with the source you provided. You ignore it and choose to start the old diversion tactic that ridicules the fact that I am a religious person.

I won't fall for your religion baiting and don't expect that any kind of truth would change your stranglehold on the fallacy you are propagating.

[piratemonkey]

I gave you a source that disagrees with the source you provided.Â*Â*You ignore it and choose to start the old diversion tactic that ridicules the fact that I am a religious person.

Your source:
A) Doesn't disagree with my source.Â*Â*My source is a more complete explanation.Â*Â*If you can't look at both of our sources and figure that out, you very obviously aren't understanding the words you are reading. (Hint: read the Calibration section... it's a devastating indictment of your lack of knowledge on this subject.)
B) Was the eighth-grade textbook version of radiocarbon dating.


I won't fall for your religion baiting and don't expect that any kind of truth would change your stranglehold on the fallacy you are propagating.


Why are you afraid to answer questions about your irrational Creationist beliefs?
I have a guess... because they show your position to be based on religious fantasy.
Or you fear questioning your own positions on religion. Religion requires a lack of rigorous questioning to exist.

Others may fear questioning Christians about their religion.Â*Â*I don't.Â*Â*Creationism is as real as the fairies living in my garden.

[BoogyMan]

Why are you afraid to answer questions about your irrational Creationist beliefs?
I have a guess... because they show your position to be based on religious fantasy.
Or you fear questioning your own positions on religion.Â*Â*Religion requires a lack of rigorous questioning to exist.

Others may fear questioning Christians about their religion.Â*Â*I don't.Â*Â*Creationism is as real as the fairies living in my garden.


Pirate, I fear nothing. I certainly don't fear the probative efforts of someone as ill informed and bigoted as you have evidenced yourself to be.

My faith is stronger than your hatred of Christianity, and the truth mocks your fallacy. I fully believe what the word tells me about casting my pearls before swine.

[piratemonkey]

Pirate,Â*Â*I fear nothing. I certainly don't fear the probative efforts of someone as ill informed and bigoted as you have evidenced yourself to be.

Bigot?Â*Â*A Christian calling a athiest a bigot?Â*Â*That's hilarious.

Show me a single quote that I have posted that's bigotted.

Just because I show faith-based thinking to be irrational (which it is by definition), in no way means I'm a bigot.

You think your religion is true and everyone else's is false.Â*Â*That's bigotry because it's a judgment not based upon anything real or rational.

For you to say that I'm a bigot shows your hypersensitivity to anyone questioning your belief in Christian mythology.Â*Â*It's a shame you're so scared to answer simple questions regarding your faith.

This is the main reason people of faith have a difficult time talking to people who's world-view is based on reality.Â*Â*We are talking from different paradigms.Â*Â*

Mine allows rational questioning of my positions.

Yours doesn't.


My faith is stronger than your hatred of Christianity,
Your faith isn't stronger than reality.

I have reality on my side.

You don't.


and the "truth "mocks your fallacy.Â*

(quotes added)
Make sure you put the word truth in quotes when you use it referring to religion.

Real truth involves factual evidence.Â*Â*Where is your factual evidene?

You have none.

[BoogyMan]

Real truth is that of which you have no knowledge and it is a state you have entered willingly. If I for a single moment thought that even a shred of honest curiosity was the basis for your questioning I wouldn't have a problem answering your caustic questions. You have proven, however, that honest curiosity is not the case and that you wish to do little more than mock those of faith.

As I said before, there will be no pearls cast in your direction.

[piratemonkey]

If I for a single moment thought that even a shred of honest curiosity was the basis for your questioning I wouldn't have a problem answering your caustic questions.Â*Â*You have proven, however, that honest curiosity is not the case and that you wish to do little more than mock those of faith.

I'm not here because I'm curious about your Creationist mythology.

I'm curious how anyone could actually believe scientifically impossible fairy tales and actually function in the modern world.

[BoogyMan]

If I for a single moment thought that even a shred of honest curiosity was the basis for your questioning I wouldn't have a problem answering your caustic questions.Â*Â*You have proven, however, that honest curiosity is not the case and that you wish to do little more than mock those of faith.

I'm not here because I'm curious about your Creationist mythology.

I'm curious how anyone could actually believe scientifically impossible fairy tales and actually function in the modern world.


Funny, I was wondering the same thing about you. After reading through some of the book you have been touting in another thread I now have a much better understanding of why you seem so militantly atheistic. It isn't because of some epiphany you have experienced, its because you are desperate for someone to lead you in absence of belief. I find it amusing and sad actually, but that is beside the point.

Keep taking your marching orders from the head atheist at Oxford, live out your life as you wish and I will do the same. We will BOTH find out in the end who was correct.

[piratemonkey]

Â*It isn't because of some epiphany you have experienced, its because you are desperate for someone to lead you in absence of belief.Â*Â*I find it amusing and sad actually, but that is beside the point.
*snicker*
Don't project your need for a father figure on me.Â*Â*This Psych 101 analysis of my motivations is not only irrelvant to a rational discussion, it shows that your position is so weak that you need to attack imaginary motivation rather than position.

Sad?Â*Â*I'd say so.


Keep taking your marching orders from the head atheist at Oxford, live out your life as you wish and I will do the same.Â*Â*We will BOTH find out in the end who was correct.


This statement is why I'm against faith-based thought.Â*Â*To paraphrase George Carlin, Religion is arrogance disguised as humility.

You smugly sit here gleefully imagining me burning in a make-believe hell.Â*Â*That's a disgusting and not a Christ-like thing to do.

It's what terrorists do.

[Elrathin]

It's what terrorists do.


Sorry gonna have to disagree with you here and say that isn't a nice thing to say.

That word gets thrown around waaay to much anymore.

I don't agree with much of what Boogy says nor his religion, but he has a right to think that way and I don't think of him as a terrorist for it.

[piratemonkey]

I don't agree with much of what Boogy says nor his religion, but he has a right to think that way and I don't think of him as a terrorist for it.


Nor do I.Â* I didn't say he was a terrorist, did I?

It doesn't mean with respect to this one point, he doesn't think like one.

Imagining a punishment for your opponent or reward for yourself in the afterlife is one big factor fueling Islamic Terrorism.

Explain how that's different from what Boogyman said.

[BoogyMan]

*snicker*
Don't project your need for a father figure on me.Â*Â*This Psych 101 analysis of my motivations is not only irrelvant to a rational discussion, it shows that your position is so weak that you need to attack imaginary motivation rather than position.

Sad?Â*Â*I'd say so.

Wow, Pirate, are you now running from your new atheist attack first and ask questions later philosophy? Are you ashamed to admit that you follow men like Richard Dawkins and do their bidding just as one who has faith in God?

This statement is why I'm against faith-based thought.Â*Â*To paraphrase George Carlin, Religion is arrogance disguised as humility.

You smugly sit here gleefully imagining me burning in a make-believe hell.Â*Â*That's a disgusting and not a Christ-like thing to do.

It's what terrorists do.

George Carlin???? Hahahahahahahahahah

The smug superiority complex you evidence when you presume to know what I am thinking and whether or not I am gleefully considering anything exposes the dishonesty of your position. I merely pointed out that we would BOTH know in the end. That evidences nothing more than what was said.

You of all people have no place telling someone they don't have a Christ-like attitude.

As for your terrorist comment, it is unworthy of response and beneath even yourself.

[piratemonkey]

Wow, Pirate, are you now running from your new atheist attack first and ask questions later philosophy?Â*Â*Are you ashamed to admit that you follow men like Richard Dawkins and do their bidding just as one who has faith in God?

"do their bidding?"
*snicker*
You have a bizarre concept of what a non-religious person is like.Â*Â*Seems more like Dr. Evil than anything approaching reality.

I don't usually need to use authority figures to support my position.Â*Â*The only time you'll see me to this is to indicate trends.Â*Â*I.e. the vast majority of the best scientists in the United States are athiests.Â*Â*That doesn't mean they are correct, per se.Â*Â*It just shows a trend.


George Carlin????Â*Â*Hahahahahahahahahah
A smarter man than you can imagine.


The smug superiority complex you evidence when you presume to know what I am thinking and whether or not I am gleefully considering anything exposes the dishonesty of your position.Â*Â*I merely pointed out that we would BOTH know in the end.Â*Â*That evidences nothing more than what was said.

Read what you wrote above and you can see your bias against reality.

If you are right, then we will both know.

If I am right, neither of us will know, because there is nothing after death.Â*Â*Nothing.Â*Â*No conciousness, as that requires a physiologically working brain. But enough of that biology/fact stuff... so boring.


You of all people have no place telling someone they don't have a Christ-like attitude.
I was raised Catholic, went to many years of religious education and likely know the bible better than you do.Â*Â*I spent the first 1/2 of my career taking care of poor people.Â*Â*I still dedicate at least 10% of my working time to the disabled.Â*Â*That's Christ-like.

Thinking about sitting in heaven while others are in hell is horrific, disgusting and yes, it's the way terrorist think.Â*Â*It definitely is not Christ-like.

You may not be able to respond to that idea, but that doesn't make it less true.

[BoogyMan]

I was raised Catholic, went to many years of religious education and likely know the bible better than you do.Â*Â*I spent the first 1/2 of my career taking care of poor people.Â*Â*I still dedicate at least 10% of my working time to the disabled.Â*Â*That's Christ-like.

Thinking about sitting in heaven while others are in hell is horrific, disgusting and yes, it's the way terrorist think.Â*Â*It definitely is not Christ-like.

You may not be able to respond to that idea, but that doesn't make it less true.


You live and breath on assumption don't you? This has to be the most comedic of all of your baseless attacks.

[Elrathin]

You live and breath on assumption don't you? This has to be the most comedic of all of your baseless attacks.


Now wait a minute. Aren't you ASSUMING that there is a Christian god?

[BoogyMan]

You live and breath on assumption don't you?Â*Â*This has to be the most comedic of allÂ*Â*of your baseless attacks.


Now wait a minute.Â*Â*Aren't you ASSUMING that there is a Christian god?


No, God is there. Aren't you ASSUMING that there isn't?

[Elrathin]

No, God is there.


Prove to me he's there. IMO, saying there IS or IS NOT a god(s) IS an assumption.

So you saying there IS a god, IS an assumption because you can't prove there is one.

You may have FAITH there is a god, but that is about as far as you can go with it. You cannot prove as FACT there is one and are making an assumption there is one.

[piratemonkey]

You live and breath on assumption don't you?Â*Â*This has to be the most comedic of allÂ*Â*of your baseless attacks.


This is a simple point to rebut:

I have facts to support my view of the world.

You do not.

Who's assuming?

[lily]

Imagining a punishment for your opponent or reward for yourself in the afterlife is one big factor fueling Islamic Terrorism.

Explain how that's different from what Boogyman said.



One of the more interesting points made in this discussion. Sorry to see no one has a reply.

[BoogyMan]

Imagining a punishment for your opponent or reward for yourself in the afterlife is one big factor fueling Islamic Terrorism.

Explain how that's different from what Boogyman said.


What opponent? Once again a foolish assumption that I or any other Christian wishes you ill because you disagree. I merely pointed out that one way or another you will have an answer. Any extrapolation of that into any other idea is your own. The thought of someone so offending God as to be cast into Hell saddens me and any other honest Christian, you however will try to make something sinister of my remarks as is the new atheist way of attacking Christianity.

[piratemonkey]

What opponent?Â*Â*Once again a foolish assumption that I or any other Christian wishes you ill because you disagree.Â*Â*I merely pointed out that one way or another you will have an answer.Â*Â*Any extrapolation of that into any other idea is your own.Â*Â*


You hope your religion is the correct one, don't you?

If you do accept you religion's teachings, you must believe that a Just God is going to cast me, the unbeliever, into Hell.

If you believe that, and you hope your religion is true, how can it not follow that you hope unbelievers go to hell? And that it's justified, as it was done by a Just God?

A->B
B->C
then,
A->C

[BoogyMan]

You hope your religion is the correct one, don't you?

If you do accept you religion's teachings, you must believe that a Just God is going to cast me, the unbeliever, into Hell.

If you believe that, and you hope your religion is true, how can it not follow that you hope unbelievers go to hell?Â*Â*And that it's justified, as it was done by a Just God?

A->B
B->C
then,
A->C


You have a seriously flawed view of Christianity in general Pirate, it is the hope of all Christians as it is of their God that no-one should perish, but that all would come to repentance.

Nice try, but your worldy view doesn't pass spiritual muster.

[piratemonkey]

You have a seriously flawed view of Christianity in general Pirate, it is the hope of all Christians as it is of their God that no-one should perish, but that all would come to repentance.
Nah, I'm just saying if you want your religion to be true... you have to want the fire and brimstone parts as much as the feel-good parts.Â*Â*Otherwise you're picking and choosing which parts of your religion you want to follow.

Nice try, but your worldy view doesn't pass spiritual muster.

As odd as this sounds, that's kind of a compliment to me!

I wouldn't expect it to, nor would I want it to pass spiritual muster. :)

(What are the objective criteria for "spiritual muster?";))

[BoogyMan]

Nah, I'm just saying if you want your religion to be true... you have to want the fire and brimstone parts as much as the feel-good parts.Â*Â*Otherwise you're picking and choosing which parts of your religion you want to follow.

This assessment is complete fallacy. Consider the following.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You are debating a religious argument for which you are, quite frankly, not prepared. God doesn't ever gleefully speak of those who will be cast down, but it will happen. You simply want to paint the picture that way as it is a tool you may use to sway those who have even less biblical knowledge than you possess.

[piratemonkey]

2Pe 3:9Â*Â*The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Hey, Boogyman, if you want to debate biblical translations and meaning, hows about we do that in the Religion section?

I was trying to make nice a bit that last post, in case you didn't notice. Though your worldview is very different from mine and although we disagree about many things, that doesn't mean I think you are a bad person.

Seriously, though. Let's start a thread on Biblical interpretation. I'm curious to know how a Christian reconciles all the places that the Bible contradicts itself.

[BoogyMan]

2Pe 3:9Â*Â*The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Hey, Boogyman, if you want to debate biblical translations and meaning, hows about we do that in the Religion section?

I was trying to make nice a bit that last post, in case you didn't notice.Â*Â*Though your worldview is very different from mine and although we disagree about many things, that doesn't mean I think you are a bad person.

Seriously, though.Â*Â*Let's start a thread on Biblical interpretation.Â*Â*I'm curious to know how a Christian reconciles all the places that the Bible contradicts itself.


The bible doesn't contradict itself, but I am glad you clarified your intent. From the mockery and attacks it was not evident that there was room for anything other than scorn towards those of us who live by faith.

As I remember the discussion, it was you who took us down this road in the first place. <BIG GRIN>

[piratemonkey]

As I remember the discussion, it was you who took us down this road in the first place. <BIG GRIN>


And I will continue to deride faith-based thinking because I think it's harmful to society.

That doesn't mean I think faith-based thinkers are dumb or bad people. Hardly. There are good and bad people of every stripe.

I just ask you to understand that when I criticize your beliefs, I am not criticizing you as a person. I apologise if I haven't made that clear.

The bible doesn't contradict itself?!? Oh, we're going to have fun when I start that thread. ;)

[Anti-Racism]

How can anyone NOT think humanity's continued generation of waste will NOT impact the environment?