Majority of Christians believe that's a bogus number along with 5 billion years. No matter what one's belief is, the planet has been through too to get an accurate age.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Which one? The coming ice age in the sixties and seventies? The global warming of the eighties and nineties? Or the nebulous climate change of the two thousands? Or do you mean the weekly weather report?
Climate snapshots can be pulled from polar ice caps and fossil records. While less accurate than what we have had since the 70's you can go back millions of years.
My whole argument is how do you prove the Bible is as true as something that is as easily verifiable as climate change. What data sets are you using?
[deleted]
1 up, 2y
No proof necessary.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y,
1 reply
And I am asking how it's verifiable. The earth has had multiple climate changes throughout it's history. Extinction events based on global warming and cooling. Unless you're arguing for an older civilization than currently accepted, which is cool and all. But wasnt the ice caps supposed to have been melted by the 2020s? Or are you arguing that climate change is a new unverifiable religion?
The cool thing about science is when people pop off wild stuff like all ice will melt or vaccines cause autism it gets rejected on peer review. Religion has no peer review.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Religion never gets reformed? New sects of beliefs never pop up?
Weather isn't static but pretending that adding the large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere we are in such a short time isn't causing changes far faster than they should happen is absurdity. Would we eventually have to deal with a sea level rise? Yes. Would it naturally happen at a much slower rate without the added carbon? Yes.
Oh, so it's 'carbon' now instead of 'carbon dioxide'. The fear mongers failed Science, Biology, and Botany 101 when they made their initial argument about CO2.