Global Warming, Planned in 1961?
It seems a bit far fetched, but who knows?
Goes to show how much scientists really know when they speak of theories as facts.
that's what I do everytime someone talks about the theory of global warming as fact.
same as evolution.
- Mars
Theories seek to explain facts, but are not facts of themselves.
Good scientists rarely confuse the two, but laypeople often do.
If a theory is best at explaining observed phenomenon you go with that.
Evolution as a theory better explains observed phenomenon than the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. But that is another thread...
far-fetched is your specialty
It's kinda refreshing to have a conspiracy thread that doesn't involve 9/11.
Yeah, but since biblical studies happens to be my field, I'll at least say this -- the strict literal interpretation of Genesis that demands that evolution be rejected, is not an ancient school of interpretation. In other words, the early church Fathers didn't interpret Gen 1-2 that way, nor did the Scholastics, the Reformers, or even most of the Enlightenment commentators. I don't even need to go into the Jewish schools of interpretation!Evolution as a theory better explains observed phenomenon than the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. But that is another thread...
It was really during the 19th century that we begin to find commentators reading Gen 1-2 as something teaching a young earth, and that "x happened, then y happened, and then z happened." Doing so imposed upon an ancient Hebrew text a very modernist reading not intended by the original author. Do I disbelieve Gen? No, I believe it. But it should be read, and interpreted, in light of the sitz em leben and with a grasp of the Hebrew language.
Okay, back to global warming. Not buying it ...
Where is Galileo, Boutons, or someone else who likes conspiracy theories? Is it that they believe global warmong is caused by man, and not natural, or a conspiracy?
Well ... I envision a conspiracy theory involving Big Oil, Big Automobiles, the Republicans, and evangelicals, and Big Chemical (with help from Big Food), where they get together, CAUSE global warming so they can $ELL to us some petroleum/technological/chemical gizmo to remedy the situation.
I have to admit, it makes perfect sense.
Kinda like computer viruses.
BRILLIANT!
- Mars
Last edited by ClingingMars; 05-10-2008 at 01:15 PM.
Oh man, that is gold right there. That picture is now my new desktop.BRILLIANT!
- MARS
Oh well. Enough time has passed. No bites.
The words are from The Report From Iron Mountain. It is also known as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax." I didn't think anyone would know that, so I was doing two things:
1) Hoping to catch someone who loves conspiracies.
2) Showing as much as us to the right don't believe in the alarmists views, that no conservatives would cary the ball on this one.
How does gore explain that the U.S. just had the coldest April than we've had in a really long time?
Is global warming only for selected months?
Gore does not explain anything/anytime. The press is not
allowed and when it is no questions may be asked. It is
the dimm-0-craps way. They are not to be questioned. Just
adhered to and obeyed without question.
What about Adam & Eve and them eating from the Tree of Good & Bad Knowledge resulting in sin being spread all through mankind causing untold misery to millions and millions. Do you beleive in that too?
Of course, I believe it. It's stated in Genesis 3.
Now ... the question here is, is it intended as literary narrative (x happened, then y, then z), or is it intended to be interpreted allegorically? I'm not sure which. Clearly, the fall of mankind and the effects of sin are all too real. But I'm more than open to discussing how and to what extent the Adam & Eve narrative in Gen 3 is strictly literal (in the 20th century sense).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
