Fundamentalist Christianity, environmental responsibility, and concerns the move to clean energy

Faith & Science Conversation
102

That’s a relief, I must say.
Your insults and threats of losing your temper with me are tiresome.

You must have someone else in mind.
I have two concerns in regard to your willingness to assume the position of prophet or judge:

  1. Of less concern, it’s forbidden in the Forum guidelines. Argue away on the reasoning for your beliefs on YEC or whatever. Leave the spiritual state of the people here out of the argument. It isn’t welcome here.:

Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyone’s faith or lack of faith.

  1. You arrogate to yourself authority you do not have. While you know your Bible inside and out, and you quote like a pro, you focus on what suits you and your arguments. While you know and use your doctrinal statements inside and out, and can quote them like a pro, I will point out that it’s not doctrine that saves, but Jesus. Since Jesus’s lifetime he has always had children here, long before SDAs. You are not qualified to assess what work the Lord is doing in any of us and how.
    Leave your judgement at the door.

I believe that you believe that.

You, however, do not have reality to support you.

Your insistence on misinformation, alternate facts, and the demonstrably false ruin your own testimony.

2 Likes
103

The bible doesnt descibe the saints in Revelation 14:12 as Seventh Day Adventists, it describes them as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus”. It is by that authority that anyone who wishes to be saved must obey and no other.

The testimony of Jesus gave us the new commandment (which is a summary of the original 10 commandments) "love God with all your heart and mind and soul (1-3) and your neighbour as yourself (5-10) and these are joined by the 4th commandment (Seventh Day Sabbath).

The point is, there is no salvation to be had or found in science…it has nothing to give in that way. Salvation only comes from one source…the Bible. No amount of science will save anyone and if the truth must be told, anyone who places what their “eyes see” above the bible is on a fools errand.

One writer has illustrated the foolishness of mankind at the time of Noahs flood in the following way…

> As time passed on, with no apparent change in nature, men whose hearts had at times trembled with fear, began to be reassured. They reasoned, as many reason now, that nature is above the God of nature, and that her laws are so firmly established that God Himself could not change them. Reasoning that if the message of Noah were correct, nature would be turned out of her course, they made that message, in the minds of the world, a delusion—a grand deception. They manifested their contempt for the warning of God by doing just as they had done before the warning was given. They continued their festivities and their gluttonous feasts; they ate and drank, planted and builded, laying their plans in reference to advantages they hoped to gain in the future; and they went to greater lengths in wickedness, and in defiant disregard of God’s requirements, to testify that they had no fear of the Infinite One. They asserted that if there were any truth in what Noah had said, the men of renown—the wise, the prudent, the great men—would understand the matter. (i have not included the reference but can provide privately if requested)

104

If you post it publicly, then you should be posting the reference publicly.

Looks like Adam’s quote is from:
Ellen G White. Patriarchs and Prophets. Chapter 7, paragraph 16.
Available here: Patriarchs and Prophets — Ellen G. White Writings

The Bible does not save anyone. It tells us about the one who does, Jesus.

2 Likes
105

Ok, trying to bring back the discussion on topic.

@wbwane I have looked at the links provided by you. This in particular intrigued me, and I would like (hopefully) to hear an opinion from someone who perhaps has relevant training

A search came back to the original page, other results where, at first glance at least, irrelevant to the specific question I asked. What to do? You obviously ask chatGPT! It gave this answer (yes, I know this isn’t a fact checking algorithm)

No, the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 does not decline as its concentration increases. The warming effect of CO2 is based on its ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. As the concentration of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, there are more molecules available to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, leading to an increase in the overall warming effect

So a 40 degree heat for days on end wouldn’t lower quality of your life? This is exactly whats been happening in southern Europe last month.

When Galileo and DaVinci were alive, there was overall less knowledge discovered by humanity, so much so that some fields didn’t even exist, so a person could have been knowledgeable in (almost) all areas, if that’s what you were referring to.

Apart from the fact I’m not YEC, so I obviously disagree with it, I also disagree with this idea, because that would mean God gave us fuel that’s very hard to get at, countless people died in mining incidents, and this type of work, at least in the past, was associated with child labour, slavery and overall exploitation of the poor. And does God really care about us having electricity so we can lead comfortable lives? After all it wasn’t even invented for centuries, and then was a luxury for the rich only.

1 Like
106

Let me explain how energy absorbtion works. Suppose you shine a flashlight toward a wall and then place a strip of toilet paper in the way. The wall will get a little less light. If you keep doing this, at some point, NO light will get through. You can keep adding paper, but, that last pieces of paper added will not absorb any light. It is called saturation. In other words, the CO2 molecules closest to the earth get the energy and the molecules further away find no energy in the frequency range to absorb. This is NOT climate science, it is physical chemistry.

107

I’m not in atmospheric science, but I know enough physics and geological patterns of atmospheric concentrations to know that yes, log(concentration) is a better fit for temperature rise than a linear relationship.

3 Likes
108

This all depends on the definition of abundant life. John 10:10 “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” If it is OK for a woman to bear 10 children and see 7 of them die because of foul water, then who needs electricity to pump up clean water? Indeed, the main basis of the modern world where slavery and child labor are …almost…eliminated starts with our Scottish Presbyterian forebears who invented the steam engine…whose mechanical work replaced slaves and children. God gave us all of the products in the Garden except the apple. When that idea was rejected, humankind was enjoined upon leaving the garden that life would be short and resources would require labor.

109

Given that there were crocodiles and tree shrews in the high arctic when the concentration was last over 600 ppm, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to saturation or equilibrium.

3 Likes
110

Think a bit about ozone. What was the concern about the “ozone hole”? It was that lowered ozone concentrations high in the atmosphere would allow more UV light to reach the surface. Then, think how LITTLE ozone is actually present high in the atmosphere in normal times, and that it has been adequate to remove most of the UV radiation.

111

Take a look; Facts Archive - CO2 Coalition

112

It is all related. In like manner, think of how little CO2 it has taken to move us this this far. As Paraleptopecten states, we are far far from saturation with CO2, as it is a very small percentage of the atmosphere, so the example of tissue paper is nonsense unless you increased the CO2 by 10% of the atmospheres composition at a time.

2 Likes
113

Venus has about 96.5% CO2 in the atmosphere. Luckily, we will never experience anything like it but it shows that there can be very much CO2 in the atmosphere and that leads to a strong greenhouse effect. One source told that the surface temperature in Venus is 740 K (= 467 C, 872 F), another source told that it is 900 K. Both estimates too hot for us.

3 Likes
114

Let me try another illustration. Look up…sort of…at the Sun at noon. Bright, white light. Whereas, looking at the Sun near Sunset it appears red. What has happened, the blue light has been absorbed in the atmosphere. In other words, those extra molecules between the Sun and the viewer have selectively removed the blue light.

Who says God has not created some form of life that can thrive on Venus? As Neils Bohr states, “it is not for us to tell God how to run His universe.”

115

Venus is one of the planets that could potentially have life. Probably does not but the possibility cannot be fully excluded. If Venus would have life, the life would live in the atmosphere of the planet - possibly above the clouds. Conditions on or close to the surface are too hostile for life.

2 Likes
116

What difference does it make that the concentration is low to start with? A rather lower concentration of H2SO4 in water is enough to eat a hole in skin in seconds. Ozone is extremely effective, even at low concentrations at filtering out UV-c rays, and does a decent job on UV-b and UV-a. And we know that, in part because it is possible to get detailed measurements of incoming radiation levels at various heights in the atmosphere.

2 Likes
117

I listened to the discussion of two persons in a tower built for birdwatchers. One asked about the number of species the other one had seen during this year, in western Palearctic and in the world. The other one told that he was not anymore trying to get top numbers of seen birds per year after his retirement. He had less money after the retirement. After mentioning the lack of money in passing, he started to tell how he has started to live a more eco-friendly life. No more flying after rare birds, in those rare cases he drives long distances to see a bird the car is packed with other birdwatchers, and he has combined holiday trips with his wife with seeing rare birds - the benefit comes from the holiday trip making the wife happy, birds were just a bonus. After that they discussed about the ecological side of twitching, including how much flying and money it would take to reach the number of species one of the persons they knew had got (>7000 bird species seen in the world).

I liked the way how the birdwatcher turned an unwanted change (less money for twitching) to something positive (living an eco-friendly life together with his wife). It is easy to focus on the negative rather than seeing things from a positive viewpoint. He was not a believer or a scientist but could be an example for both groups in this matter. Matters in this world are sliding towards an unwanted direction but there is still a possibility to see the positive details in the change.

4 Likes
118

Ha! This hits close to home. The environmental ethics of twitching is something I wrestle with these days. Then again, I never did have megabucks to blow on jet trips to exotic lands. But that’s what conferences were for… :wink: Now, in retirement, I am learning new ways to savour the common birds around my house. Slow birding.

2 Likes
119

A good alternative would be eco-twitching: only allowed modes of transport to reach the bird (and back home) are those that are not using any type of engine, except yourself or wind (ordinary bicycle, rowing boat, sailing boat, walking). I have tried to take that as a positive opportunity, after selling our second car and being most of the time without a car. I belong to a local whatsup group for interesting bird observations and it takes more thinking of how much work I am willing to do for seeing a rare bird. If the bird is 50km away, I probably forget it rather than hop on my bike and try to speed to the site before the bird disappears.

A local priest decided that a good way to start the retirement was to try a new national record of eco-twitching. He managed to see about 85% of all bird species observed in the country during the year - a new record. It just took 18’000 km on a bicycle - he had very good physical condition after that year.

3 Likes
120

When you say, “the Bible doesnt save anyone”, you cannot know Him without it…we are very much saved by the knowledge that we gain from reading the Bible. That is the entire point of its existence. This seems to be turning the entire bible narrative into some kind of mythical fairytale…which falls straight into the hands of atheists and their view of it as exactly that.

I think one has to be careful not to intentionally under state the importance of reading and learning about God in the Bible. REvelation 14:12 very specifically states that saints are those who have 2 things…

  1. They keep the commandments of God (which we have from the bible)
  2. Have the testimony of Jesus (which we have from the bible)

So if we are to follow Revelation 14:12, the absolutely the only way to be saved is through Gods word!

What is really interesting about this, Jesus is also the Word. So the bible is a reflection of the nature of Christ and the salvation that we are given freely through Him.

I worry that this view seems to be an attempt at minimizing the scriptures in the plan of salvation in order to promote TEism idealogy. Its a view whose doctrines use little scripture to support and ignore the very real narrative of Creation, The Fall, Salvation (“physical death” of Christ on the cross atoning for the “wages of sin is death”), and Redemption.

121

A lost traveler is about to starve to death for wandering about in the wilderness trying to find anything - anywhere to get himself desperately needed food and water. He spies a sign. The sign indicates a village in a certain direction.

Any conviction that the Bible is what saves us would be like this dying traveler immediately flopping himself down in relief underneath the sign, and instead of seeking the still-distant village that the sign revealed to him, he imagined instead that the sign itself was his salvation and final destination. To think that the Bible is what does the saving is to refuse both what the Bible teaches AND the beckoning savior to whom the prophets and apostles point us. John 5:39 makes this crystal clear.

4 Likes