Where Does The Energy Go?

E=M*(C^2)

“E equals M C squared”

The sun converts matter to energy (in a fusion reaction) and radiates that energy out.

The earth receives energy from the sun’s radiation, but the earth only radiates a very small percentage (~4%?) of that energy back out as Infrared (IR) radiation.

Conduction and convection are not possible into the vacuum of space.

So, where does all of the rest of that energy go?

If it stayed as energy, the Earth would get hotter,  and hotter, and hotter, until life was no longer sustainable on Earth.

I believe energy gets converted back into matter.

M=E/(C^2)

“M equals E divided by C squared”

Just as a small amount of matter can be converted into a large amount of energy (by either fusion or fission reactions), a large amount of energy can be converted into a small amount of matter.

Photosynthesis may be the answer to how energy is converted into matter.

Our climate is not driven by “man made” factors.  It is driven by cycles in the sun’s activity.  Scientific observation has shown that more sunspots results in warmer weather on Earth, while less sunspots results in cooler weather on Earth.  Other scientific observation has shown that as the oceans warm, they release CO2, and as the oceans cool, they abosorb CO2.

Is “Global Warming” a crisis?  No.

More energy from the sun –> Global Warming –> Oceans release more CO2 –> more plant life grows, consuming both energy from the sun and CO2.

So what’s the problem? You’d think the “Green” people would be in favor or more plant life growing.

(But the truth is that we’re not even experiencing “Global Warming”…sunspot activity is at a minimum right now, and we’re actually experiencing “Global Cooling”.)

Update: The masks slips for global-warming activists

The entire point of the global movement to arrest energy production is to punish the industrial nations for their wealth. This is just redistributionism writ large. They don’t want to limit carbon emissions per se; they just want the right people to emit carbon. Nations like the US, the UK, and other Western nations would have to be out of their minds to agree to a regime that allows China and India to emit far more carbon per capita than themselves, in order to meet some Utopian ideal of “fairness” in economic success.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Where Does The Energy Go?

  1. Jonah says:

    I really don’t understand how you can look at graphs like this and say that we’re experiencing “global cooling.” Am I missing something?

    And your suggestion that increased CO2 will cause a boom in plant growth is a bit shortsighted. Most crops, the kinds of plants that we would really like to see boom, don’t respond much to increased CO2 presence in the atmosphere. What benefit instead are the weeds and invasive species that compete with those crops. While global warming may help the plant kingdom overall, the rapid growth of invasive species vastly dwarfs any real advantage.

  2. Fran Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario) says:

    Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
    Climate and economy are being linked. Yes there has been warming since the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used by the left to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
    Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house gas followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking greenhouse gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
    CO2 has been rising and Earth has been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is being studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
    “Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
    As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
    Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
    Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
    That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
    The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
    Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
    Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
    http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx

  3. Fran Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario) says:

    Since 2001 there has been no statistically meaningful warming except asphalt and concrete polluted cities and that urban warming is not caused by CO2 and is likely to save more lives than threaten them.

  4. Jonah says:

    If you’re saying that you can’t detect a warming trend over an eight year period, then yes, I agree with you. That should be obvious to any statistician. Likewise, saying things like “the post 60s warming period appears to be over” is extraordinarily dishonest. We simply have nowhere near enough data to suggest that.

    Please, I’d like to hear an explanation that reconciles the linked graph with the suggestion that we’re experiencing “global cooling.”

  5. Fran Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo.,

    Thank you very much for your comment.

    The facts and the hypotheses do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used by the left to unwind our economy.

    Absolutely!

    Inhofe: Lieberman-Warner a regressive tax with no benefits

    Big-Government Environmentalism Wears Out Its Welcome

    The “inconvenient truth” is that there is a very active Communist Party USA that views Captalism as “Imperialism”, and views the United States as an “Empire” that must be brought “to its knees”. The current President (Usurper-in-Chief) is actively promoting that agenda.

  6. Jonah says:

    Just to reiterate: I’m interested in continuing this discussion, but I need to see where you’re coming from. As far as I can tell, your argument, Red, is that sunspot activity is low, therefore global temperatures should be declining, therefore global temperatures are declining, all evidence to the contrary be damned. How do you honestly say this? Do you dispute the trendline? Do you dispute the data? Do you believe that up is down? I’m fine with discussion about why global warming is happening, but if you’re going to argue that it isn’t, I need to hear your evidence.

  7. Ryan says:

    Dr Manns,

    I would like to know if your opinion on climate change is at all influenced by the fact that you are, or were at some point heavily invested in the oil and mining industries.

    I have yet to find a scientist who denies that there is a problem with the way we treat the planet who is not on the payroll of an oil company.

  8. John says:

    Slightly off-topic, but it was recently reported that a “planet” of size not twice the earth, and thus “rock” was orbiting a star once every 20 hours.

    This was determined by measuring the “dip” in starlight “caused” by the “planet” passing “between” us and the star.

    Take away the presumption (for which there is nothing but a wishful preference) that the dip in light is caused by a planet, and what have we got?

    Problably nothing we can presently know.

    But for those of you (I am not one, but I have my intuitions) who have the gravitational math skills, calculate how close to the center of a sun-sized star such an earth-sized-massed planet would have to be and at what speed to orbit said star once every 20 hours.

    Remember, Mercury, which is quite hot on the sunward side, orbits once every, what, 80 or 90 days or so? And it is so close to the gravitational field of the sun that it undergoes relativistic effects.

    Does anyone else see the absurdity of accepting this “evidence” as meaning that there actually is an earth-sized rock planet orbiting a star once every 20 hours? Think of it! How much would the sun’s output be dimmed by a cold, dark, solid earth-sized planet close to its surface? Almost nil. Put a gnat between you and the sun at arm’s length. Okay, now, how big is its shadow on your face? Nil.

    Does the math show 99 percent of this planet to be orbiting within the star’s volume or not? Would not this make the “rock” planet a hot ball of gas, and therefore indistinguishable from the star itself? Or not?

    Even our sun takes some number of days to turn on its axis.

    Does the orbital speed of this fictional planet put it into relativistic s–l–o–w—i—-n—–g——d———o———————w—————————–n of time to the point where it isn’t even moving in our lifetimes? Or not? Perhaps it’s about to hit light-speed and turn into a shower of photons just about any day now!

    It never ceases to amaze me what kinds of pathological absurdities the “scientific” community can swallow, and how readily the press is to report their wild fantasies as though they were known ‘facts’.

    –John

  9. Ryan says:

    John,

    Are you suggesting that astronomers who spend their entire lives studying distant stars and planets are making it all up?

    Yes, we can measure the reduction in starlight from a star light years away caused by the passing of a relatively tiny object in front of it. We have been able to do that for a long time now. Considering what Galileo was able to accomplish with his own eyes, and a telescope less powerful than most toy binoculars, I don’t find this unreasonable at all.

    You mention that Mercury is so close to the sun that it undergoes relativistic effects. Well, first of all, everything does, according to the theory. Second of all, those effects are much more difficult to measure than the dimming of stars due to orbiting bodies. Why do you believe one and not the other?

  10. Jonah says:

    Neat stuff, John. Since it’s basically my job around here, I decided to do the math for you:

    The planet (COROT-Exo-7b, for those of you playing at home) orbits in an ellipse with semimajor axis of 2.543 million kilometers, according to Wikipedia. (If you don’t believe Wikipedia, you can do the rough calculations yourself, using Mercury’s orbital period given by John, the fact that Mercury rotates in an ellipse with semimajor axis 69 million kilometers, Kepler’s third law, which states that the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis, and the fact that COROT-Exo-7 is only a bit smaller than our sun.) Our sun’s radius about 700,000 kilometers, so this planet is well outside of the star it orbits: if the star is a soccer ball, this planet is a pebble about one foot away. So no, “99% of this planet” is not orbiting with the star. In fact, none of it is.

    Second, let’s find the speed with which it’s moving. This is 6th-grade stuff: to go around a circle (again, a fault assumption which errs on the side of caution) of radius 2.543 million kilometers in 20 hours would take a velocity of (2543000000*2pi)/(20*3600) = 221,919 meters per second, less than 0.1% of the speed of light. So no, these are not relativistic speeds.

    None of this is “absurd.” And as for the idea that this planet is like a gnat held up against the sun, and thus undetectable, I suggest you read a bit about how light refracts in our atmosphere before you make any further false analogies.

  11. Jonah says:

    Man, that was a typo-laden post. Pardon the grammar (though the math is correct).

  12. Math says:

    Jonah: Don’t worry, given his previous posts around here, he probably believes the Earth is flat, that the Sun rotates around it and it’s 6,000 years old. It’s just the same old reflexes that got Galileo excommunicated surfacing, making it hard to believe we’re not God’s chosen ones, thus the center of the Universe.

    Very interesting post by the way.

  13. John says:

    What is the near-side surface temperature of a body only 1.2 million miles from a sun-like star? Tell us like you’re sure of it. Just as Venus was once surely a balmy planet surrounded by a watery mist. Or as it was once certain that young children should wear shoes with hard soles. That was before it was found to be otherwise, and after it was, again, otherwise.) Tell us again, how the phloegiston theory works. Tell us again how it is that the history of science is the record of being repeatedly wrong, and yet always smugly certain. (Until recently, wereupon it has become fashionable to be smug about being uncertain about even the possibility of certainty while presenting an ever certain face about it all nevertheless, for all practical purposes, WRT the things pontificated upon and about with adamant certainty, insofar as any audience is able to tell.)

    Or could it be a sunspot on a star spinning once every 20 hours? There’s no way to know for certain what it is.

    The same old mockery surfacing . . .

    Actually it is the scientific community that believes that we live in a flat universe . . . and that the earth is flattened.

    I could point to the evidence that, despite Gallileo and Copernicus, Einstein, and Hubble (both of them), it’s trivial to show the many, many ways in which man is indeed at the center of the universe. One could start with the word “size” but that’s too simple for the sophisticates; they probably couldn’t wrap their great heads around such an idea, preoccupied as they are with this foolish notion of “elegance” having something to do with truth, and with the simplicity of their solar-centric gravitational equations, which prove nothing meaningful about this question. Relativity could as well make earth motionless and the universe spinning around it, if we cared to rethink our own pronouncements about the “laws” of physics, and simply go by what we actually observe. No, but it is the scientific establishment in our time that plays the role of the dogmatist, threatening excommunication to those who will not kneel and kiss the idol’s ring. Strange how they so love to shuffle over shoulder-to-shoulder with Gallileo when they have absolutely nothing in common with him, bowing and scraping, bootlicking and kowtowing as they do the the conventions of their own time for the sake of temporal approval.

    But such a lengthy dissertation as could easily be written would be wasted on the arrogancy of such prejudiced minds as those currently present, who think random evolution is sufficient to explain the cause of our existence when it isn’t even possible to demonstrate a single random event, and who also think that 14 billion years of measured relativity in a non-deterministic universe is sufficient to explain causality unto infinity.

    Every experiment _demonstrates_ the existence of an observer. Relativity implies the _necessity_ of an observer to the mere existence of any physical event. Therefore, there is no empirical evidence that anything ever has or even can exist absent an observer. Still the materialists continue to indulge their fantasy of an ancient universe independent of any observers. Not empirical. Not fact. Not reason. Indeed, a belief in the possibility of material objects existing absent any observing mind is the most provably lacking-in-empirical-evidence belief of all, the most demonstrable instantiation conceivable of that mental state named “irrationality.” Let them dream on . . . till the Judgement, . . . then answer for themselves. And it had better be good, . . . and of faith in the Creator, or woe unto them!

    (He said to no one in particular . . . )

    –John

  14. Ryan says:

    John, what is the point arguing with you? You believe that everything that is not in the Bible is false and everyone who is not a Christian is evil.

    There is no argument that could be brought to you that would change your mind about anything. I’ve never seen you acknowledge someone’s opinion, or budge an inch on your standpoint. I’ve never seen you be polite, even to those who agree with you. I hope you are more pleasant in person.

  15. Frin says:

    Gee John – Jonah did the math for you like you asked, and you didn’t say thank you? Was it because you didn’t like the answer? You could have just saved his time by launching into your standard bible-thumping holier-than-thou drivel without asking the question first – given that you were going to ignore the answer if it didn’t suit your argument.

  16. Math says:

    Wow I was joking about geocentrism, and you really believe it? I think I understand now. John is really Chuck Norris. When he does push ups, he doesn’t push himself up, he pushes the rest of the world down.

  17. Jonah says:

    What’s disturbing here is that John starts with exactly the instincts I try to encourage in students: a healthy skepticism in the face of counterintuitive facts and a willingness to ask questions. But instead of listening to the answers, he throws it all out the window. Every piece of knowledge is useful to him only as long as it confirms the views he already has. This is exactly the behavior I’m trying to fight.

    Consider what we saw in the other thread: at first, an appeal to the second law of thermodynamics in a misguided but intelligent critique of evolution. Then, when the actual workings of entropy are explained, the law is disowned, along with the existence of randomness itself! The creationist argument has officially devolved into parody.

    As a teacher, it’s hard for me to watch good intellectual habits be so quickly tossed aside. Fortunately, my students are better than that.

  18. John says:

    Prove that there is such a thing a randomness.

  19. Ryan says:

    Well John, what about this:

    In your previous posts, you tried to debunk evolution with the tired old argument that information cannot be added during a mutation. An addition in information requires a reduction in randomness. If randomness can be reduced to facilitate your claim of an increase in information, then it must have existed in the first place.

    You cannot prove scientifically that true randomness exists, because you can always suppose there are unmeasurable factors causing any given outcome.

  20. Jonah says:

    Prove that there is such a thing a randomness.

    In mathematics? No problem. Roughly speaking, a finite sequence is random if it cannot be generated by a “shorter” sequence using any deterministic algorithm. It’s obvious that over a given alphabet, there are more strings of length k than of length less than k, so random strings must exist.

    In nature? Such a proof is impossible, since the randomness of a system by definition relies on asymptotic behavior. We can be arbitrarily sure that something is random (for instance, physicists have accepted that the time intervals between emissions from certain radioactive isotopes are random), but exact 100% proof is impossible without infinite time. But, er, so what? Are you suggesting that we must never believe anything without perfect incontrovertible proof?

  21. Jonah says:

    (The claim at the end of the first paragraph is true only for alphabets with multiple characters. Apologies to the unary speakers among us.)

  22. Ryan says:

    Thanks Jonah. Damn I love science.

  23. John says:

    “You cannot prove scientifically that true randomness exists”

    I rest my case.

  24. John says:

    “In nature? Such a proof is impossible”

    See above post.

  25. John says:

    First of all, I have no intention of ever thanking anyone that does not exist.

    And as far as I am concerned, text claiming to be someone named Jonah is not evidence that a human being named Jonah exists. There is no evidence that anyone named Jonah exists. There is no Jonah. I’m not being mocking or condescending. This is a perfecly rational and moral determination based upon all the available empirical evidence.

    As for my reasons for asking what was the temperature: my point was and is that the scientists rarely consider the full ramifications of their patently absurd certainties.

    Consider: Mercury is 36 million miles from the sun, with a surface temperature that has supposedly been measured to exceed 400 degrees Celcius. At a distance of a mere 1.2 million miles, this hypothetical “planet” is perhaps within reach of what would be called solar flares on our sun. At less than four percent of the distance from that star as Mercury is from the sun, who can say that this hypothetical planet is not a ball of liquid (or a ball of gas)? Perhaps there is a reason that Mercury is the closest planet to the sun in our solar system. It is reasonable to wonder whether any planet could maintain an orbit much closer than that for a variety of reasons, and to surmise that there could be a planet only 1.2 million miles from a star takes some powerfully wishful thinking to say the least.

    Moreover, if Mercury, at 36 million miles, is close enough to the Sun to be affected by relativistic effects, then it certainly must be the case that this hypothetical “planet,” at a mere 1.2 million miles, is in deep relativistic territory, however fast it is moving.

    But consider another interesting congruence of facts: The sun’s diameter is roughly 864,948 miles, making its visible surface from earth (area of the circle seen) to be some 1.175 trillion square miles. the Earth’s diameter is about 7926 miles, making the area of its shadow about 99 million square miles.

    Now the Moon, which is much smaller than the Earth, blocks the entire surface of the Sun when it interposes, because the Moon is so much closer to us than the Sun. But a planet only 1.2 million miles from a distant star (certainly many light years distant) could shadow no more of that star than an area the size of its own cross-section. Using the Earth-Sun values, one gets that the area of shadowed starlight is less than one hundredth of one percent of the visible area of the star. That is, the luminous area blocked out by such a hypothetical planet amounts to only about 8 one-hundred-thousandths, or less than one ten-thousandth of the light output of the star.

    So the scientists are asking me to believe that they can detect a diminution of the light output of a distant star amounting to less than one ten-thousandth of the total light output of that star, when the total light from that star reaching Earth is measured in mere infinitesimal fractions of a candlepower? And that they can measure this accurately to five decimal places???

    My response to this absurdity is very simple. I don’t believe you.

    I DON’T BELIEVE YOU!

  26. John says:

    Because randomness is impossible to prove,

    (Cameras ready? Journalists at your notepads?)

    the atheists who claim that random events are sufficient to explain human existence . . . that order in the universe does not exhibit intelligence because all is explainable by recourse to random events spread across time . . .

    ARE EXPRESSING A RELIGIOUS BELIEF

    the foundation of which is . . .

    . . . a religious belief!

    (i.e., a belief founded upon faith in that which cannot be, by empirical means, verified, known, or even suspected.)

    Ergo, evolution is a religion.

    –John

    (There is no such thing as a random event.)

  27. John says:

    Are you suggesting that we must never believe anything without perfect incontrovertible proof?

    If I were to suggest that, then I would be just like an atheist, a liar.

    –John

  28. Jonah says:

    (i.e., a belief founded upon faith in that which cannot be, by empirical means, verified, known, or even suspected.)

    I followed you until here. (Which is impressive, I think. I suspect most people gave up long ago.) The nature of empirical means is that one collects evidence, which in turn allows one to compute levels of “confidence” in a hypotheses. If enough evidence is collected that we can be, say, 99.99% confident that a statement is true, then yes, that claim is empirically verified. If it were certain, it wouldn’t be empiricism.

    Though I hesitate to pat you on the back for good insights, your suggestion that science is a religion is not entirely without merit. You might be interested to look into the work of Gödel, which shows that no logical system can prove itself to be consistent. Furthermore, any system which is consistent (i.e. one in which you cannot prove a contradiction) has limitations, in that there exist true statements which it cannot prove.

    But the key thing between science and religion is that we recognize these limitations. That’s why papers (like the soon-to-be-published one about COROT-Exo-7b) contain sections on error analysis. Can you imagine such stuff in the Bible?

    And he made a molten sea, ten cubits (+/- 0.4) from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits (+/- 0.1): and a line of thirty cubits (+/- 1.2) did compass it round about.

  29. Jonah says:

    In retrospect, it would have been funnier to say that the number of wise men was, with 95% confidence, between 2.8 and 3.2.

    Eh, you can’t win ’em all.

  30. John says:

    When the atheist that thinks Solomon is funny is able to give us the exact value of pi, he can sport his smug superiority without being an ass. Until then, I, for one, want him to keep counting until he can. No rest for him until he does. (Shut up, ass! Count!)

    Solomon rounded to an integer. What’s so funny? (Shut up and keep counting. And don’t come back till you get it right.)

  31. John says:

    And the lifeless AI robot didn’t even catch the macabre irony of an atheist whining that one could harbor doubts for lack of incontrovertable proof!

    (What a clumsy algorithm!) Or caught it and pretends otherwise.

    Their biggest sin is hypocrisy. No one else is permitted the licenses they grant themselves to overlook the obvious.

    Impostors! Frauds! You can look at the sky and tell when it’s going to rain, but you say you cannot determine the meaning of accurate prophecy!

    Hard to believe that a real man could be that blind. They must rather be dead hallucinations. Or nonexistent. Or mere machines. Or perhaps they actually are the (inbred) sons of monkeys.

    They who make and worship idols, the same are like unto them. Hands have they, but they feel not. Eyes have they but they see not. They have ears, but they hear not.

    Kick a can. Kick an atheist. What’s the difference? (Perhaps there is no difference.)

  32. John says:

    To The Living:

    There is no uncertainty for a mortal man about the reality of an impending physical death.

    Given the supreme tragedy of that understanding there is therefore no uncertainty that, for any sentient being, a resurrection of the dead is therefore the most supremely praisworthy and glorious act possible.

    This is why the Christian knows that Jesus Christ instantiates an eternal Truth, having done that which will never be exceeded, can never be exceeded (the real, fabled, or potential other instances of such a resurrection nothwithstanding, since any such changes nothing).

    Absolute, eternal Truth. Not a local truth. Not a temporary truth. Not that which might ever have to be modified in the face of new data. That this is the supreme glory is known to be absolute, eternal Truth by every sentient human being with a functioning conscience. It is more than known to be true: the truth of it is tangibly felt to the innermost depth of any person’s strength who honestly faces the certain prospect of his own death. There is no “what if” that can circumvent this truth or call this truth into question.

    Whosoever argues with this is a recklessly irresponsible lying fool. We who have this witness within us know that the contrary view is an evil lie–not a mistake, not a miscalculation, not a locally different opinion–a lie.

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ instantiates an absolute, eternal, unchanging truth.

    There is no uncertainty in this truth. Nor could there be any compelling intellectual need for any margin of error in such an exact absolute.

    Similarly, there is no margin of error, nor any need for a margin of error, in the probability that something exists, which is widely known to be unity.

    “Scientists” mock at the certainty of Christians simply because scientists do not have any truth; they deal only in speculation.

    The Christian is taught to notice the difference beween that which is perfect and that which is flawed.

    –John

  33. John says:

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ, more than any so-called “fact” of science, has certainly been empirically verified.

    This verification has successfully been subjected to peer review for close to 2,000 years.

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is therefore a historical fact.

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is therefore a scientific fact.

    (Scream, ye atheists, loud and long and bitterly! I stand by that statement.)

    This has been shown using the same standards (using even more rigorous standards, in fact, than those) that have been applied to other things (falsely) called “scientific fact.”

    But all of this is immaterial. More significantly,

    the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an observed truth.

    –John

  34. Jonah says:

    Solomon rounded to an integer. What’s so funny?

    If you believe I’m mocking Solomon, then again you misread me. My point is that error calculation would be out of place in the Bible. The job of a religious text is to be certain, not confident.

    Scream, ye atheists, loud and long and bitterly!

    Sorry, never. I’ll won’t stop being civil with you, John, no matter how hard you try.

    But I will call your bluff. Let us hear how the resurrection has been verified using the same standards as for scientific fact. I’m interested to hear how the scientific method confirmed a hypothesis—any hypothesis—to be true with 100% confidence.

  35. Jonah says:

    And that should read “I won’t,” rather than “I’ll won’t,” of course.

  36. Math says:

    John: if you call peer review being brainwashed from birth with fairy tales and being programmed to regard a simple book as the absolute truth, then yes, the resurrection of Jesus has been peer reviewed for 2000 years

  37. John says:

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact, an observation.

    Why do you keep twisting my words into that which I have not said? You do this because it comes naturally to you to speak lies, like your father does.

    True facts are determined in a courtroom, not in a lab. The trial was held. The kangaroo court, and its judges, and all the children of the father of lies were condemned. God put the rulers of this world on trial, made fools of them, and condemned them. Woe unto you that follow them and worship them!

    The universal glory of Jesus Christ cannot be denied by any but lying fools. Argue with Him at the Last Judgment if you disagree.

    The nonexistence of God is a foundational presumption of so-called “science” held witih 100 percent certainty by those who are allowed by the peer pressure bullies to profess to be “scientists.” It’s not a hypothesis, it’s a dogma, but it might as well be a hypothesis for all the sense that scientists make with their arbitrary distinctions and mis-labeled categories of things they wish to believe. Anyone who will not accept that presumption as the first ground rule of science is apriori disallowed to have scientific credibility.

    One will say, “But that is science!” Exactly. The whole ball of nonsense is predicated on a lie with 100 percent certainty invested in the presumed validity of that lie. There is the 100 percent certainty you demanded to have shown to you. Now look at it. Or deny it, like a typical lying atheist. Or play coy and invent new deceptions. What is that to me? You mock yourselves, atheists to the confusion of your own faces, and woe unto you for it!

    It’s nothing to me what you think, but I would not have an innocent trapped by your lies, so I speak. You are already condemned for your insolence. And that has nothing to do with my opinion of the matter.

    All this nonsense about empiricism is immaterial rubbish considering the many powerful biases of “scientists” as applied to their beloved method before any evidence is even examined. One cannot “demonstrate” much less “prove” the nonexistence of God using a methodology that insists on His nonexistence as a foundational presumption. A tautology is no proof. To say that science simply takes no position on the existence of God is a subterfuge, a fraud, a transparent intellectual sleight-of-hand that is nothing otherwise than a willful bald-faced lie. That alone shows that so-called “science” is bunk. For all your pompous strutting and posturing, all your so-called “evidence” is qualitatively nothing more than anyone else’s evidence, that is, the testimony of human beings. And the salient thing about human testimony is the trustworthiness of the witness, not the likelihood of the testimony, as any competent judge certainly knows.

    I don’t believe that you dug up that bone. I don’t believe that you found it where you said you did. I don’t believe that you took a measurement with your bloviscope and reported it accurately to the half-flatulent angstrom. I don’t believe a word you say, because you are in love with lies.

    As I said, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a deduction, not an induction, not a conclusion, it is evidence seen, an observation.

    (And an atheist can be as nice as cotton candy and as sweet as sugar syrup but he still, to me, is someone who does not exist except as a virtual quantum potentential statistic with probability of one to become ashes under our feet on the Day of Judgment, unless he repents and believes the Gospel, the probability of which appears to approach zero.)

    –John

  38. Math says:

    All right I’ll bite: what is the undeniable proof of JC’s resurrection?

  39. Jonah says:

    Let me try again, since you seem to have trouble with the word “hypothesis.” (This despite the fact that even true statements, until proven, are hypotheses.) You state that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been shown with the same standards applied to other things called scientific fact. As a more hyperbolic writer might say, “I DON’T BELIEVE YOU!” I asked you to show me how the scientific method proved the resurrection; you have not done this.

    The nonexistence of God is a foundational presumption of so-called “science” held witih 100 percent certainty by those who are allowed by the peer pressure bullies to profess to be “scientists.”

    Are you deliberately misinterpreting what we say? None of the atheists in this thread have claimed to be 100% certain of the nonexistence of God. What we are saying, and what you seem to be intent on ignoring, is that the evidence of God’s existence is insufficient for us to call ourselves Christians.

    I happen to think, yes, that such evidence is impossible. Science has nothing to say on the veracity of the irrefutable, and the existence of an invisible being will always be irrefutable. But you seem wholly confident that pure logic and reason can prove that God exists, so I ask you: show me how!

  40. John says:

    Science has nothing to say on the veracity of the irrefutable

    The atheist dumbots lie. “Science” so pretends, when it suits their purpose. Otherwise, they use irrefutable absolutes as frequently as it suits their purpose.

    you seem wholly confident that pure logic and reason can prove that God exists

    Again, the atheist dumbots lie. They are those that are terrified of the evidence of a heart and what it can know independently of a mind.

    I asked them to stop twisting my words. They have not done this.

  41. John says:

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact, an observation.

    Why do you keep twisting my words into that which I have not said? You do this because it comes naturally to you to speak lies, like your father does.

    True facts are determined in a courtroom, not in a lab. The trial was held. The kangaroo court, and its judges, and all the children of the father of lies were condemned. God put the rulers of this world on trial, made fools of them, and condemned them. Woe unto you that follow them and worship them!

    The universal glory of Jesus Christ cannot be denied by any but lying fools. Argue with Him at the Last Judgment if you disagree.

    The nonexistence of God is a foundational presumption of so-called “science” held witih 100 percent certainty by those who are allowed by the peer pressure bullies to profess to be “scientists.” It’s not a hypothesis, it’s a dogma, but it might as well be a hypothesis for all the sense that scientists make with their arbitrary distinctions and mis-labeled categories of things they wish to believe. Anyone who will not accept that presumption as the first ground rule of science is apriori disallowed to have scientific credibility.

    One will say, “But that is science!” Exactly. The whole ball of nonsense is predicated on a lie with 100 percent certainty invested in the presumed validity of that lie. There is the 100 percent certainty you demanded to have shown to you. Now look at it. Or deny it, like a typical lying atheist. Or play coy and invent new deceptions. What is that to me? You mock yourselves, atheists to the confusion of your own faces, and woe unto you for it!

    It’s nothing to me what you think, but I would not have an innocent trapped by your lies, so I speak. You are already condemned for your insolence. And that has nothing to do with my opinion of the matter.

    All this nonsense about empiricism is immaterial rubbish considering the many powerful biases of “scientists” as applied to their beloved method before any evidence is even examined. One cannot “demonstrate” much less “prove” the nonexistence of God using a methodology that insists on His nonexistence as a foundational presumption. A tautology is no proof. To say that science simply takes no position on the existence of God is a subterfuge, a fraud, a transparent intellectual sleight-of-hand that is nothing otherwise than a willful bald-faced lie. That alone shows that so-called “science” is bunk. For all your pompous strutting and posturing, all your so-called “evidence” is qualitatively nothing more than anyone else’s evidence, that is, the testimony of human beings. And the salient thing about human testimony is the trustworthiness of the witness, not the likelihood of the testimony, as any competent judge certainly knows.

    I don’t believe that you dug up that bone. I don’t believe that you found it where you said you did. I don’t believe that you took a measurement with your bloviscope and reported it accurately to the half-flatulent angstrom. I don’t believe a word you say, because you are in love with lies.

    As I said, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a deduction, not an induction, not a conclusion, it is evidence seen, an observation.

    –John

  42. Ryan says:

    John, nobody is trying to twist your words. We are trying to understand your words. Is there anything I can say to you that would make you see that I am a human being like you, and I just want to have a discussion about what you believe? I’m not a liar – I’m just curious about the way people think, including myself.

    Is it possible that we can have a discussion? If not, just let me know, and I won’t address you again.

    with respect

    -ryan

  43. Jonah says:

    Basic internet courtesy: if someone asks you to explain something you wrote, don’t just copy and paste what you wrote all over again.

    One more time:

    This has been shown using the same standards (using even more rigorous standards, in fact, than those) that have been applied to other things (falsely) called “scientific fact.”

    Show me.

  44. John says:

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact, an observation.

    Why do you keep twisting my words into that which I have not said? You do this because it comes naturally to you to speak lies, like your father does.

    True facts are determined in a courtroom, not in a lab. The trial was held. The kangaroo court, and its judges, and all the children of the father of lies were condemned. God put the rulers of this world on trial, made fools of them, and condemned them. Woe unto you that follow them and worship them!

    The universal glory of Jesus Christ cannot be denied by any but lying fools. Argue with Him at the Last Judgment if you disagree.

    The nonexistence of God is a foundational presumption of so-called “science” held witih 100 percent certainty by those who are allowed by the peer pressure bullies to profess to be “scientists.” It’s not a hypothesis, it’s a dogma, but it might as well be a hypothesis for all the sense that scientists make with their arbitrary distinctions and mis-labeled categories of things they wish to believe. Anyone who will not accept that presumption as the first ground rule of science is apriori disallowed to have scientific credibility.

    One will say, “But that is science!” Exactly. The whole ball of nonsense is predicated on a lie with 100 percent certainty invested in the presumed validity of that lie. There is the 100 percent certainty you demanded to have shown to you. Now look at it. Or deny it, like a typical lying atheist. Or play coy and invent new deceptions. What is that to me? You mock yourselves, atheists to the confusion of your own faces, and woe unto you for it!

    It’s nothing to me what you think, but I would not have an innocent trapped by your lies, so I speak. You are already condemned for your insolence. And that has nothing to do with my opinion of the matter.

    All this nonsense about empiricism is immaterial rubbish considering the many powerful biases of “scientists” as applied to their beloved method before any evidence is even examined. One cannot “demonstrate” much less “prove” the nonexistence of God using a methodology that insists on His nonexistence as a foundational presumption. A tautology is no proof. To say that science simply takes no position on the existence of God is a subterfuge, a fraud, a transparent intellectual sleight-of-hand that is nothing otherwise than a willful bald-faced lie. That alone shows that so-called “science” is bunk. For all your pompous strutting and posturing, all your so-called “evidence” is qualitatively nothing more than anyone else’s evidence, that is, the testimony of human beings. And the salient thing about human testimony is the trustworthiness of the witness, not the likelihood of the testimony, as any competent judge certainly knows.

    I don’t believe that you dug up that bone. I don’t believe that you found it where you said you did. I don’t believe that you took a measurement with your bloviscope and reported it accurately to the half-flatulent angstrom. I don’t believe a word you say, because you are in love with lies.

    As I said, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a deduction, not an induction, not a conclusion, it is evidence seen, an observation.

  45. Math says:

    I think he needs to be rebooted, he’s in an infinite loop.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s