Without being dogmatic- because I am certainly no astrophysicist, the JWST causing a re-think of early universe modelling does not automatically imply that the only alternative is a creation theory.
joey jojo
JoinedPosts by joey jojo
-
141
My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang
by Sea Breeze ina new space telescope launched a few days age that will supposedly be able to see to within 100 million years of the big bang.
wow... only 100 million years from the big bang.
that is pretty early given the 12 billion year age of the universe assigned by scholars who adhere to naturalism.
-
-
-
46
Nephilim...Only desired females
by RULES & REGULATIONS inbible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
-
-
joey jojo
No ancient myth would be worth reading without a good old fashioned rape story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rape_victims_from_ancient_history_and_mythology
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
joey jojo
Vidqun,
So much of the stuff you post has been shown to be mis-represented, out of context and unreferenced. For example, the picture of the electric vehicles rotting in a field was debunked at least a year ago.
At what point do you ask yourself if it's actually you that has got it wrong?
The CSIRO, the peak scientific body in Australia has just released a report showing that temperatures have risen by 1.5C in Australia over the last 100 years, pretty much in line with world trends.
We are now in the situation where insurance companies won't insure properties because the risk of severe weather events, like floods and fires, has become too high for them.
The scary part is there are a lot of people like you that see all this and will offer any other reason for extreme climate events occurring , no matter how unscientific and stupid it is, as long as human activity isn't blamed.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
joey jojo
Disillusioned.
Try it for yourself- put ice cubes in a glass and fill it to the brim with water. As the ice melts it wont spill over the top because the volume of the glass is already filled with water. No more water is being added.
I didnt have time to write more about the polar caps melting but there is a big difference between Arctic ice and Antarctic ice.
Arctic ice is sitting on the water like an ice cube and as it melts in doesnt add any more volume to the oceans. Antarctic ice is sitting out of the water on land in giant sheets. As it melts, it will add to the volume of water in the oceans and contribute to sea level rise.
From what Ive read though, another factor is thermal expansion of the ocean. As temperatures rise, the volume of the oceans expands. So, melting glacier ice + thermal expansion = sea level rise.
-
10
elder school and jabs
by enoughisenough ini watched a video ( can't think which one now.
)..and the presenter said he had been given unverifiable information from an elder's wife that the elders needed to have the "jabs" in order to attend elder school in person now and there wasn't to be a zoom, and if they didn't have the jabs, they needed to contact the branch.
( my thought: when will these toothless lions (elders) wake up and be real men and use their god given intelligence and quit allowing the manipulation?
-
-
joey jojo
The elders have a Discord site?
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
joey jojo
Hi again Vid,
The only reason I comment on your posts, is for anyone that upvotes it, or for the casual reader that accepts what you have posted without checking.
So in this latest post you talk about Arctic ice melting and flooding the world. No expert believes this to be case.
Why?
Because Arctic ice melting will have zero effect on ocean levels. It is like an ice cube in a drink, as it melts, it doesnt magically add more water to the glass. The total amount of water is already in the glass, except some of it is in frozen form.
You posted a link from NASA in another post, I suppose that means you trust NASA as a source. Here is another post showing how the Arctic Ice is indeed shrinking. It even has a slider so you can see it for yourself.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
joey jojo
Disillusioned JW:
I notice that you made the claim of "By the way, one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture." I am not convinced that one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture.Im glad you noticed this too. Of course its a false claim. The guy quoted was taken completely out of context and Vidqun got this quote from his favourite source of scientific facts - Facebook memes.
Heres the whole story:
https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/
For anyone who cant be bothered clicking on the URL:
On his blog Mr Homer-Dixon writes: “The poster is fraudulent. I didn’t write the text, the text itself is selectively quoted, and the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless.”
The full quote from the book is:
“The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”
So Mr Hughes was saying only that placing windmills in bad places may mean they don’t generate enough energy to “pay back” the energy it cost to produce them, not that all turbines will fail to do so.
Mr Homer-Dixon adds, “it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations”.
-
15
Future
by punkofnice ini wonder what this earth will really be like in 500 years from now?.
what are your thoughts?.
-
-
joey jojo
If humans don't have another technological interruption, like the dark ages, the technology available 500 years from now would seem like magic to us.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
joey jojo
Vidqun
This is an Australian graph. Look at the gloabal monthly temperature anomalies (1880-2021). These follow a similar pattern.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4975
Interestingly, data had to be suppressed, indicating that "Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years." I wonder why. -
30
Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question
by Blotty ini am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?
stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?
sounds dumb i know.
-
-
joey jojo
I'm no bible scholar either but here are some things that I have found interesting over the years.
In an effort to support the validity of the bible, the WT claims that nothing in the bible has been changed, altered or omitted in any significant way over the centuries of translating. However, they take it upon themselves to insert Gods name in the new testament over 250 times, completely ignoring the fact it has never been found in any fragment or copy.
The oldest copies of the NT in existence are written 100 years after Jesus died. They are not complete books, only scraps of parts of scriptures.
The first complete books of the NT are dated to the 3rd century, not the complete bible- only some books.
The first complete NT bible, the codex sinaiticus doesnt appear until the 4th century.
None of the gospels were eyewitness accounts and the originals werent written until decades after the death of Jesus.
Luke and Paul never met Jesus, yet between them are responsible for writing about half of the books of the NT.
God did not dictate the canon of the bible- it was decided upon by men.
Many books that we have in the NT werent universally accepted as belonging in the bible and some still arent by certain branches of christian faiths.
The version of the bible used by JW's is the protestant bible which didnt exist before 1534 CE, which separated the apocrypha. If JW's believe God inspired the books of the bible and it was already complete in the 1st century, then why accept a revised version over 1000 years later which removes some books?