[Vision2020] Global Warming
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
--0-248923259-1064347166=:27537
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Glad to bring joy into your life. :)
There are scientists and there are scientists. I happen to side with the scientists that I believe will be shown to be right in the end. You side with yours. I think yours are viewing the obvious facts through the wrong perscription. In fact, I think there was a mistake at the factory and your scientists ended up with heavily tinted glasses. Not that my scientists have pure sight, but that they are looking through the lense of God's Word first.
And if you didn't get my reductio, that's fine. But I personally believe the earth will be around for another 30000 years or more (1000 generations * 35 -for an average generation length). And of course as a true believer in the Creator I know what it means to "take dominion". It means to be a caretaker, not a destroyer. Satan is the destroyer, and so are all his evolutionists. They hate mankind and wish to destroy everything God has declared to be good. Like apples (just a bunch of genetic defects), and frequent sex between a just-married couple (complete waste of time from an evolutionary viewpoint), and what it means to love (just a bunch of chemical reactions somewhere in the body). And if they are blessedly inconsistent and fight for the preservation of the sperm whale, more power to them. I'm all for preservation of dying out species. Like the cheetah. But if it is a question of a dam or a new subspecies of fish or a sandfly of some sort, I vote for the dam. There are !
lots of
fish and way too many sandflies in the world. There is a right way to build up man's use of nature while taking care of nature.
An interesting note on that: recent surveys of the Amazon Jungle have disclosed that a good portion of it was actually carefully engineered and cultivated forest. It was not "natural" to begin with, but was planted in specific patterns for maximum growth and production. Villages and cities were layed out in geometric patterns across the landscape and the rainforest was planted in between. I argue for some sort of ideal like that. Man rules the created things on earth, but man must not destroy what God has given him. That is the only possible basis of the ethical argument against hunting to extinction.
some thoughts,
Joshua Nieuwsma
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-248923259-1064347166=:27537
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Glad to bring joy into your life. :)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are scientists and there are scientists. I happen to side with the scientists that I believe will be shown to be right in the end. You side with yours. I think yours are viewing the obvious facts through the wrong perscription. In fact, I think there was a mistake at the factory and your scientists ended up with heavily tinted glasses. Not that my scientists have pure sight, but that they are looking through the lense of God's Word first. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And if you didn't get my reductio, that's fine. But I personally believe the earth will be around for another 30000 years or more (1000 generations * 35 -for an average generation length). And of course as a true believer in the Creator I know what it means to "take dominion". It means to be a caretaker, not a destroyer. Satan is the destroyer, and so are all his evolutionists. They hate mankind and wish to destroy everything God has declared to be good. Like apples (just a bunch of genetic defects), and frequent sex between a just-married couple (complete waste of time from an evolutionary viewpoint), and what it means to love (just a bunch of chemical reactions somewhere in the body). And if they are blessedly inconsistent and fight for the preservation of the sperm whale, more power to them. I'm all for preservation of dying out species. Like the cheetah. But if it is a question of a dam or a new subspecies of fish or a sandfly of some sort, I vote for the !
dam.
There are lots of fish and way too many sandflies in the world. There is a right way to build up man's use of nature while taking care of nature. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>An interesting note on that: recent surveys of the Amazon Jungle have disclosed that a good portion of it was actually carefully engineered and cultivated forest. It was not "natural" to begin with, but was planted in specific patterns for maximum growth and production. Villages and cities were layed out in geometric patterns across the landscape and the rainforest was planted in between. I argue for some sort of ideal like that. Man rules the created things on earth, but man must not destroy what God has given him. That is the only possible basis of the ethical argument against hunting to extinction.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>some thoughts,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joshua Nieuwsma</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">Yahoo! SiteBuilder</a> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
--0-248923259-1064347166=:27537--