Ed is a true believer! Global warming is a holy sacrament to the left, therefore hysterics are in order for poor Ed and the gang …funny stuff!

I've really enjoyed Ed's work in various movies and TV shows. The fact that he's a corrupt, lying monster is a pretty tough pill to swallow.

I was going to make a joke about us Christians being humorless, but, uhm, I see … I … don't …have to.

How about these articles:

Science, v326, 716 – 718 (2009)
Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions

Evaluating multicomponent climate change mitigation strategies requires knowledge of the diverse direct and indirect effects of emissions. Methane, ozone, and aerosols are linked through atmospheric chemistry so that emissions of a single pollutant can affect several species. We calculated atmospheric composition changes, historical radiative forcing, and forcing per unit of emission due to aerosol and tropospheric ozone precursor emissions in a coupled composition-climate model. We found that gas-aerosol interactions substantially alter the relative importance of the various emissions. In particular, methane emissions have a larger impact than that used in current carbon-trading schemes or in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, assessments of multigas mitigation policies, as well as any separate efforts to mitigate warming from short-lived pollutants, should include gas-aerosol interactions.

Science v326, 672 – 673 (2009)
Clean the Air, Heat the Planet?

The push toward cleaner air in Beijing before the 2008 Olympic Games was a vivid reminder of the need to control air pollution, not only in Asia but in many regions of the world (1). There is mounting evidence for particle- and ozone-related health effects (2, 3). Furthermore, ozone and aerosol particles affect Earth's radiation balance (4, 5): Many aerosols cool the atmosphere (a negative forcing), whereas ozone and black carbon aerosol have a warming effect (a positive forcing). There is thus a strong motivation for treating air pollution control and climate change in common policy frameworks (5, 6). However, recent model studies (7–9) have shown that changes in pollutant and precursor emissions, atmospheric burden, and radiative forcing are not necessarily proportional. Furthermore, as Shindell et al. report on page 716 of this issue, current models do not capture many of the complex atmospheric processes involving aerosols and reactive trace gases (10).

Science v325, 1114 – 1118 (2009)
Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing

One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability. Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.

Obviously Ed believes in the 'theory' of man-made global warming. He probably subscribes to the 'theory' of evolution as well.

Go to someone you can trust. . .or Ed, do you mean someone that you (Ed) trusts? ? ?

Ed Begley, who made you an all-knowing, omnipetent God? Find a new religion and get
back to us — this gig is over. . .a disciple spilled the beans.

As a Christian I thought it was funny, John!

I would have introduced Ed to the theory of my fist globally punching his face had he repeatedly jabbed his finger at me that way. Why do all liberals act like hysterical woman?

Remember his bit in [i}Amazon Women On The Moon[/i]?

Whooo! Whoooo! He probably walks around the house naked pretending to be invisible. That wasn't an act.

When you spend your life trying to scrounge around for life support and feed off lint from your belly button for nourishment,your brain will revolt.I'm just say'n..

Ed is a electric car driver who puts his fingers in his ears when there is talk that it's battery is toxic and is the type to have his neighbor cut down his trees so his solar panels recieve light.

He looks a little insane to me.

I thought it was kind of a joke on those who mocked creationism as well, in a weird way. And even though I am a Christian and all, even I don't believe the planet is only 6,000 years old. It was pretty funny to me, though.

Agreed. Folks are missing the obvious sarcasm.

Ed is a washed up actor on a second rate cable show. Why would anyone believe anything he says. He is a nutjob in the likes of his hero Al Gore.

Have had more fun reading the comments. The hacked e-mails kinda put the nail in the coffin for Global Warming, it's all over but the shouting, as seen by Ed. When one's idenity is rapped around something and it is proven to be faults, it's like pulling the rug out from under your feet,

Bottom line. This email deal is out and it is simply devastating. It confirms what anyone with a brain cell on active duty has known all along. Pushers of man-made climate change can have a seat, forever. We know what your banker masters bosses are putting you up to and we are done with you.

ax·i·om
–noun- a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it

as-sume
-verb- what Ed Begley Jr. does when he accepts man caused global-warming as proved and tries to make an "ass out of u and me"

Man, not every environmentalist would act in such a way. A better reason to go "green" would be the fact that air quality will improve and the united states could become self sufficient with renewable energy. Check it out. You see, it would be a win win situation. Reply to me if you want to talk about the subject.

Better to assert the world is 6000 years old trying to explain why the dinosaur fossil has living tissue and blood cells in it. than to assert it is millions of years.

im sorry i didnt want to pay for a PHD taught by single minded individuals. i have always wondered though, when i was in school they always said that the world went threw an ice age, now im wondering how all the ice melted. our world is billions of years old and has to go threw cycles there is no other explanation for it, if she wants to get rid of us she will and there is no stoping it. I wish the left woul just hold there breath so they would stop emiting so much carbon into our clean air

Ed Begley is such an incredible axxhole — and he even believes his own propaganda. Look at the heat! He'd be a dictator if he got the chance!

Oh, BTW, you don't have to be a Christian to dispute and depise Ed Begley. I'm an atheist, and he is a lowdown lying skunk.

An insurance policy on global warming? Nutbag!

Sorry to upset your applecart, Ed. What do you have your degree in, Ed?

In 1986, PSA testing for men was considered a revolutionary tool to screen men for prostate cancer.
Twenty three years later the inventor of the test pointblank said, "The era of PSA testing is over."
Roughly 1,400 men have to be screened to save one life; 40 have to be treated.

There have been an avalanche of "peer-reviewed" studies in the past 23 years attesting to the need for this diagnostic. Now we know the test does very little for men's health.

There is nothing sacred about peer review. As a matter of fact, review boards are quite easily manipulated.

The "era" of global warming is over. It will be a case study in junk science for scientists yet unborn.

Note: These articles clearly illustrate that the science is not "settled". These three articles published this year are from the premier US scientific journal and each highlight, to a general scientific audience, that there are still unsolved issues related to global temperature changes.

Article 1: Scientists attribute more importance to methane than carbon dioxide. Progressives are focused on carbon dioxide. Why? Could it be because when they are given the power to regulate carbon dioxide they can control everything.

Article 2: The impact of human actions on temperature by "cleaning" the environment are complicated and the current models are incomplete.

Article 3: While progressives like to blame human activity for global temperature changes, peer-reviewed literature published this year argues that solar cycles can explain global temperature changes over the last few decades.

Could someone tell me how Al Gore's degree in journalism qualifies him as an expert on the climate,and likewise, Ed, the actor's, profession, of impersonating others, an expert on weather? Oh well, it doesn't matter—–any excuse will serve a tyrant.

It gets hot in summer so I turn on the A/C to keep cool… it gets cold in winter so I turn on the heater to keep warm. I've been doing that for over 40 years and it's the same every year. What's the point?

[...] link: Ed Begley Jr. Loses It On Fox News This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]

Does Ed have a Phd. in climatology? If not, how can he competent to make judgments on the subject?

As for the comparison to Christianity…

If you carefully calculate the expansion of the universe to time zero, taking into account Einstein's theory of relativity and the interplay of relativistic speed/time juxtaposed with the expansion of the universe, the alleged Big Bang occurrence might well have been the opening act of God's creation…

…about 6,000 years ago.

Hmmm. That takes care of all the supposed dinosaur inconsistency. And still Christianity prevails.

Why, when the Bronze Age writers were creating the Holy Bible, did they leave out the entire chapter on dinosaurs? I'm sure God didn't forget to tell them about the dinosaurs, yet they made an executive decision to ignore their heavenly instructions.

They're gonna bust Hell wide open!

Child: Look! The emperor has no clothes on.

Public Relations Courtier: Shut up. Your comments don't matter, because you haven't submitted them to a peer reviewed journal of the Court. We don't have to talk to you, in the name of Science.

EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

You know Ed Bagley takes the number one A-hole award away from Robert Kennedy Jr. I didn't think anyone could be a bigger fool than him, but I was wrong.

Look folks, the left has big time investments in taking our money and freedom away in the Global Warming Cap and Trade debacle. It's really going to get ugly. They are not going to lose this fight sitting down.

They have been caught distorting the truth and manipulating the facts for years. Once again, they will try to destroy the messenger once they acknowledge the story even exist. MSM is avoiding the facts again.

A message for Ed: They are hiring at Wal-mart. You better get down there.

how can you have peer reviewed studies when your peers won't release their data?

Old Ed reacts as one does when what you believe in more than anything has been called into question. I will have to hand it to Ed however, in that he walks the walk and is not the typical hypocrit as so many are when it comes to global warming. If he wanted to live in a mud hut to save the planet, then more power to him.
Varney is right about the light bulbs, I have started a stockpile so my house will be well light up when all my neighbors are reading by the crappy "green" bulbs.

I thought so too, but it could be those crazy glasses causing his eyes to look googly.

Same here. I think we have every right to call ourselves Conservatives.

I've been a practicing Conservative for decades and I mean every word I say. I've studied the concepts and the principles, and I live by them. Way to go, Diane B — Very good question.

That was before St. Al Gore had a holy vision of fires and venus.

Evolution doesn't say a damned word about how everything began.

Rent a book. That way, if the experience doesn't agree with you, you can return it and not be out the cost of the book.

That's exactly right — and even if there's no criminal conspiracy (and I firmly believe there was and is), there is still the bad science, particularly the angle you bring up, re peer-reviewed sources.

I can tell by the words you use that you're a true scientist, too.

I find that quite impressive.

He fingerpoints like a wifebeater. Just saying.

John I have no words..poor guy! Your fellow Papist.

1976 National Geographic article. A scanned image on ice ages
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557...

Ed is a doofus.

(bows, blushing)

You're too kind by half. This means you could reduce your KQ (kindness quotient) by 33% and still be on par with the average citizen.

Stop it, stop it. (No, don't ever stop, lol)

Seriously, thanks ever so much for replying.

Hi JC830,

You seem to adhere to the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin and diversity of life. To which specific origin-of-life theory under the evolution umbrella do you subscribe? And do you subscribe to the Big Bang theory or an alternative? How about string theory?

How would you describe the goal of science?

Thanks,

Joe

This guy was with Belushi when he died. He's not someone I trust, respect or admire. How many emissions did he let go lighting up his bongs. He is a disgrace and I'm sure he flies in planes all the time they hypocrite.

Ah alas, I can explain it to you.

Humorless? No, far from it. For one just look at Fred Philips, clearly this man is a misunderstood comic genius pretending to be an intolerant, gay bashing jackass. Right?

Ed HAS a religion. It is his personal faith. Facts not required.

The curtain has been pulled back on the hoax that is man-made global warming and, instead of a mighty "wizard," there is only a bald little climatologist doctoring the facts so as to bilk the U.S. government out of more grant money.

As to Ed's emotional and very feminine outburst… if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything.

The only times that I have ever seen someone as defensive as this, is when they felt that their personal religion/faith was under attack. Pity Mr. Begley. I had respected you on the basis that you, despite all of the other charlatans, actually practiced what you had preached. But now.. now, you have laid bare that there is no actual mind there, just a Statist-puppet of tyrannical dogma. Sir, goodbye.

Ed Beagley is selling his book. GW is a religion.

That's an insult to "hysterical women" otherwise I like your fist theory.

You mean Phelps.

Ed is off his Meds again!

Begley is just like any other religious fanatic, more than happy to impose his beliefs and values on others. Like liberals the world over. They want to force everyone to pay higher taxes, but you never hear them suggest that Democrats get different tax forms, so they can volunteer to pay higher taxes, and leave the rest of us alone. Just like the way Hollywood touts liberal environmental laws, while their very livelihoods rely on millions of televisions running, around the clock, using un-told amounts of energy – that ISN'T generated by wind or solar.

Hi Joe.

Evolution is not about origins. It is an explanation of the diversity of life, and the mechanism that creates that diversity. When you talk about origins, it is presently speculation for the most part. Science cannot be science if you can bring supernatural causes into the picture. That is the same as magic.

I do not "subscribe" to anything, actually. If the evidence backs up the Big Bang, or string theory, then it is a framework that can help us to understand. Science is never "settled". It just collects evidence and refines theories until the theory explains, better than anything else, the nature of reality.

The goal of science is to explain the world and phenomena that we experience. Same as religion. Except science has as a basic premise that everything is natural, and there is no "divine" intervention. It does not rule out a supernatural being creating nature, but to speculate on that is religion and philosophy, not science.

What is wrong with that?

So what theory do you propose as better than the theory of evolution? Does all of the evidence that supports evolution support your theory? Or are you just relying on the bible as your source of knowledge? The bible was written by ignorant people, long, long ago. They still subscribed to the "demonic possession" theory of disease. Even Jesus believed in that. Do you believe that diseases are caused by demons?

I understand that believing Christians must dismiss evolution, because Christian doctrine is founded on belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and that they fell from grace by disobeying God, thus necessitating a Savior; Jesus. But the evidence does not support that myth. Religion is comforting, because it gives simple explanations to the harsh realities and injustices of life. But that doesn't make it true. It just makes it popular. I acknowledge that religious people are happier than most non-religious people, but in my non-scientific opinion, that is a form of self-delusion. I prefer the non-comforting concept of seeking the truth through reliable, objective, testable, scientific means.

If you mean to attack the theory of evolution, though, then show the world a better theory, not just a new hypothesis. It happens to be one of the most well-supported theories in science history. I will be willing to abandon it tomorrow (or tonight even) if there is one that better explains the facts.

Wasn't this guy also a 9/11 truther?

Did…did Begley denounce a physicist? We live in truly odd times…

BA in progressive whining with a PhD in Leftwingnutism

As soon as he was cornered with the "What kind of American are you?" statement he went off!!! Typical uber- liberal as soon as he didn't have control of the discussion he started flinging out the Lib-tard talking points, Death Panels, Catalytic Converters, Insurance policies on houses are the same as insurance policies for global warming and on and on. Debating a true Liberal is like debating Charles Manson, the answers get crazier and louder the longer the talking continues.

And strangely enough, the Book of Genesis's description of creation is not a wholely unreasonable short hand description of the big bang, the formation of the earth, and the advent of life.

I believe in evolution, but I also believe that the universe is far too organized for there not to have been a universal organizer. To me, the wonder of science lies in discovering the logical beauty with which the Creator put His universe together.

Well, Noah may have had a "shrink ray" to fit all the animals into the ark, too, but that's not what the bible says. The bible does not say God created the universe in a big bang. It says he created the earth first, and then the stars, sun, and moon. Then he created animals and humans. Later on, there is a talking snake with legs, talking donkeys, and flying demons causing disease. But it never mentions dinosaurs. Even by another name.

"And still Christianity prevails." Wow. Powerful argument. This is what is known as a "non-sequitur".

Yes Ed with his vastly superior progressive mind which yields much more intelligence than nonliberal minds irrationally concluded that all physicists specialize in nuclear physics. Also according big head Ed, the Goracle is also a false prophet because he too is not a climatologist.

Are you serious? Try reading a book before saying something that ignorant. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Even monkeys know this.

Down boy! He looks like his head is going to explode. What a prick!

The interviewer rocks!

Ed Begley Jr is nothing but a Whacko-Kook from Hollyweird!! I would've liked to heard that Brit tell him to Shut The Hell Up. I'll bet I could sell him a certain bridge in SanFrancisco, that nutbag.

BTW I'd trust a physicist before a climatologist any day.

Without "Global Warming" Begley looses any shred of relevance…he is watching his claim-to-fame implode!

Most suffer from pathological narcissism! Explains a lot!

Was that Ed Bagley Jr or that cartoon villain from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?

That is the difference between the left and the right…rabid liberals are so egotistical that they think they should force others to follow their dictates because they know best for everyone: the Dictatorship of the Left. What dictator has not felt that way?

Poor Ed.. He's been sacrificing since 1970. He lives in a modest house and doesn't buy new furniture till the old stuff's completely falling apart, He rides a bike every where, He's turned his little yard (his only luxury) into an actual food garden because he didn't want to waste water for grass. The man is taking this hard and I don't blame him. If it turns out that all his sacrifice and the sacrifices he's made his wife and child endure are all for naught or minimum at best.. his lady is likely to leave him. She gets to crying about the dump he makes her live in. They go into all these wonderful Beverly Hills houses with the swimming pooks and she just dies inside because she knows he won't allow her to have those things. Ahhh, real love contains many sacrifices.

The object of his Cult is crumbling before his own eyes.

I completely agree with this. God's hand is in everything. The demand that the earth be only 6,000 years old over what has been scientifically proven is decidedly human and definitely not divine. As a Christian, it offends me.

That bizarre behavior is truly that of a man whose whole world has been turned upside down. I'll say this for him, though. He's lived the 'green life'. He doesn't travel in private jets while excoriating people for driving SUVs. He lives what he preaches, so I'll give him that. For him, it doesn't seem to have been just a means to a socialistic end. But he doesn't understand the 'fixes' being proposed will do nothing but cause worldwide economic failure and help the environment very, very little, if at all. It's tough realizing you've been a patsy. Tends to make a body lash out a bit.

Aww, that really made me sad. You hit the nail on the head I think. It's not only Ed, but so many have so much invested in this global warming idealogy. And that includes some of those "evil corporations" such as GE. It seems he's mad about a helluva lot more than just this though.

I was holding off on watching this since I like Ed, but WOW. When you push these people they really flip out. This really is a religion to them. It was interesting to watch how he couldn't even tolerate the idea of an opposing point of view or even the slightest questioning of his religion.

Home Schooling is an Excellent Choice

Some Home Schooling Info
http://usataxpayer.org/homeschool.asp

Take a look at our government indoctrination schools. They teach our kids a bunch of clap-trap so they will accept it when they become voters. There is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, global warming, embrace illegals, bigger government is the answer to everything. They don't have time for the three RRRs any more, they are too busy turning out idiots that can't speak, write or form a cognizant thought. The government is their god.

Perversion in Public Schools!
http://usataxpayer.org/view.asp?Get=schools

Amen!

Some Home Schooling Info
http://usataxpayer.org/homeschool.asp

There is a fallacy in your argument. Science and religion can easily co-exist. The problem is that there are people who feel that it must be a zero sum game; either Science or Religion is right. I'm tired of listening to zero sum arguments. Just as economics isn't a zero sum game, neither is science/religion.

As many Christians would undoubtedly tell you, religion explains why we are here and what we're supposed to do. Science explains what here is based on our observations. I don't see the contradiction. The only contradictions I've seen is when someone feels the need to tell someone else what they believe so he can create a straw-man argument to knock down.

We all suffer from our own biases, whether we're biased to view science as a way to say, "Aha! There is no God because I know how this works now." or to say, "Wow, these complicated processes show me there is a God."

Just as science can't prove that there is/isn't a God, religion can't disprove science.

Just out of curiosity…how does one tell the age of a dinosaur fossil?

Why would you expect God to include a chapter on dinosaurs?? What an odd idea. There is no chapter in the Bible on budgerigars, jellyfish, horses, etc., etc. What's this obsession with dinosaurs?

I feel sorry for Ed. Doubly sorry for his wife.

Strange that he JUST had an energy assessment done on his house and had his bills cut in half as a result. Hasn't he been powering his house by peddling his bike and installing windmills in his yard? Where do you go from there?

It was the bug eyes coupled with the pure albinoness/Thyvethter the Cat thpeak that made him seem a bit of a nutter.

OK – maybe it is because he is an actual raving loon… but that stuff above did not help matters.

Electric car – electricity from coal fired plant. Technically he should be walking. Walking slowly so he does not overproduce carbon dioxide with the excessive breathing.

I enjoy the fact that some believe that they realize something as simple as a cup must be created, but that our universe is pure happenstance. There was nothing and then poof nothing exploded and here we are. All of us.

So tree hugging is a mental disorder too ? wow.

The hitch here is that they would refuse to publish reviews that did not agree with their theory of global warming.
It would have helped if Stuart knew this and mentioned it.

Sometimes you cannot fly by the seat of your pants.

I'm fed up with all these jerks. It is time to teach them a lession. Let's show them just how global warming it isn't by dropping all these global warming CON-ARTISTS naked in Antarticia after they watch a few episodes of man vs. wild and see if their global warming theories keep them warm enough to walk home.

Okay then, so, if evolution is real, we're not fallen sinners, we're merely still evolving into a higher form of life, therefore rendering Christ's sacrificial death utterly meaningless. It's all a myth. Therefore, let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

The pro-AGW crowd always go the "he's not a climate scientist!" route. But here's the thing: there's no "climate science". Climate science is a broad term describing the sciences involved in climate study and climate-related fields. It gets really hilarious when you point out that the head of the IPCC is an ECONOMIST. Most of the pro-AGW people are ECONOMISTS. Why? Because they study statistics, and they're good at collating data.

I wasn't aware that God wrote the Bible…??? Wasn't that written by the church to intimidate the congregation???

Why is it we are being held hostage to all these nutjobs? Time we took society back for all the masses of decent folk who have had it up the ying yang with all this blather. Ed Begley? Who CARES what he thinks or says. That is what gets me the most. The left think they have a monoply on any speech in this country and if you don't think their way or say things they don't like they fly off the handle with a childish tantrum.
They should be ignored or spanked and ideally, both.

If theories on the age of the universe are so accurate then why is there such a shortage of Red Dwarfs?
(stars not people) It is indeed a grand illusion…

I believe the Bible describes creation literally. I also believe the universe is around 14 billion years old and the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. I believe that God created animals in a progressive fashion over six long periods of time (one of the literal definitions for the word "yom" used in Genesis). There are a lot of "us" out here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/radio-broadcasts...
The Bible describes a beginning to both space and *time*, an expanding universe, nails the order that species appear on Earth, etc. I was relieved when I discovered credible scientists (you can see the scholars' bios on the reasons.org homepage) who gave voice to what I felt intuitively. For Young-Earth / Young-Universe believers, starlight travel times are a pretty big hurdle.

If anyone is interested, the "Science News Flash" and "I Didn't Know That" podcasts are killer if you're into Faith/Science issues. I found the site after seeing a blog post years ago so I thought maybe I'd return the favor for someone else.

Yeah, Fred Phelps and his merry band of mental defectives have been a laughing stock for many years…

Sadly the radical gay bunch aren't a whole lot better though………..

The world is 4.6 Billion years old, not 4 trillion. Neither the Big Bang Theory nor Darwin have ever made such claims. Get your facts straight.

He looks a little insane to me. A LITTLE??? LMAO!!!

Fred Phelps is a man of the left. He's a democrat and a lawyer… and his so-called congregation consists solely of his immediate and extended family. Maybe 40 people in total. for these clowns to constantly be used as examples of "right wing Christian bigotry" is the worst case of misleading labeling in the history of the universe. He's the strawman argument for every Christian hater out there, so it wouldn't surprise me to find out one day that he's been paid all these years by the DNC or some other Soros funded group to behave publicly the way he has just so that the MSM has a convenient strawman when bashing Christians. stranger things have happened… in November 2008 alone.

Amen and Amen.

It *was* funny. I thought your comparison was spot on.

its not fair to bring up their past mistakes

and since when is NG "peer reviewed"? It's just a magazine, like Science and Nature. Those are not peer reviewed journals. Obviously he doesn't understand the difference between a journal and a magazine.

Sorry but you either believe the Bible describes creation _literally_ (young earth, short, not long, periods of time) or — Bible discarded — you'd rather believe in billions of years as the Theory of Evolution posits. You cannot have it both ways.

Furthermore, your understanding of "yom" (Hebrew word for "day") in Genesis is faulty: Whenever (without exception) "yom" is used _with a number_ in Genesis (e.g. "day one," "second day," etc.) it ALWAYS refers to a literal, 24 hour day. Without exception! The attempt to legitimize so-called progressive evolution by Genesis falls apart right there.

To you "young earthers", you should re-read Genesis. Time was not set in motion until after the heavens and earth were created. Therefore, it is unlikely that those first two "days" were literal ones, since the way we measure time could not have existed prior to those events. Further, astronomical records show that the universe has been expanding for far longer than 6000 years. We are seeing light that originated from stars that are more than 6000 light years away – how is that possible if we're only 6000 years old?

Finally, if this is a deal-breaker for your theology, you need a reality check. Salvation through Jesus Christ is not affected in any way by the age of the planet.

Me too Diane and plenty of good people that I know.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

God can do whatever He wants, however He wants in whatever span of time He wants. I'm inclined to believe that what we experience as "time" has absolutely no meaning to God whatsoever and, therefore, makes the "age of the earth" completely irrelevant.

Exactly. God created the earth and its inhabitants which have evolved since then.

Ed is just your average lefty simpleton who believes ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that comes out of that side of the butt cheek. Ed Begley Jr. = limp dick

Begley, a true believer, is reacting as if someone just told him there is no Santa Claus.

Cleary Ed Begley is out of his mind, but so are you for comparing him to people who believe the Bible is true. The scientists who support the global warming myths are the same ones who say the earth is billions of years old, and just as the global warmists have to restrict the flow of information to win the debate, so do the evolutionists. We creationists who do not believe in global warming are quite comfortable with an airing of all the evidence, because the evidence supports us.

Richard Lindzen, Climate expert MIT…..Thats all Stuart Varney had to give as an example.

Lets face it. We won't really know what "is" is, or, "when is", untill someone HACKS GOD EMAIL ACCT.

Hi JC830,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but there's really no need to attack or discuss religion at this stage of our conversation–particularly if you want it to be productive. My questions are designed to establish a framework for discussion, not to attack or undermine your positions. I'll be happy to address every question/statement you made in your post above, but we have to have ensure we understand each other before we engage.

As I am sure you are aware, many believe that evolution does provide an origin-of-life explanation in addition to a diversity-of-life explanation because they understand that you can't provide a compelling explanation for one without understanding the other. Now if you do not believe that evolution provides an origin-of-life explanation, what is your scientific origin-of-life theory? Put another way (to avoid semantics), what scientific explanation do you believe most reliably explains the origin of life? Sorry, but you can't punt on this question because the evidence does not clearly support any single scientific origin-of-life theory. And surely you believe that life originated at some time, right?

Similarly, there is no consensus on the origin, nature, or extent of our universe. Is it limited to the physical universe we now observe? Is it expanding or contracting? Or there multiple planes/layers/universes? Again, you can't punt on this question because of its relationship to the other theories to which you apparently subscribe (yes, when you endorse a theory like evolution, you subscribe to it).

Hey, lighten up. Relax. Take a break. There are other things going on in the world. Like that hacker getting the goods on the GWSCAM. Enjoy, it'll all work out. Good always wins in the end. So take a break, but keep your eyes open, for the next one. You know it will show up. What could it be ?

Since when does Christianity teach that the Earth was created a mere 6,000 years ago? I must have missed that in the Bible.

I used to enjoy that show Begley has on cable because it was good to see the competition to make things energy efficient.
Now that I've seen the other side of Begley, I will no longer watch his show.
Its too bad that both sides in this debate cant be more sane and realize that pollution-(not global warming) is an issue, and that when mechanical things are made more efficient, we all win, so from that sense, using solar panels and such makes sense. I agree with Mr. Varney, however, that light bulbs should not be dictated by government, as that sounds like Maoism.
In regards to the Begley/Varney debate, Mr. Varney was a gentleman, and I was apalled at Begley's behaviour.
Mr. Begley reminds me of how the Communist 'leaders' acted in the 1920's in China. They were so arrogant and that can lead to cruelty.
I honestly thought that Begley was going to slap or hit Varney!
Begley needs counselling. Even if there is any truth to any of his beliefs, its not worth yelling at the person who disagrees with you.

Very good advice "dontwc" Let's concentrate on cleaning house, the debate on Evolution vs Creationism
can wait all I can say is that the Lord God has been to active in my life for me to deny "The Christ" the author
and finisher of all creation. I am still trying to figure out why he created Liberal Democrats,as with everything else I am sure he had a reason(As with quantum physics His reasoning is beyond me).

Pointing fingers, absolutely sure of himself, completely closed to alternative possibilities: He looks and sounds like the clerics of the Inquisition and Galileo's inquisitors.

Does Begley know there are laws against noise pollution?

What does he have to say about Mars' warming and cooling in synch with Earth? Must be that our CO2 is leaking over to Mars, eh?

He's also one of the people who fostered John Belushi's drug habit… it's in a book… uncontested…

. . and we'll also learn that Mr. Phelps is heavily into butt plugs.

This is why I could never do what Stu does. I would have leaned across the desk and knocked Ed's ass out 30 seconds into that tirade.

Read the story of David and Goliath and tell me what sort of man grows to be that large. Certainly none that exists today. Maybe something imaginary?

Yes it is outside of my personal experience so it must be imaginary. Is the really how you think in other areas of life?

Read the Genealogies and add it really not that difficult.

If you would read the text instead of comic books you will see that Goliath was a little over 9 ft. tall and came from a tribe of extraordinarily tall individuals. Make a good center for the NBA.

Now, that was truly funny! Great comment!

Regarding Ed Begley, Jr. Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

They act like hysterical women because they all ARE hysterical women. That's why they are for gay marriage, affirmative action, sex change operations, abortions, and this coming destruction of this country based on the cap and trade scheme. This guy clearly has little intellect….you can see it in his eyes….like a deer in the headlights. And we're supposed to just jump on board, eh? It's time to take down the Soros regime of ignorance, intolerance, and tyranny. Let's remove these morons through whatever means possible. Meaning, do what you have to when you can to stop these idiots from ruining our lives. Typical liberals…can't base any of their positions on reality….just emotion. Al Gore. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Timothy Geithner. Hillaryious Clinton. Sebellius. Chris Dodd. Barney Reduce-our-economy-to-Rubble Frank.

The God almighty created life, the universe and everything exactly 47 minutes ago. Think about it.

i believe it was Oscar Wilde who observed that good sarcasm is wasted on children. he neglected to mention virtually all on the left and some of the tighter asses on the right, too.

On the other hand neither does it say the Earth has been around for millions of years.

that moment when you learn there's no tooth fairy- just your mom slipping that quarter under your pillow right before she wakes you up in the morning. man, that's gotta be tough to handle when you're in your fifties…

There will be a lot more of this reaction. Those that " believe" in Man-Made Global Warming, who wish to take America down a peg, will not let the evidence derail them. If any of them speak to peer reviewed studies ask them if they have read this story and how they explain collusion amongst peers to change years of data in those studies and why we are to look passed this. Ed is a poster boy for this idiocy but there will be a host of others.

Absolutely agree with you JB1000.

Methinks Global Warming is a big fat freakin’ lie, and me also thinks that macro evolution is a big fat freakin’ lie – and to equate Intelligent Design with GW is a big fat freakin’ mistake. As a committed Christian and intelligent truth seeker – explaining a relatively young earth and dinosaurs is a lot freakin easier than drinking the kool-aid that irreducible complexity "just somehow happened over billions of years"

http://www.icr.org/index.php?f_search_type=articl...

Of course, one is free to disbelieve, but it is odd to say I am a Christian yet I also believe that the bible is disproven by man's theory of evolution. Are you really offended by God's word?

Light years are a measure of distance not time. God did not need twenty-years to create Adam as full-grown man, nor does God not need billions of years to place stars and planets where He desires. "And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars." Genesis 1:16

I

Come on, Ed Begley can't even convince his own wife. How the hell is he going to make a compelling argument in defense of AGW?

You are not examining your proclivity in light of scripture but are examining scripture in light of your proclivity. This is the same theological perversion that provides a foothold for the notion of a "Homosexual Christian".

Accepting millions of years of the geological ages (as the evolutionists interpret the fossil record) destroys the Bible’s teaching on death, which clearly indicates that there was no animal death or human death before the Fall. In addition, there could not have been thorns and thistles and cancer (e.g., in dinosaur bones) in God’s “very good” creation, so the rock layers that contain these things can’t be millions of years old but must have been deposited after Adam sinned (during the Flood).

As was previously stated, you simply can't have it both ways, so it goes without saying that your theology is seriously flawed.

I have long considered Hans Christian Andersen's tale about the emporer and his birthday suit to be the single most useful and instructive creation in the history of Western Culture.

There is no better guide to the modern world.

JIM Varney could have won this debate.

If trees were making the decision, would they want more or less CO2?
Case dismissed…next!

Actually, they need to go to the Arctic Circle to hug some polar bears and tell them that they feel their pain and that they're sorry that their fellow human beings are forcing them to extinction. Of course, the polar bears would really appreciate the environuts as a new food source.

Like all zealots, true believers may be funny until they kill you.

I do not think the earth is 6000 years old, but still YOUR logic fails. Why can a little child of 5 yrs. see stars much further away than that? The sped of light has nothing to do with WHAT you see. You aren't making sense

I was waiting for Ed to close his eyes, stamp his feet, stick his fingers in his ears and tell Stuart "Lalalalalalala – I'm not listening to you Stuart"!

Evolution is true..but Darwin still got it wrong. Some people worship Darwin like others do the bible. Wallace and an earlier Lamarck probably had it figured out better. None of them knew about DNA. Lemarck and Wallace left the mechanism of change open (unknown). Darwin tried to explain it with 'natural selection' which means the first lifeforms would have had to have every bit of DNA that we do to be selected from. He was wrong but it is Blasphemy to say so.

In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Ed just showed his ignorance about the Constitution and Stewart showed us that as "Brit" that he know more about our Liberty than some pompous Hollywood Kool-Aid drinking Lefty. The government does not have the right to force you to "buy insurance" for Global Warming or Health Care for that matter.

That's a pretty cool trick. "I'm a Christian." But, not a bible believing 'nutjob.' Is that sorta like a moderate Republican — I'm a Republican just do not a US constitution believing Republican platform supporting 'nutjob.'

see http://www.answersingenesis.org/ they might help you with the carbon dating, but here's a hint. Carbon dating cannot prove millions of years, because only accurate up to about 60,000 years.

Yes it is; because a "year" is the time it takes for Earth to orbit the sun, yet back then, they believed the earth was flat. Their concept of a year was probably vastly different to ours. If, as the Bible states, God effectively turned on the aging gene, there is no telling how long a year actually was back then.

Most importantly, there is *nothing* in the Bible that states how much time expired between God "resting" on day 7 and actually creating man. Only that God thought there was something missing. Maybe that happened to be 14 billion years…

Yes … and those words were written by men claiming to be writing the Word of God.

Look, faith is good, you can believe in God all you want, but DON'T be fooled by scriptures written by humans.

The only thing that appears to have actually been written by God (or more specifically, a burning bush) are the Ten Commandments.

If you need assistance, replace "God" with "ET" in the Bible and you'll see where there are holes in the stories. Question with Boldness; do not accept the words of the charlatans purporting to be speaking for the Lord. Good grief, hasn't tele-evangelism taught people anything? There will always be con-men.

Remember, true faith is between you and the Lord, not you and the Bible.

Thufferin Thucatash Ed, swicth to Decaff man!

Contrary to the misconception perpetrated by both Christians and non-Christians alike… Christianity does not teach that the earth is 6,000 years old. As a matter of fact Christianity accounts for the earth more likely being millions of years old… it is Adam and Eve that were created 6,000, maybe 8,000 years ago. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… and the earth was void, and without form, and God hovered over the waters of the face of the deep." In the very first 2 lines of the bible you can see that the earth was already here and flooded with water before God ever said "Let there be light". We know that the earth was created "in the beginning"… but that arbitrary point in time is far before the events of the bible. 6,000 years ago the earth was reshaped by God into the earth as we now know it.

Dear Bennett Marco,
In response to your essay question above, about where Cain’s wife came from – please see the following link:

http://www.icr.org/article/cains-wife-it-really-d...

Regurgitating the same questions, without a willingness to hear the answers can potentially put you on the same level as Ed Begley Jr. on the food chain.

That was foam oozing from his piehole!

Maybe GOD created multitudes of people, the bible does refer to "sons of GOD" (although they were probably the fallen angels) and it also says, "HE created them", the context of that statement could be just about Adam and Eve or maybe not, does it matter? I don't care. Plus Adam and Eve had more than just two sons. As for the age of the Universe, there is a span of time between the creation of the Universe and the “first day” as described in the Book of Genesis. The first day started after GOD separated the day from the night. There are references in the Bible to ancient creatures and monsters. Also, Goliath was the last of the giants produced by the intermingling of the sons of GOD and the daughters of man. The story of creation is more complex than a sound bite. The reason the Bible doesn't go into detail about it because in GOD’s plan that part of Earths history is just not important, only our salvation is. Faith is more than man's theology. Also remember, with GOD, ALL things are possible.

I like that comment about, "You can be left alone, but you can't destroy the commons." Does he mean with those mercury filled, compact florescents that his new found eco-religion has imposed on my household? They have no answer for that gem of reason. But they simply can't back away from their toxic little time bombs. They're too heavily invested in them… and I mean both philosophically and financially.

Wow Christians whose beliefs were not being ridiculed or mock are not offended. It is so amazing you demonstrate such a magnificent sense of humor. Pat yourself on the back, you are almost as enlighten as a David Brooks/Peggy Noonan conservative.

I rented and saw Not Evil, Just Wrong last night. They talked about him in that documentary. He spoke, nearly in tears, at some green fascist event and then after his speech his mike was still on and he was caught saying some contradicting comments. Everyone should definitely check out that documentary, it's very informative and well made.

All this from a Al Gore scientists, some one who could not make a C in college sceintists. And did not even graduate high school. These peer reviews spoken of are obviously chosen to be sure the final outcome …global tax on carbon will be acheived.

I hear they're doing personailty tests over at the Scientology Center in Hollywood!

(On second thought… Ed Begley Jr jumping up and down on Oprah's couch? Frightening.)

CFCs don't cause global warming, they deplete the ozone layer. I don't believe it, but it's what they teach you when you become EPA Certified.

Wow jpeggy, I would never have dreamed your comments would have caused such a stir on this website. I am a creationist and believe in a young earth and would have thought others would not have attacked your thoughts. Many of the comments here on this subject have obviously never studied Creation Science, or do not understand the Bible, which is written by God through men. It is God breathed when you study the New Testament in the Greek.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof , for correction, for training in righteousness;

"Inspired" taken back to the Greek is breathed, God breathed the word on man.

Anyway jpeggy, you are spot on to defend your beleifs, for we live in a country that was created on the principles of Christianity and when the conservatives of this country are offended by it, we are in deep trouble.

radiocarbon dating is one way. It is a well understood priciple of nuclear phyics. Carbon 14 degrades to carbon 12 at a very regular rate. The amount of carbon 14 that has degraded versus the amount of carbon 14 that has not will tell you very accurately (within maybe two thousand years) how much time has passed since the organic material stopped amassing carbon 14. On time scales exceeding 65 million years, this is dead-bang accurate.

"In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Gen. 1-2.

This occurred before the "first day" of GOD's creating light etc. etc. What could this possibly mean? The Earth has been around for billions of years?…Yes! What happened during those years b/4 God created man in his own image? Could it possibly be that there was another creation? A creation that was "relatively" more primitive than what we know now? (i.e. dinosaurs)

Why was this primitive age destroyed? We will never know in this earthly life. We have no comprehension of what has transpired throughout the ages. "I AM" is the Alfa and the Omega and knows all things. "Through him all things were made. Without him nothing was made that has been made.”

I look forward to a firsthand education when I meet God and the "Word" (i.e. Jesus) in the future.

I pray for all those who put their faith in man's flawed science. PhD's mean nothing to GOD.

No doubt this one of the most rational comments I've read here. Thanks much

Just so you're aware, when they say "father" in the Old Testament genealogies, the Hebrew translation of the word can also mean "grandfather" or some other male relative, making it impossible to calculate an exact date. Nice try, though.

I can explain it to you.

Regrettably, I can't understand it for you.

"You know what he sounds like? Someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old trying to explain away a dinosaur fossil.

Oh, that old time religion…"

You mean those Zoroastrians? Yeah I know. It's craziness.

But I like how Begley says to go to the scientists, someone you trust. But the scientists are willing to lie and manipulate data- those "peer-reviewed" journals do not mean squat.

I thought he was going to give Varney a beat-down over global warming!

This is an insight into the Hollywood Industry.
Mr. Bagley is typical of what you get on the set.

Word soup, anyone?

I wish I'd said all that.

Seriously, you just gave a well-reasoned response that encapsulates my thinking perfectly.

Great job!

I'm sure you have no idea just how crazy that stuff sounds.

I enjoy writing music, so I spend some of my time composing.

After I'm dead, I won't be able to write music any more. All of my time will be spent decomposing.

Hi John – thanks for sharing this – Ed is a greeeeeeennnnie, so this whole debacle is probably hard for him to bear. BTW – how do you prove carbon dating is accurate? I've never been able to get a straight answer from anyone on this. If they are starting from a flawed premise on carbon dating, then all data would be suspect, right? Anyway, I usually enjoy most of your stuff.

Evolution smevolution! I don't care if the world is 6,000 years or 60 billion years old. It is about salvation , nothing else matters. If you can contemplate the wonders of the universe be it created in 6 days or 60 billion years and it brings you closer to Him, then how it was created doesn’t matter. It is much like proving/disproving the shroud of Turin. If it was Christ's burial cloth great! If not, that is great too, because to me, gazing at the image and contemplating the wounds of Christ brings me closer to Him. How the shroud was created doesn't matter.

"…and they were in there a'whoopin' and a'hollerin' and I don't know WHAT-tall."

I don't thnk the comment was meant to insult Christianity, it was meant to show that these people adhere to global warming as a faith and religion and cannot tollerate any contrary viepoints. This is not original, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic has made the same point for some time.

As a conservative Christian, I am quite comfortable with saying that the geneologies do add up to around 6000 years. Yet there is still a possibility that the actual earth age is bigger. We seem to assume that Adam's sin occurred the week after creation. Time was not counted in the same way, methinks. What if, in objective terms, the man and the woman lived 10 million years in the garden before sin? The Bible gives no clue of that. Earth could be quite old. Note that this doesn't necessarily give credence to evolution, just earth age. (Personally, I don't believe in the Darwinian evolutionary theory.)

Your average global warming idiot…Praises the catalytic converter for cleaning up California without realizing that the catalytic converter turns smog into…CO2!!! Oh no!!! Peer review that.

WHAT!! There's no Santa Claus!? Can you prove it? Do you have peer reviews that prove there is no Santa Claus? NO, you don't. You can't say there's no Santa Claus unless you have peer review. Peer reviews are the key. Don't trust me, don't trust anyone else. Wait for the peer reviews.

He partially lives what he preaches. He has no problems using energy or creating pollution if it lines his wallet. I also saw an episode on the Food Network where his wife had a special birthday cake made for him. The bakery used energy to make his cake, and he didn't have any problems with that. He puts on a good show, but has hypocritical tendencies.

That stuff is in the Bible.

The following post is solely for entertainment value. It is called Big "Hollywood" after all.

Six days or millions of years? Einstein told y'all almost a century ago that six days could BE millions of years, depending on where you're standing at the time and how fast pretty much anything else is moving. Internal clocks on geosynchronous satellites have to run "fast" because their velocity is causing them to time travel. All of that and just within the physical universe. The God who told you he was the "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End" might have been trying to tell you that any god who CREATED TIME doesn't need a watch any more than he needs hands or feet. He's omniscient BECAUSE linear time is a physical dimension in space, and he's, well, God. How dare we force him to create the universe or run heaven on OUR schedule? Our calendar isn't even as old as the Roman Empire. Insisting that he meant OUR day is potentially as big a sin of pride and hubris as the man-made global warming thing. Thank god the Sabbath didn't fall on February 29th the first time, or we'd have ANOTHER denomination.

What if….the evolutionary tree we climbed WAS the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What if picking the forbidden fruit was the same as naturally selecting a forbidden path? Maybe something we ate or did that led to our specialization in tool use and social dysfunction over tree-climbing and termite-fishing? To respond to Luke from the start of the thread, Original Sin works if evolution, more specifically the evolution of intelligence, IS the "original sin." Other animals are smart, but only Man is so smart that he has to deal with morality, spirituality, and morning talk show hosts. Other animals just live. We have to understand and think about life because, well, we asked for it.

We sinned by becoming intelligent. Let's run down some of God's favorite curses resulting from that.

Childbirth is painful. Gee, that high-powered brain is losing it's ability to blind itself. How….coincidental, considering that we're also the only animals where birth is a potentially deadly experience, mostly because we're passing a brain case the size of a bowling ball through an orifice designed to receive the lovin of a "Porsche driver." The little baby whose head constitutes HALF his mass is still almost two years away from being as finished as any other species after the first six weeks, because mom would never have survived giving birth to a two year old.

You will toil the earth. Hmmm…funny how other animals eat plants, or animals, or both, but only man has entire food groups that must be maintained and balanced to keep that brain flush in needed ingredients and fuel. We can't pick the food off trees like other apes, we can't be random opportunists like bears or pigs, we have to bend the environment to our will, domesticate it, in order to keep our nutritional needs satisfied. All because we're too smart for our own good.

What if the real "curse" bestowed on us by a loving God was simply telling us the mess we'd gotten into? "You wanted to be smart, congratulations. Now your existence gets really complicated. Fear of death (any OTHER species have the mid-life crisis?), taxes, politics….all because you wanted to KNOW. Serves you right." We have more difficulty just living than other species BECAUSE of our intellect. Hell (pun intended), the whole fight over the "age" of the planet, or creation, or well, something, and evolution vs creation, dinosaurs vs leviathans, behemoths, and dragons, all because we just had to eat from the tree and evolve Eve into the world's first fashion nazi.

This is why I'm spiritually opposed to liberals. The whole green/Luddite/PETA thing is literally trying to sneak out of the house after God grounded us. You don't weasel out of a curse from God, because his curses look a lot like laws of physics. We'd have to devolve to regain the harmony with nature that say, bears enjoy. You heard me, liberals are devolutionists. They live to torture and punish man for his sin of Being Man. In this, they are quite literally in league with Satan, and oppose to the will of God by trying to weasel out of his curse on them.

If everyone disagrees with me, do I call them Nazis or racists? I'll have to "think" about it….Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

I don't make such an assumption but, what do you do with: "Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." Genesis 5:5

Does day, which is written the same way — 'And there was evening and there was morning', mean one thing on day six and something different on day one?

I much more comfortable with the earth appears old, such as Adam was a grown man even though he was only one day old. But mostly I comfortable with "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding." Genesis 38:4

lets see now CO2? 1 part carbon 2parts oxygen, H2o-water. It's plant food! What a bunch of crap! WE KNOW
this WARMING thing is fake! Someone whants to make money by selling you carbon credits. Wake up!
It's over now I'm not buying into the new Religion of global warming. Kill yourself first Al Gore and take your cronies too, then we can Save the plant from bad breath and hot gasses from your mouths.

Your position is based on the fallacy that an omnipotent God could not create stars whose light was immediately visible throughout the universe (to the extent they would be visible from a given distance). Of course, that makes no sense, as an omnipotent God could do whatever he wanted (including changing the laws of time, space, and physics after some of creation but before other portions of creation).

It's really not that challenging a concept to comprehend, regardless of whether you agree with it.

What does a burning bush have to do with the Ten Commandments? How ironic that someone so ignorant speaks with such authority. It's usually a good idea to get your facts straight before making condescending assertions on them.

There are only two types of liberals: Nuts and Hypocrites. Ed is a good example of one kind and Algore the other. BTW, I have heard some brilliant scientist who are also Christians explain dinosaurs logically. You should check into their evidence. Much more sound than evolution theories.

My apologies. It was an attempt at humor, and you are correct, I completely mixed up two events to boot.

Still, to dismiss the rest because of one error is a little close-minded of you.

The Bible doesn't have to be false; only mankind's interpretation of it.

How does that actually apply when you are adding up ages? Are you suggesting farthered means grandfathered? I'm comfortable with ESV.

When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. Genesis 5:3

When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. Genesis 5:6

When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan. Genesis 5:9

When Kenan had lived 70 years, he fathered Mahalalel. Genesis 5:12

Etc.

This Ed guy has a ego bigger then the moon he screams when he can't win such a shame. Those eco friendly vechicles accomplish nothing. Really they are a wast of money like this guys house is.

Ed Begley Jr. ….. irrelevant since 1988 – when St. Elsewhere went of the air. The inside of Ed's head is like that snow globe in the series finale where it was revealed the whole show took place in the mind of an autistic child. The child was probably Ed Begley Jr. as a kid.

I hope this guy is the new face of "Global Warming." He is a bigger idiot than Gore!

Does anyone have that viagra number you call when your erection lasts more than 4 hours? i have a feeling I'm gonna need it! Hahahahahahahahaha sweet sweet revenge.

Joe, you are insisting on me giving you a scientific theory that explains the origin of life. There is no scientific theory of the origin of life, that I am aware of. I am not a scientist, but insisting on a complete explanation for everything is similar to a straw man argument: "because you can't explain everything, nothing you say can be true."

At the present time, origin of life hypotheses are speculation, with no conclusive evidence supporting any one that I have ever heard of. Life may or may not have even originated on earth. There are many science fiction stories that speculate that the earth was "seeded" by an alien civilization. Religions in general have similar explanations, if you replace "alien civilization" with "supernatural being".

(continued in next post)

About 1 year ago I stopped at the local grocer for milk and eggs. There's a guy standing at a 6' skirted table near the registers, looks real familiar. (Oh, I live in Milwaukee, WI). I walk over and say hey, you look awfully familiar, do you go to St. Jude's? Turns out it's Ed B. Jr, hawking his non-toxic cleaning solution!
I bought a bottle of the stuff after chatting a few minutes. Seemed like a reasonable fellow.
The clear works like crap tho.

I'm not insisting on anything. You said "If you mean to attack the theory of evolution, though, then show the world a better theory, not just a new hypothesis." You were talking about diversity-of-life questions, but the same applies to origin-of-life questions. It is disingenuous to reject any origin-of-life theory (or hypothesis) when you don't have one.

Are you claiming that you can consider diversity-of-life theories and hypotheses without considering origin-of-life?

ththththtuffering thththththththtsuckatash…….someone give that poor fox anchor a towel to wipe his face.

Thank you for your comment. In general, I understand your point about grandfather/father especially when the genealogies are not the same; it is what explains the differences.

I am an Environmental Scientist Myself and cas say that GW as such is BOGUS.
I betcha Ed is a Socialist. Thats all this GW stuff is REALLY about . Getting people used to living a socialist lifestyle and adopting a lower standard of living so we wont complain as much when they DO take over.
It's no coincidence that the "shopping list" of stuff they want us to give up "to save the planet" exactly matches the things that the 1950's East Block countries had difficulty or couldn't provide their people with their socialist governments/economies, from enough electricity, meat, air conditioning, decent automobiles and even toilet paper. And we KNOW the environtmental mess they STILL left behind. GW is about pushing SOCIALISIM and the environment be damned.
.

You are really out of your league here. Lots of bluster, but no understanding. Why don't you explain the underlying assumptions for Carbon-14 dating and explain in what circumstances scientists concede it is unreliable. Then, why don't you explain to everyone why it is totally unreliable for anything that lives/lived after 1950. When you can do that, you'll understand why it's not your smoking gun.

Robert Wadlow, who died in 1940, was 8 ft. 11 in.–about the same height as Goliath. Google it (or do you think Google is imaginary? .

How many ignorant statements and errors can one person make in a single thread? I expect you're going to help us find out!

Debate what? The Bible was written by man. Specifically, by men. It is purportedly the Word of God. Why should we believe that? It was written by men. Hundreds of years later, the same kind of men burned people at the stake for saying the world wasn't flat. Why would we believe anything these charlatans tell us, just because they say it's the Word of God.

The Bible is full of contradictions. Why? Because it was written by men. Different men. There are four gospels; there are differences between them. Why? Because they were written by four different men.

Need I go on?

What "facts" do you think I have no understanding of? (Facts need to be proven, so be careful which "facts" you decide to present.)

Religion is about faith, not blind obedience. Faith I can deal with; blind obedience I want no part of, so if your God demands it, He will never be my God.

hahaha

How ironic that your post is full of logical fallacies. Really, these are poorly considered objections–strawmen at best; disingenuous at worst.

1. First, no one is asked to have faith "without fail." Where is that written in the Bible? Second, the early leaders of Christianity were indeed required to have faith because much of Jesus' teachings incorporated non-provable components (including his deity, the kingdom of heaven, etc.) and subjected them to serious persecution that was not counterbalanced by worldly benefits. But even if faith were "easier" for some, so what? There is no "logical fallacy" there, because nothing in the Bible says that faith will be equally easy (or difficult) for all humans.

2. How can you critique a religion when you are so ignorant of its basic tenets? He was not required to give up his physical life. He was deity from the beginning, so he chose to give up his deity and his unique power, become man, and suffer and die unfairly just so he could save people who would not or could not save themselves. You don't see the sacrifice? I don't know many billionaires who would give up everything they own; live a peasant's life for 30+ years; and get beat up, spit on, and publicly humiliated just to save a bunch of strangers in a foreign country. Do you? Deity is much more valuable than wealth.

I'm not going to respond to your last line because it is deliberately inflammatory, but I would encourage you to open your mind and consider the possibility your position might change as you correct your understanding.

this is so sad….climatology is an off shoot of Scientology…Watch the left become apoplectic when they realize that this pathological deceit they have believed in continues to get exposed as a fraud

My mind is open, but I have the ability to discriminate.

I quibble with some minor definitions in #1 and #2, but not enough to argue over. Two minor things to consider… from a purely scientific view – collisions of galaxies create confused dispersal patterns, not uniform as we have in our galaxy. \”Universe\” is generally considered everything. We are bound by infinity. Everything else (ahem) is beyond our comprehension. What does that mean? — If an ant crawls across a page on a book he does not comprehend there are words written there and he certainly cannot read them. His limit of comprehension is what he can perceive.

OK that aside.

Where did the universe come from? Nothing? Something was created from nothing? How is that scientifically possible?

The bottom line is… there is only one truth.

I find it is people who declare I must open my mind that seem to have their own hermetically sealed.

— On Wed, 11/25/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

Ed Begley: "Only believe climate scientist"
That's pure propaganda!!!!!!

Most christians dont understand is that the earth is older than Adam and Eve. The world that was before had the dinosaurs ect on it. That was all destroyed by God at Satans fall and then the flesh was created for us to have a chance at salvation. If this dont make sense, just put it on the shelf in your brain. It time it will make perfect sense.

Joe, take a chill pill. Not everyone on here questioning blind obedience is faithless, nor are they challenging your religion, nor are they closed minded, nor are they making fun of you. If you think that, you have serious issues. We are all here to question; if we don't question, we don't learn. Sadly, you seem to assume that all questions are an affront to your own beliefs. If that's the case, maybe you should question those beliefs a little.

We shall see.

— On Wed, 11/25/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

These scientists have done for the science of Climate Change what Dan Rather did for Journalism.

There's something else to consider: On day 6, God created man. Did that include Adam? Was Adam the first man? Or the first in a particular experiment after day 7.

There's also much left out. For instance, he and Eve had three sons… so whom did Seth marry exactly?

I see no evidence in the Bible that they thought the Earth was flat. You are confusing Columbus' era with Biblical times.

How can you tell us "remember time means nothing to God"? Where did you get that from?

Just because you are demonstrating limited knowledge here and trying to pass it off as somethign more does not mean that that is what the writers of the Bible did.

Think about this stuff a little more.

Umm… if star X is 2 million light years away, it means the light took 2 million years to reach us. Therefore, that star existed at least 2 million years ago…

Very recently scientists have seen indication that there is an abnormally large void in space, a "bubble" around our solar system that causes the light traveling though it to take much much longer to get here…I don't understand all the details. It simply looks interesting.

In any case if this is the case they theorize that the stellar bodies we think are so very far away may actually be much much closer.

Even if that's not the case it sounds like you are ASSUMING the big bang THEORY to be fact.

Wow, such nasty sarcasm for making a point that was neither supporting nor condemning the earlier remark.

What a fool. He might have bitten off the interviewer's finger except he's a Vegetarian. Remember he used to be on St. Elsewhere and that's where his brain is…………Elsewhere!
Trouble with all whackos like this it they lie so much it's the truth to them. No amount of evidence or proof will ever convince a guy like this of anything. Facts are just inconvenient….that is what the Inconvenient Truth is to them……THE FACTS!

Joe, if I have to start citing contradictions and inconsistencies, we'll be here all night, and next week…

And my post makes perfect sense, to me. Perhaps it doesn't to you, but you state a generalization ("makes no sense") as a fact, when it is a limited fact. It is limited to you, and others who can't figure it out. That doesn't make it not a fact.

People like yourself like to play games with words, and demand "proof" when you're also asking people like me to blindly believe a book… I see a similar pattern of behavior when debating liberals who think they're just smarter than everyone else.

You may be right about God; but you have a lot to learn about humility, so maybe your understanding of God misses the point entirely…

Joe …..Very astute. Unfortunately few will look into the non-science of carbon dating remains that date back "millions" of years.

I don't believe in AGW, but the earth might be warming. Even if I believed in AGW, I wouldn't believe in monstrously expensive "fixes."

AGW is too much like a religion. Its proponents hunker down and resist all efforts at skeptical inquiry. Do they sound like anyone you know?

I don't call radiocarbon dating a smoking gun. If there were no scientific data lined up against the fantasies expressed in the Holy Bible, I couild still recognize it as a fake.

A drunken child could recognize it as a fake, simply by applying a bit of logic.

Actually, some christians err on the side of lack of education. The earth was created during 7 periods of time, not 7 days (the original greek bible translation). These 'periods' of time could have lasted millions of years. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose there were dinosaurs on the earth, and that there was still a creative period. I still believe parts of the evolution theory. What I find harder to believe is this idea that humans evolved from a single celled organism.. What a stupid idea.

Actually, to be pedantic, Christians are New Testament followers, and many view the Old Testament (the first books) as (primarily) a Jewish history book. As such, they take a lot of the "facts" in Genesis with a grain of salt.

This is confirmed by your "theological perversion" noted above; Christians conveniently forget God's thoughts on homosexuality under the auspice that Jesus "loved everyone".

So yes, it's very possible to be Christian and not believe the world is 6000 (or so) years old.

There are many other perversions in Christianity as well; you might want to try reconciling the crosses in every church with the 2nd Commandment for one…

With regards to point 2, I believe the OP's point is that Jesus knew he was going back to Heaven after it was all over with, so was it really a sacrifice? Remember, we are taught that Jesus' sacrifice was that he gave his (human) life for us, not that he gave up being a deity temporarily for 33 years.

Your are probably right, but I think it's his wife who wishes he were invisible.

Uh, not true, as I point out below (and you acknowledge).

Who is this nut case? Everyone knows that global warming is rubbish. What a dope

So you can't answer the questions. Just as I thought.

More bluster, no substance. Seems to be a theme.

Ah, well, the two don't contradict. ellenmg states that since one is a measure of distance not time, it wasn't a problem. I explained why the two are connected, disproving her conclusion based on her premise.

She mentioned nothing of the potentially valid concept argument you brought up. Shame on you for jumping to conclusions based on a flawed premise.

A perfect example of a pompous ass elitist, sheesh. And to think I used to kinda like this guy. Better I don't get to know him.

Take a deep breath, Peggy.
This thread is about the global warming hoax.
Have you had ADD long? Want me to find the pervert thread for you?

I'm not sure who taught you, but the Bible clearly states that Jesus' separation from God the Father and the voluntary forfeiture of complete deity are two of the many sacrifices Jesus made.

But that's irrelevant to the fundamental question the poster asked because it appears you both might misunderstand the concept of a sacrifice. No definition of sacrifice I am aware of requires the person offering it to be worse off after making the sacrifice. To the contrary, most people sacrifice with the goal of reaping benefits from the sacrifice. Depending on the context, there are two possible components of sacrifice: (1) an act of offering something valuable or precious (usually to a deity) and/or (2) giving something for the benefit of others. Regardless of whether Jesus "knew" he would ultimately return to his place of power in heaven, his act qualifies as both.

Fair enough. My apologies.

Why embarrass yourself with such rudeness?

But there's a scripture that states Jesus "sits at the right hand of God." How can a deity sit? And yes, it was an amazingly huge sacrifice, especially to suffer throught that kind of torture for millions of sinners. He was perfect. My belief is that he gave up his deity form forever, in order to guarantee us entrance into Eternity with Him.

If the comically hysterical Ed Begley can't have a reasoned conversation with mild-mannered Stu Varney about supposed 'climate change' (formerly labeled 'global warming' – until the records showed that the earth is cooling) and fess up to the new reality that what he thought was established fact is really a 'scientific' con job and his vaunted 'green' lifestyle amounts to nothing, then he is the poster boy for blind denial and his blathering can be ignored. Nice job, Ed.

Ed sounds like Daffy Duck!

And those that believe in a 6,000 year old earth…

Your problem is that you'r e looking at everything in just 3 dimensions.

What are the scientists up to now – twelve is it?

I believe there's even a reference to the "great beasts" in the book of Genesis itself.

Regarding evolution; you are forgetting time. Human civilization is generally accepted to be no more than 10,000 years regardless of your religious background. Scientists place early humanoids around 50,000 years ago (give or take). So in 40,000 years there was significant evolution. (And a very recent discovery suggests we didn't descend from chimps, but in fact humans and the chimps — and their relatives — both descended from a common ancestor.)

Now, if that can happen in 40,000 years… imagine what can happen in 112,500 sets of 40,000 years (i.e., 4.5 billion years). Possible? Of course. Likely? Given that we're all manipulations of DNA strands, I would say yes, others would disagree. Can you rule it out? Nope.

It's too easy to have this debate without considering the possibilities that such a long period of time gives us.

Ed Begley is 1.) an ignoramus who doesn't understand science, physics, and especially the relevant branch of physics, atmospheric science; 2.) an arrogant person who has no trouble making stupid statements about topics about which he is pitifully uninformed and uneducated; 3.) unable to fathom that a whole branch of science has been corrupted by its newly-found fame and power (i.e., climate science) and sold its soul to the PC crowd and the international socialist political establishment, never to regain it again; 4.) not a gentleman. He was rude to the interviewer who was politely asking nonthreatening questions about the validity of the global warming hypothesis, which is now obliterated by the recent turn of events.

If anyone is interested, there is an excellent post (link below) by Willis Eschenbach, one of the scientists that filed the first FOIA request to obtain CRU's raw station data. He details his frustrating correspondence with CRU and their refusal to disclose information. It's a long read but he puts a lot of the e-mails, along with his correspondence, in chronological context: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/ ” target=”_blank”>The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…

What you see with Ed BEgley Jr. is a man who has dedicated his life to a Fraud and a Hoax whose truth is coming out… and most of all doesn't want to admit the truth TO HIMSELF. It's tough to watch a man deny ACTUAL TRUTH over what he THINKS is the truth and is Not… Poor sap.

None of that is lost on me, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

You responded to the initial, unsupported post with an equally unsupported assertion. There is simply no place to go from there. You can argue your opinion, she can argue her opinion, and I can argue my opinion, but that will get us nowhere.

Opinions without facts simply do not serve as the basis for any productive debate in any arena–science, religion, football, you name it.

My point, perhaps lost on you, was that your critique is meaningless because you rebut unsupported opinion with unsupported opinion. You cannot differentiate between those opinions; you cannot prioritize their value, accuracy, and truth; and you cannot critique them unless you offer facts to counter them.

I don't care about discussing your criticism of my humility or what I need to know because it doesn't bother me. And it does not contribute to our discussion in any productive way.

Wow Ed was very angry, I don't need a PhD in Climate Science to know Ed is an a hole

I love your style. Every time you make an error (too many to count in this thread) or can't answer a simple question, you respond with a non sequitur (and often reference a drunken child).

Just curious, but how do you know so much about drunken children? I've never seen a drunken child. Did your parents let you drink as a kid? Or do you let your kids drink? Or is it just a cool term you made up on your own?

According to you–stupider than drunken children: Blaise Pascal, Ronald Reagan, Mr. T (I'm telling him you said that), and too many others to list.

Your question is irrelevant to the sub-thread, but you are making another logical error. It is perfectly reasonable to assume (if not most reasonable to assume) that if Jesus voluntarily agreed to the sacrifice, He did so before the prophecy you describe was revealed to mankind. And as you have noted so many times in this thread, God is not confined by time, so why use time to attempt to make your points?

Well its no secrete that evolution has ceased being a science long ago. Those who dare question it is given the same treatment as those who dare question the religion of Global Warming.

But were is the outrage for what was lost?!? Who knows what would have been discovered or what could of been accomplished if science had not been politicized.

I stole the phrase "drunken child" from a guy named Robert Byrne, who used it in a book about pocket billiards (pool).

I exaggerated. I don't think people are truly stupid for being religious. I mean, true enough, they're wrong, and there's no good basis for their feelings. However, it's very understandable that religion is so popular. No one wants to face once-and-for-all death with no possibility of some sort of existence following it.

I have those feelings and wishes, too, but I'm pessimistic about the chances for any existence following death. If there is any such existence, it won't be based on any sacred text. It will be something that's available to all of us, regardless of obsequies to any "God" or other supernatural entities.

I'm tired of this, now. You've gotten me thoroughly depressed. Thanks a pant-load.

There's a 1977 (of 1978) episode of "In Search of . . ." with host Leonard Nimoy on the coming Ice Age. The best part was the 'scientist" who was predicting the ice age catastrophe is now an AGW'er. Follow the money.

Ah, the old Scopes trial/Contact question. Skeptics love this one! The classic question actually asks whom Cain married (the apparently more difficult question than whom Seth married, as Cain is born before Seth).

The question–like many alleged contradictions or intellectual challenges in the Bible–is the product of misunderstanding or ignorance about what the Bible says.

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had many more children than just those named in the Bible, both sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). According to the Bible, Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years, which would have allowed them to make a lot of children. So while we do not know precisely whom Cain (or Seth) married, according to the Bible they likely married Adam and Eve's daughters (their sisters).

Skeptics' most common question in response is how one can harmonize that with Leviticus 18-9, which forbade brother-sister marriage centuries later in the Mosaic law. The answer is easy: There was no need for such a prohibition when human DNA was undamaged (and after the initial generations, the biblical genealogy suggests close intermarriage was rare, further minimizing the need), but there was such a need once human DNA became damaged and the risk of negative effects from intermarriage increased substantially.

Peer Reviewed Scientists – Didn't they say the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of our solar system at one time as well. Science is politically driven until it can't hide anymore. That's what's happening with man made global warming and climate change. It's being exposed for what it is, a way for people to make money ripping the rest of us off.

He actually said that climate data can only be interpreted by a "climatologist" like they are the only scientist it takes to make a decision in this matter. Begley is more than washed up. He can't even get a job except for doing stupid commercials. He is the epitome of ridiculous pseudo-intelligence that Horeywood has in abundance. It is appalling how little he does know about climatology.

what a loser.

You've got to be kidding…

Awesome post. Thanks for the additional information, and you're right: we have a lot in common to fight for.

Hope you and yours have a great holiday, too.

Amazing!

The data (emails) are right in your face and you still refuse to see the evidence.

These same scientists threatened my job as a scientist with the US Geological Survey because I attempted to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were completely natural caused solely by Earth's physical processes.

Additionally, these same scientists would not even discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally attacked me and my family.

I always knew that when man-made global climate change was showed to be insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word "FAITH", in science. But this event and exposure is way worse for the science community as a whole. Remember: "Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)".

Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site.

But no outcry and defense for those scientists?

IF you see no problem with this and not considering misleading of the public by these scientists, then you’re definitely not a scientist, you're in denial and would buy any bill of goods sold, and you have no moral principles to stand on.

On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I attempted to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website obviously refused to post my comments because they know me, which is another attempt to silence objective parties on this subject and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

Now, think about this. Al Gore PUBLICLY states that the Earth’s Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn't even have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they screwed the pooch. They can't, because if they do, the gig is up…….

Who is Ed Begley.
Is he one of the Bishops of Warm?

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean crap. Consensus doesn't mean crap. A consensus of scientists believed the earth rotated around the sun and poor Galileo, way ahead of his time, spent ten years under house arrest for their ignorance.

Show me honest to God scientific proof the moon is made out of green cheese and I'll be the first to say, "so how about that? Green cheese. Whooda thunk it.". Show me a gaggle of scientists who say, "we talked amongst ourselves and have reached the conclusion the moon is made of green cheese" and I'll send them packing with a swift kick to the pants. Science isn't about what you think. It's about what you can prove. That's the whole idea behind the scientific method…you prove things. Your consensus is irrelevant.

As for Special Ed…just another Hollywood dimwit acting outlandishly in an attempt to remain relevant.

Very good! Good points, made with good humor — can't beat that.

Now I know how all those California wildfires are getting started, every time you turn on the TV, California is on fire, now I know why….The sun is reflecting through those coke bottle glasses of Eds and hitting brush!

I agree and it offends me too.

Do you have proof that people were burned at the stake for claiming that the world was not flat? In this case you are totally wrong and you need to spend some time learning the history of that period.

People were punished for being anarchists.

what you say is ridiculous. I was taught about evolution in a Catholic school. There is a difference between Evolution and Darwinism.

Even so, it is better to know what Darwin taught and not be left in the dark, than to remain suspicious of such things.

I agree. They are compatible so long as you are not taking Genesis literally.

Ed's just another religious nut that wants to shove his faith down the throats of everyone who thinks differently. Instead of having faith in the Koran or the Bible, he worships the earth. This is just like people who want to impose their religions on people because they see it as a moral imperative and for the "common good".

The way the "faithful" keep trying to impose their beliefs on others through the government and classroom has become intolerable. There is a very small difference between forcing children in public school to prayer and "pledging allegiance to the earth". These forced and shameless indoctrinations of other people's children is nothing short of child abuse.

We get one religious group out of our bedrooms, and a new one shows up on our nightstand, telling us that what lightbulb we have to use. A pox on both your houses.

Physics = Science
Begley = In Denial
It is like the reaction of a child when they first hear that Santa Claus in not real.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

Go there if you are brave. Cowards, don't bother.

It is one thing to argue a point of view, quite another to use emotional baiting. I am no atheist but the main reason I have given up the church is the arrogant, judgmental attitudes of the so-called "true believers". However the anti-theists and their nattering about the "intellectual elite" are no better.

[...] owning, giant pool heating hypocrite like Al Gore. From everything I read and see, Ed walks the Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Ed Begley Jr. Loses It On Fox News 25 Nov 2009. Watch actor and environmentalist Ed Begley, Jr. get into quite the heated debate with [...]

Hey, there's a more enjoyable experience waiting for you when you get the "everlasting boner". Don't call your doctor, unless she has lips like Angelina Jolie. Instead, call Juicy Lucy.

If you say you believe there is a God some people think you are nuts to believe in something that is invisible.
But if you told them there was no such thing as ozone they would call you crazy.

Nasa reported snow caps of mars melting same time as earth a couple of years ago. If the news media did there job, why wouldn't they report that as well so we can make up hour own minds.
By the way, The creation account in Genesis is accepted by Jews, Christians, and Moslim. 6000 years ago was the creation of men, not the earth which went though 6 creative days we don't know how long that is. The Hebrew word yohm, translated "day" can mean different lenghts of time. So a day to God can be 1000 years, and a creative day can cover a different event, I would imagine much longer.

I'm sorry, but what connections are you making between biblical genealogies and the age of the earth? Are you saying that the earth had to be created at the same moment as the first man?

Other than the (infantile) arguments that the word 'day' that we casually use in many contexts (at least they used to back in my dad's day ) has to mean 24 hours, what prevents the earth from being billions of years old while the first man was created a little over 6000 years ago?

2 Timothy 3:16. Either that is true, or toss the whole things out as useless.

Ed is having a crisis for sure, but I can explain a fossil. It's what we would expect to happen when thousands of pounds pressure from mud, water and rock come down on an animal as a result of a deluge.

Now there's a good reconciliation of science and faith. Well done.

Mr. Facts is falling prey to his own rules.

1. "IF" Jesus voluntarily agreed to the sacrifice — that's not what you just said.

2. Where are your facts to back up this new assertion that Jesus agreed to this before the prophecy was revealed to mankind… ?

Typical of the elite left. Begley spends mega bucks on solar panels and "green tech" for his house then points the shame finger at all the little folks who cannot afford that stuff. What a bunch of egotistical biggots! Hell, I deal with data on a daily basis that is used in the manufacture of aircraft turbines. I have the ethical and moral responsibility to not falsify data like the "climate change" community like to do. Manipulated data on an aircraft engine has very negative immediate effects. People could die tragically.Fake global warming data has the same effect. Just takes longer!

A fanatic by any other name is still nuts and Ed is a fanatic. I decided when I received the last issue of National Geographic that I would not renew my subscription because I am sick of their Glo Bull Warning BS.

The truthful answer is: I have no idea how the universe began. I have no idea how life arose on Earth. I think that, once life arose, it evolved for a lonnnngggg time.

I'm not responsible for any misapprehensions ellenmg might hold dear.

I'm responsible for my learning and no one else's.

My only claims are these: 1) No sacred text yet known to us is valid for its intended purpose, i.e., divine redemption and/or eternal life; and, 2) There is no God in the sense that Christians see Him, i.e., directly involved in our day-to-day lives, willing to answer prayers for us, etc. That leaves, in my view, room for a Deist's God (although it seems unlikely to me, as well). That's all I really know. I don't know how the universe began, nor how life arose on Earth.

Good doesn't always win in the end. I sure as hell hope it does this time, though. Gore, Obama and crew intend to ruin this country. No one could be so stupid as to accidentally do the damage they've created, not to mention what they have planned for the future.

Got me there! LOL I love that one!

— On Thu, 11/26/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

That's a great comment. I'm surprised you haven't gotten compliments.

Good stuff!

Ed Begley doesn’t get it, the emails show suppression of peer-reviewed papers!

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

Somebody might want to let Ed know that even still an extensive amount of skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist,

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-rev...

Now if Ed wants to talk to someone with a degree in climatology he can talk to,

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC

I find it hillarious that he insults scientists with degrees in Physics as not qualified…

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics

Way too funny!

These global warming nuts believe that it's "their way" or no way. They are incapable of having legitimate debates with those who oppose their beliefs. It's all about a bandwagon, and either you're with them in that wagon or you're not and, as a consequence, you're stupid.

Environmentalism is his god. How dare you suggest it may be a false one.

What on earth makes you think I believe carbon dating has anything to do with the age of the earth?

I am not fanatically blind. Just read what I wrote, obviously I am aware that it is use to date objects that contain carbon.

Frankly, I am comfortable with my beliefs and respectful of other people's beliefs. Give it a try.

If you are not sure what I mean let me make it plan. It is not respectful to imply some is too stupid to understand basic high school science; it is also disrespectful to call someone, who not murdering others for their beliefs, a fanatic.

When did being a bible believing Christian cease to be mainstream behavior and become fanatical. I always thought I was just a boring college educated Missouri Synod Lutheran. When I look in the mirror I see a middle-aged wife, mother, and economist but someone reads my post and sees a fanatic. Wow fanatics sure are changing.

You're so right. I think of all the people watching that interview, many of whom don't know the history of so-called climate change. This was an excellent opportunity for a well-versed host to score points with the undecideds. And they would've been legitimate (really non-debatable) points.

As you said, sometimes you cannot fly by the seat of your pants. I think Varney was hoping to get by on his British accent and a bit of charm. This was majorly disappointing to me. The mother lode represented by the hacker's/whistleblower's disclosure was ignored, leaving Varney's responses and questions far weaker than they had any right to be.

The Christians on here deny that radiocarbon dating is accurate. I'm not one of them.

Varney is a right-wing nut? Are we to assume you're a left-wing nut?

Tin-foil hats.

I don't have an origin-of-life theory.

I don't deserve to have one, because I haven't put in the time and work necessary to gain the learning to posit something that would hold up to examination.

You're in the same boat as me, too dumb to debate these points. There's one difference, however: You're willing to speak out and claim knowledge you couldn't possibly have. As Clint Eastwood said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Wow, Ed is the poster child liberal extremist. Granted, there can be conservative extremists, however, why is it that every liberal extremist I've seen acts like this? You noticed that Ed cracked when asked if he might be wrong…and there's the rub. No one, let alone a liberal, wants to be WRONG! Thus, they begin shouting, confronting, attacking, and spitting out every lie and half-truth they know to defend their position in the hopes of shutting down any rational conversation.

The only logical thing Ed shared, look at the facts for yourself…don't listen to others, check it out for yourself. I have, Ed. Global Warming is a lie.

I'll bet you're a riot at parties, LOL. Too funny!

That is an apt comparison. Excellent point.

Now, here's the problem with that. Dan Rather still has the admiration of the LSM (lame-stream media). There's no good reason for it. The man was proven a non-journalist fraud of the first water.

I just hope enough Americans realize the truth about AGW and refuse to accept these incredible taxes and government mandates (Cap and Trade, etc.).

I understand that many Christians were upset by a particular reference in this article, which goes like this: "You know what he sounds like? Someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old trying to explain away a dinosaur fossil.

Oh, that old time religion…"

That led to charges and countercharges. I tried to mediate, pointing out that the Christian story of creation was patently absurd and that the Hindu story of creation was much more believable.

Well, now I have proof. I have been vindicated.

http://humanpersonjunior.blogspot.com/2009/11/all...

The Christian story of creation is patently absurd. The Hindu story is much more believable.

I have proof.

http://humanpersonjunior.blogspot.com/2009/11/all...

I didn't rule out God at all. I just wanted to point out that arguing the implausibility of evolution usually omits the length of time that evolution has had to occur. To put it into perspective, human civilization accounts for just 2 ten thousandths of a percent of the time the earth is scientifically accepted to have existed; i.e., not very long!

With regards to your last paragraph I agree; except why those other beings have to be "God" is the questionable part. Those with faith choose God; I just want a lot more proof…

Ed's hot air must have warmed the earth a degree or two.

If we would get together as a people and en force as "We The People" politely force the DC tools to put satellites in space and beam down solar power to the grid there would be now more need for "clean coal", fossil fuels, and the rest of their crap. No I am not a tree huger I just hate the oil elite. Use it to power everything.

Ed Begley says the air in L.A. is cleaner because of catalytic converters……….what Begley forgets to mention (or doesn't know) is that catalytic converters on vehicles produce 4 – 5 times more CO2 than vehicles without catalytic converters. IE the environmentalist movement of the 70's caused a spike in the creation of CO2.

As a matter of record neither CO2, nor mankind activity is responsible for global warming; solar activity and subsequently ocean temperatures are responsible for global warming.

http://co2deficiency.blogspot.com/

Ed Jr. is a nut. If he wants to live like he does so be it, leave me alone. Liberals I thought were against people using govt. tom push their values on others. I guess they have changed their minds.

Liberals must be stopped!!!!!!! Eddy Jr. is just a joke.

Some people refuse to be proven wrong. They will lash out at anyone who does so. Perfect example is Ed Begley. I wonder what would have happened to the earth had it not warmed up and ended the ice age? I guess the critters around back then didn't go "green" (or would it have been white? Ice age – remember). The eaqrth may be warming – but no one has been able to prove it is not a normal cycle. Besides all that, we but BILLIONS of dollars of goods from countries that ignore the potential 'global warming". Why not, as a nation, endorse a boycott of Chinese goods if you feel that we are polluting the atmosphere to cause the warming? China is one of the biggest violators of the "green movement" – come on you peopole who endorse this unproven theory. Push for a boycott of all foreign countries which don't support the theory – not going to happen. The almighty dollar will still trump global warming.

Ah, the old "you called me something so I'll claim you're applying it to every other person in a group I have at least a mild relationship with" form of defense.

To be honest, I should have rapped the person you were replying to on the knuckles as well since he started in with the erroneous age of the Earth (the universe is younger than 4 trillion years) and mentioned carbon dating in relation. That is also incorrect.

I,m with you jpeggy, who runs this site? I'm surprised that whoever it is hasn't fallen for Global Warming. You have to be pretty gullible to believe something came from nothing and by the way Darwin wasn't a scientist either and has never proved the big bang or evolution in any way shape or form.

Touch a nerve, did I?

Your analogy fails completely because the Book of Genesis was written LONG after the fact. Most history books are either written with first-hand accounts of what happened, or by reviewing material that is already published.

Genesis fails both tests.

Completely.

If it were written today, it'd be dismissed as a bunch of fairy tales.

There's no theological misstep at all. And I said nothing about cherry picking which parts I choose to believe and which I don't. Speaking of which, your scripture reference is wholly out of context. Talk about cherry picking!

Pot…kettle…black.

Ad Hominem: The attempt to distract the uninformed observer off the message by attacking the messanger.

Scripture is either divinely inspired (verbal plenary) by God or it is not.

If it is NOT then your "Old Earth" theory is valid, if it IS then your suggestion inherently contradicts itself, as I pointed out in my response to @tyketto. Rejecting the authority of Scripture is the only logical way to arrive at the conclusion you are defending and is the lynchpin upon which this debate rests.

Needless to say, once you've allowed yourself to concede that point the discussion is effectively over.

The fact is that both 'climate change' preachers and creationists are anti-science.

If you really believe that the world is only 6000 years old, you are seriously irrational and capable of anything.

LOL – I take my medication every day. However, none of it is designed to relieve psychosis or neurosis.

I've changed my mind since then, anyhow. I now support the creation story put forth by the Aztec Indians. Try it; you'll like it!

All of the creation stories (seriously) have the same weight with me.