Theism Analogy: Living Rocks of Death Valley

[boatsnguitars]

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

[boatsnguitars]

1. Anthropogenic global warming is real. It's real bad. It's going to get worse.
2. The industry is changing, regardless - because it has to, and because there is a good business reason to change.
3. Renewables are the future, as they - renew. Oil is finite.
4. Global Warming Deniers are wrong and know they are wrong.

And everyone should believe that, because then Al Gore and John Kerry can get more power and money.

If global warming really happens, it is not bad and it is not necessary because of humans. If it really happens, it probably would happen even if humans would not do anything. And most certainly it will not change by paying more taxes and giving more power to the worlds tyrannical leaders.

Oil is not finite. It may be that is formed in nature slowly. But oil, or hydrocarbons are the best energy system, because it doesn't require as much destroying of earth as for example batteries for cars. It is natural part of carbon cycle. And with carbon cycle I mean in this, living beings use O2 produced by plants and plants use CO2 produced by the beings. In this natural cycle carbon goes around and it is essential for the system to work properly. If the level of CO2 would be higher, plants would grow faster and people would have more food. If we don't want to be genocidal maniacs, we don't try to lover the level of CO2 and cause famine by doing so.



It can be said that collecting oil and transporting it is also not good for nature, not because CO2, but because it wears earth. Not as much as what the mining of battery material, but still substantially. Wisest move would be to keep systems that use oil/gas, but produce oil/gas in more reasonable way, in same principle as here:



The same waste could be also used to make fuel. And it would be the best way, because that organic material goes circles in nature anyway and it is easy to acquire.

I think it is pure evil to trick people to believe that world is going to be destroyed because they produce CO2 and that only way to be saved is to give more power and money to the governments. It makes taking care of nature look deranged. It is good to take care of nature, but it should be rational.

First, you aren't a scientist and, let's be honest, you believe a man rose from the dead, was God (or his spokesman), etc... You aren't a credible person to read and digest salient information. That's the burden religious people have to accept.

So, on to your points:

Political Motivations:
The skepticism expressed regarding global warming being exploited for political gains lacks a substantive basis. It is crucial to underscore that the overwhelming scientific consensus supports the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Dismissing this consensus as a result of political motivations neglects the rigorous scientific research that underpins the understanding of climate change.

Natural Causes of Global Warming:
While acknowledging the role of natural processes in climate variability, the assertion that a significant portion of recent warming is not attributed to human activities reflects a misunderstanding of the scientific consensus. Current scientific understanding affirms the substantial influence of human activities in recent climate changes. To dispute this consensus is to disregard the extensive body of research and data supporting the anthropogenic component of climate change.

Role of CO2 in the Carbon Cycle:
The notion that the rapid increase in CO2 levels due to human activities merely disrupts a balance and contributes to global warming is an oversimplification. The scientific reality is that the unprecedented rise in CO2 concentrations, primarily from human activities, is a fundamental driver of climate change. Recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue is essential for genuine and effective environmental management.

Finite Nature of Oil:
The assertion that oil is not finite and the concept of it being a renewable resource contradicts established scientific knowledge. Oil, formed over geological timescales, is indeed finite in nature. The scientific consensus emphasizes the need to transition to cleaner energy sources to ensure long-term sustainability and mitigate environmental impact. You seem to think that changing the conversation to Biofuel solves the carbon problem - it doesn't.

Responsible Resource Management:
While emphasizing responsible resource management and the use of waste to produce fuel is commendable, it is crucial to note that the continued reliance on fossil fuels, even through eco-friendly extraction methods, poses environmental challenges. The pressing need for a shift to renewable and sustainable energy sources remains a paramount consideration.

Balancing Environmental Concerns:
Maintaining a balanced perspective on environmental conservation is crucial; however, this balance should be informed by an accurate understanding of the scientific consensus. Acknowledging the negative aspects of certain energy transitions is essential, but it should not overshadow the imperative to address climate change through decisive and informed action.

In conclusion, it is vital to base discussions on an accurate understanding of scientific evidence. Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming in favor of political motivations or misconceptions undermines the urgency and necessity of addressing climate change through informed decision-making and responsible resource management.

[1213]

First, you aren't a scientist....

If a man can nowadays identify as a woman, I can easily identify as a scientist.

...That's the burden religious people have to accept.

No, I don't have to accept that.

...In conclusion, it is vital to base discussions on an accurate understanding of scientific evidence. Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming in favor of political motivations or misconceptions undermines the urgency and necessity of addressing climate change through informed decision-making and responsible resource management.

If consensus is sufficient to you, why don't you believe in God? Religious consensus says that God is real.

[boatsnguitars]

First, you aren't a scientist....

If a man can nowadays identify as a woman, I can easily identify as a scientist.

...That's the burden religious people have to accept.

No, I don't have to accept that.

...In conclusion, it is vital to base discussions on an accurate understanding of scientific evidence. Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming in favor of political motivations or misconceptions undermines the urgency and necessity of addressing climate change through informed decision-making and responsible resource management.

If consensus is sufficient to you, why don't you believe in God? Religious consensus says that God is real.

There is no consensus on God. Christians only represent 30% of religious people on the planet - and they don't all agree. Your inability to understand what "consensus" means gives me insight into your other responses that seem similarly misinformed. Or, maybe you do understand but have chosen to portray yourself as someone who doesn't in order to troll people on internet forums?

What is very clear is that you seem to think that consensus gentium is as reasonable an argument as massive amounts of hard data proving anthropogenic global warming and associated climate change. (You didn't know the Common Consent Argument for the Existence of God had a name, and was a well-worn topic, did you?)

[TRANSPONDER]

Our pal is making a quip about being a scientist of course . Butr then not every scientist is a productive scientist. Produce no results and one fails to validate the title.

And individual denial doesn't alter that.

And as you say there is a difference between mob belief of a brainwashed populace and agreed outcomes of experts in a particular field. We know someone is teetering on the edge of loss of all credibility when they refuse to accept anything as true other than their personal preferences.

[1213]

There is no consensus on God. Christians only represent 30% of religious people on the planet - and they don't all agree.

By what I know, most religions agree that God is real. The difference is in, what or who is the real God.

...massive amounts of hard data proving anthropogenic global warming and associated climate change...

I believe climate has changed as long as earth has existed. I just don't think CO2 is a real problem in that and i don't believe it can be stopped by paying more taxes and by giving more power to the tyrants who rule the world. There is no good reason to think CO2 is the problem.

[boatsnguitars]

There is no consensus on God. Christians only represent 30% of religious people on the planet - and they don't all agree.

By what I know, most religions agree that God is real. The difference is in, what or who is the real God.

Yeah, that's a major problem, isn't it. Just because it's a nice short word, doesn't mean it's not a big deal. Some believe God is the Universe, some believe it's a feeling inside of us. To simply say "is real" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. Hernia inducing lifting.

...massive amounts of hard data proving anthropogenic global warming and associated climate change...

I believe climate has changed as long as earth has existed. I just don't think CO2 is a real problem in that and i don't believe it can be stopped by paying more taxes and by giving more power to the tyrants who rule the world. There is no good reason to think CO2 is the problem.

I don't care what you believe. Believe the world is flat, believe angels exist, believe there is no climate at all. Believe all the wrong things you want.

But don't for a minute think your beliefs matter to reality, or that your uninformed, non-scientific opinion means anything.

[TRANSPONDER]

Our pal is doing a familiar subterfuge and fiddle: debate about a science - claim or process (some of which is still going on - but transplants and stem -cell has now been dropped by the naysayers) excuses or validates rejecting all religion - or at least anything that conflicts with the Bible. If the Bible clearly said the world was flat (as it actually does but 'circle' is translation -shopped or 'interpreted' to not make the religious look silly), some (not all - some actually accept evolution (1) would deny a round earth, as of course an astounding number of people do, though not (yet) rushing to the Bible to prop that claim up.

No, our pal's science - denial is just cherry -picked and self serving - as it is not done to maintain the rightness of the Bible, Jesus, God or Christianity, but the rightness of whatever he (or she) says. We saw just now the end times (Coming onto his Kingdom) was claimed to be at the transfiguration, when even an atheist with a passing familiarity of the Bible knows it totally refutes that.

(1) it is even claimed that some even accept human influence on Climate change, but this is probably malicious rumour.

[1213]

...If the Bible clearly said the world was flat (as it actually does but 'circle' is translation -shopped or 'interpreted' to not make the religious look silly),..

Bible doesn't say earth is flat.

In Bible earth means dry land, in this case the original single continent.

...God called the dry land Earth...
Gen. 1:9-10

And dry land was stretched over area of water, after God draw a circle on the surface of our planet. Circle can be drawn to any surface, also to sphere. Doesn't tell anything about the form of planet earth.

While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; When he set a circle on the surface of the deep,
Prov. 8:26-27
To him who spread out the earth above the waters; For his loving kindness endures forever:
Ps. 136:6