published Tuesday, June 4th, 2013

Fracking is frankly no clean solution to our energy needs

When it comes to energy, Americans have an amazing knack for jumping out of the frying pan into the fire; and stoking the flames while we're at it — especially in the South.

Such is the case with fracking for natural gas, the biggest underground get-rich-quick scheme to come to the Appalachians since coal.

Fracking, more formally called hydraulic fracturing, is a method of mining natural gas by injecting chemicals, water and nitrous oxide into shale, causing it to fracture and release trapped gas.

The country is clamoring for less dependence on foreign oil, and demand is up for natural gas because it's cheaper, at least temporarily. Add to that the fact that the hottest new shale field is sitting just below our mountains, and it puts East Tennessee, North Georgia and Northeast Alabama right into the fireplace.

But natural gas — at least where fracking is concerned — is not the panacea its proponents would have us believe. Especially not in the south and especially not in Tennessee where lax environmental rules seem to be becoming more lax all the time.

This region — with Chattanooga nearly at dead center — sits atop a layer, or "play" in driller language, of shale known as Chattanooga Shale.

The debate over fracking is not simple: either for the safety of water, air and the climate, or for the nation's overall energy independence.

Early this year, the University of Tennessee brought the debate front and center with a controversial request to seek drilling bids for UT's 8,636-acre Cumberland Forest, which is public property.

The Tennessee Building Commission OKed the request, prompting environmental advocates to fear a new open season on public parks and other taxpayer owned lands.

"There was extensive interest in this area by multiple state agencies such as the Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Department of Correction, etc. All of the agencies were supportive of our initiative and would like to potentially do something similar to that which we propose," wrote one UT official.

There are health-related environmental concerns about fracking, too.

In Pennsylvania, communities tell horror stories of having so much methane in their wells and water supplies that they become flammable. And in 2011, a series of EPA tests and reports confirmed the presence of carcinogens from the fracking fluid — which drillers don't have to report until after they've injected it into the ground -- in the public water supply at Pavillion, Wyoming.

Residents were urged not to drink their water and to ventilate their homes while showering to prevent explosions from released methane gas.

EPA investigators drilled two water monitoring wells to 1,000 feet. Water quality data from the test wells confirmed high levels of carcinogenic chemicals, such as benzene (a constituent of diesel fuel, used in the fracking fluid, as well as a chemical called 2 Butoxyethanol, known to be used in fracking fluid).

Wyoming lawmakers became the first to require drillers to disclose what they injected, but since the regulations were adopted, the state's enforcement has approved more than 50 "trade secret" requests, shielding identifying information for more than 190 different chemicals that are being used by Halliburton and other oil and gas service companies in fracking.

The Tennessee Joint Government Operations Committee last week approved new fracking rules that were drafted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Yes, the same agency that oversees state parks. The new rules will go into effect June 18.

Those rules in affect offer no rules. They don't even require drillers to test wells or notify neighbors unless they pump in more than 200,000 gallons of water, and in East Tennessee's Chattanooga shale play, the geology is so fragile that normally less water than 200,000 gallons will be used per well. Nitrogen gas laced with chemicals will be used instead.

There are other dangers: The methane gas that escapes the wells contributes to the greenhouse effect of global warming. So while natural gas does burn cleaner than coal, methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse or heat-trapping gas.

Earthquakes also have been linked to fracking, both in Ohio and Arkansas.

And don't think federal regulations will help much. In 2005, Congress approved legislation that exempts fracking from provisions of the Safe Water Drinking Act and the Clean Air Act. This exemption has been dubbed the "Halliburton Loophole."

And then there's the question of Chattanooga Shale itself, which forms dangerous water-polluting radon when exposed on a roadside and cancer-causing airborne radon in a basement. In New York, environmental advocates say recovered, waste fracking fluid — a fraction of what is pumped into the earth -- contained levels of radioactive radium and other elements 100 to 1,000 times higher than federal drinking water standards.

Perhaps worst of all: The rush to frack for natural gas — another fossil fuel — likely will delay needed research and investment in truly clean energies.

Everyone wants clean, safe water and air, and most everyone seems interested in America's energy independence.

So far, no one has found consensus for ensuring both.

54
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

If you're against getting rich, you're in favor of imposing poverty?

June 4, 2013 at 12:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

If you're against making logical sense, you must be AndrewLohr.

June 4, 2013 at 12:39 a.m.
conservative said...

The left is as loony as loney tunes.

Fracturing has been going on for more than 60 years!

2.5 MILLION Fracture treatments have been performed worldwide!

"Since Stanolind Oil introduced hydraulic fracturing in 1949, close to 2.5 million fracture treatments have been performed worldwide. Some believe that approximately 60% of all wells drilled today are fractured. Fracture stimulation not only increases the production rate, but it is credited with adding to reserves—9 billion bbl of oil and more than 700 Tscf of gas added since 1949 to US reserves alone—which otherwise would have been uneconomical to develop."

http://frack.mixplex.com/content/hydraulic-fracturing-history-enduring-technology

June 4, 2013 at 7:06 a.m.
nucanuck said...

While fracking has been a known technology for decades it was little used until the development of horizontal drilling AND the elevation in price of gas and oil. Now that world prices are high enough to justify fracking, the boom has begun.

As with nearly all carbon extraction, environmental problems abound. The editorial covers those concerns. What wasn't mentioned was the vast number of wells that must be drilled to produce enough volume. Fracked oil and gas wells deplete rapidly, losing more than half their production after just one year. That means that the fracking process must be ever increased just to maintain a steady supply. That means more and more chemicals injected with ever increasing probability of water contamination and methane release into the atmosphere.

Fracking will not make us energy independent, but it will give us a couple of decades with less dependence than would otherwise be the case. It will slow the development of alternatives and give us a sense of false security in the short run.

Intensifying the carbon damage in the atmosphere will only hasten the climate issues that will eventually lead to mass extinction on the planet earth. We can hope that by then we will have found other planets not yet desecrated.

June 4, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck,

Which episode of Battlestar Galactica did you get your information from?

June 4, 2013 at 12:10 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Nothing that we do to increase oil/gas production, whether it's fracking, green-lighting the Keystone Pipeline, or building more oil rigs on land or sea, is going to bring us any closer to energy independence. It amazes me to see how many wingnuts in the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd keep spouting off about how more domestic oil production will make us energy independent and will bring down the cost of gas at the pump. How dense do you have to be not to realize that every drop of oil or natural gas that comes out of the ground goes immediately to the world market and is sold to the highest bidder? And the major oil and gas companies do not give a damn about an energy-independent nation or about the economic health of the U.S. Their ONLY concern is how to make the most profit. Period. Whatever method(s) we choose to implement going forward, it will not be oil or gas that will save us. For sure, we will still have to depend on them for the near future, but carbon based fuels are a dinosaur and until we accept that cold hard fact we are only fooling ourselves, marching backward instead of forward, and making the inevitable transition to our next major energy source(s) more painful and costly.

June 4, 2013 at 12:34 p.m.
conservative said...

The looney left has had so many monsters.

da coold monstor is goin to git you!

da acide rain monstor is goin to git you!

da icebrrg monstor is goin to git you!

da nookler monstor is goin to get you!

da O sune monster is goin to git you!

da poplation monstor is goin to git you!

da heet monstor is goin to git you!

da Beg Oily monstor is goin to git you!

da koal monstor is goin to git you!

da goin through da change monstor is goin to git you!

da Frackingstein monstor is goin to git you!

June 4, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Intensifying the carbon damage in the atmosphere will only hasten the climate issues that will eventually lead to mass extinction on the planet earth. We can hope that by then we will have found other planets not yet desecrated." - nucanuck

Some scientists believe that space exploration is a worthy endeavor, if for no other reason than what you just stated - it might be our only ticket to saving and perpetuating our species, once we have succeeded in making life on Earth uninhabitable (and we do seem hell-bent on stinking up and poisoning this planet to the fullest extent we are capable). I seem to recall Carl Sagan talking about that in his excellent series "Cosmos." He mentioned Mars, in particular, I think, and how it might be possible to oxygenate the atmosphere and proceed from there in making the planet habitable for human beings. That is an interesting notion but how astronomically exorbitant (pun intended) the cost would be! And what an impractical and preposterous undertaking it would be in the first place - all because we were too stupid to act on the knowledge and resources that were right in front of us and utilize them in ways that could make this planet, which was already set up conveniently for us humans, the best it possibly could be. But such is the folly of the human animal, I suppose. We have the knowledge to do so much but we seem to always use that knowledge in the most backward and illogical ways.It's hard to know whether we are extraordinarily intelligent or extraordinarily stupid.

June 4, 2013 at 1:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rickaroo,

The thing people don't understand is that the human race has nearly gone extinct several times. Around 150,000 years ago, the entire Homo sapiens population (when it was still confined to Africa) got down to as low as 2,000 and stayed that way for nearly 100,000 years. And about 70,000 years ago, scientists believe the entire human population got down to as low as 10,000 due to the Toba eruption.

Our universe was not made with us in mind. Our earth is very capable of becoming inhospitable to human life very quickly. If we stay on the path we are on and continue to rape our planet, she will have no problem chewing us (or at least our offspring) up and spitting us out just as the planet has done to the 99.9% of all species that have ever lived.

You said it perfectly:

"We have the knowledge to do so much but we seem to always use that knowledge in the most backward and illogical ways."

I truly don't know how an animal as evolved as humans can be so very dumb and such a detriment to their own home.

June 4, 2013 at 1:38 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Easy,

The only conclusion must be that we are not as evolved as we think we are.

June 4, 2013 at 2:09 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Our universe was not made with us in mind. Our earth is very capable of becoming inhospitable to human life very quickly."

That is true, Easy. But compared to the planets that we have been able to observe and study thus far, Earth is a veritable Garden of Eden by comparison. There are any number of factors - both within our control and beyond it - that can tip the scales and make life here uninhabitable, but with more diligence and focused attention on ecological balance we could assure ourselves of a long, healthy, and fruitful continuation of our species on this planet - at least until something happens that is beyond our control. Unfortunately I believe that we ourselves are going to be the cause of our extinction sooner than any other factor(s) beyond our control.

June 4, 2013 at 2:16 p.m.
conservative said...

WOW!!!

easy, who are these atheist "scientists" that "believe" (you may have gotten that one right, however, it is much more likely that these "scientists" are lying) man was even around 70,000 years ago and the population was as low as 2,000?

I doubt if even nucanuck could top that, although he does claim to be consuming 2.3 earths, so you might have to go a ways to top him on the kookmeter.

June 4, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

Scientists tend to be more skeptical than most and many scientists are, in fact, atheists and agnostic, but there are many famous scientists like Francis Collins (of the Human Genome Project) that are religious. So I reject your initial claim.

Science doesn't lie. That's the beauty of it. The scientific method keeps people honest. If a study or discovery is made or done dishonestly, others will find out when they try to replicate or verify the results. Science is the fine, specific art of finding out the truth.

To the first part of your questions, the vast majority of all scientists conclude Homo sapiens (modern humans) originated about 200,000 years ago. There are differing opinions on the exact time when Homo sapiens evolved from its most recent ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis, but that is to be expected.

To the second part of the question, the Genographic Project is the large anthropological study that came to the conclusion that the Homo sapiens population got down to around 2,000 about 150,000 years ago.

"I doubt if even nucanuck could top that, although he does claim to be consuming 2.3 earths"

You still lack the basic understanding of what nucanuck meant when he said that.

You continue to show your extreme, abject ignorance, conservative. You're the epitome of an ignoramus.

June 4, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
conservative said...

So easy, you wrote "scientists" but have you considered that could be a little as two? There are people who call themselves scientists but are not. There are also "scientists" who are paid to lie about their research in order to fool the gullible.

June 4, 2013 at 2:42 p.m.
conservative said...

So easy, who are these "scientists" and how many are there? Name them and give their statements to substantiate these atheist claims of yours.

June 4, 2013 at 2:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"So easy, you wrote "scientists" but have you considered that could be a little as two? There are people who call themselves scientists but are not."

Hundreds of scientists have worked on the Genographic project and tens of thousands have studied human evolution.

"There are also "scientists" who are paid to lie about their research in order to fool the gullible."

And that bunk scientific research is always found out.

You reject modern science for a 2,000 old book. You're not one to talk about "fooling the gullible" or people claiming to be scientists that aren't.

June 4, 2013 at 2:51 p.m.
conservative said...

Now, I have to ask, what did man do to reduce his number to only 2,000? I am laughing so hard that I can hardly write this.

June 4, 2013 at 2:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"So easy, who are these "scientists" and how many are there?"

These are the team leaders from the Genographic Project, not including all of the scientists, interns, grad students that work under these folks, so I don't have an exact number:

Spencer Wells, project director (National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence)

Jin Li, principal investigator, East Asia

Theodore Schurr, principal investigator, North America

Fabricio Santos, principal investigator, South America

Jaume Bertranpetit, David Comas and Lluis Quintana-Murci, principal investigators, Western Europe and Central Europe

Pierre Zalloua, principal investigator, Middle East and Northern Africa

Himla Soodyall, principal investigator, Sub-Saharan Africa

Elena Balanovska, principal investigator, North Eurasia

Ramasamy Pitchappan, principal investigator, India

Alan Cooper, principal investigator, Ancient DNA

John Mitchell, principal investigator, Australia and New Zealand

Lisa Matisoo-Smith, principal investigator, Oceania

Ajay Royyuru, head of computational biology, IBM

Simon Longstaff, advisory board chair (director of the St James Ethics Centre)

Meave Leakey, advisory board member

Merritt Ruhlen, advisory board member

Colin Renfrew, advisory board member

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, advisory board member

Wade Davis, advisory board member

Kim McKay, National Geographic Consultant and Genographic Legacy Fund committee member

Dominique Rissolo, advisory board member

June 4, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey easy, if you had claimed the number was 2,001 I could have made allusions to a movie.

June 4, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"give their statements to substantiate these atheist claims of yours."

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/03/humans528.html

The original study appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180270/

June 4, 2013 at 3:13 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey easy, what did those 2,000 do for entertainment 70,000 years ago?

June 4, 2013 at 3:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Now, I have to ask, what did man do to reduce his number to only 2,000?"

The Toba eruption and, consequently, the harsh environmental conditions. Also, hunter-gatherer populations tend to grow very slowly in comparison to agricultural ones.

"Hey easy, what did those 2,000 do for entertainment 70,000 years ago?"

There probably wasn't much time for "entertainment", but art and jewelry has been found from that time. Men hunted to feed the group.

June 4, 2013 at 3:18 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey easy, did fracking have anything to do with it?

June 4, 2013 at 3:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Hey easy, did fracking have anything to do with it?"

Environmental facts did. And that is the argument against fracking. Humans have shown, specifically in the past 300 years, the distinct ability to harm the environment in such a way that, in turn, comes back to bite us.

June 4, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey easy, do you think the number got as low as 2,000 because they bought into the lie that homosexual behavior is good for society?

June 4, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Hey easy, do you think the number got as low as 2,000 because they bought into the lie that homosexual behavior is good for society?"

First, there is no lie. Homosexuality has been around for a very long time and was recorded as early as 2400 BCE. To put that in perspective, Moses was said to have lived around 1500 BCE. Thus, homosexual behavior does not hamper society in the least. Homosexual behavior was likely beneficial to early human groups. Scientists found that homosexual behavior in bonobos actually helps group cohesion, thus, benefitting the the group as a whole.

Secondly, why are you changing the subject? Just love talking about homosexuals, eh?

Lastly, it's very amusing to me how ignorant your religion has caused you to be.

June 4, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
conservative said...

So easy, who are these "scientists" and how many are there. Name them and give their statements to substantiate these atheist claims of yours.

June 4, 2013 at 3:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"So easy, who are these "scientists" and how many are there. Name them and give their statements to substantiate these atheist claims of yours."

I already have.

It's very amusing to watch you grasp and squirm.

June 4, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey easy, who was to blame for reducing man to just 2,000?

June 4, 2013 at 3:53 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Easy, you are wasting your time responding to Con-man. He never answers honest questions and simply prods those who do respond with other inane questions. His is a closed mind seemingly unaware of how little awareness has come his way. He doesn't mind being the fool and I simply skip his comments, knowing that they add nothing to the discussion.

June 4, 2013 at 11:21 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

God is the author and creator of all knowledge.

True science recognizes this and it's findings support that.

The atheist "scientist" seeks to convince himself and others that God is wrong, an impossibility.

On the subject of how many people were on the earth long ago one need to only look at Genesis chapter 1 to discover that God created man and woman (Adam and Eve).

Now think about this, Mankind started out with just these two. So we know that the earth at one time had as little as two people!

This is of course even smaller than the 2,000 you and easy believe was reduced by some hostile earth.

God's word, contained in the Bible is replete with science, science that the pseudo atheist "scientist" is ever trying to refute. As the common saying goes, "good luck with that."

You will find no reputable scientist putting his name to the silliness that the atheist easy has asserted. He has not provided and cannot provide any such proof. He can only type some names and assert, that is all.

Carefully read his silly belief at 1:38 and you will see why I have to laugh. I didn't waste any more time reading anything else he wrote after that. He thought I did and I had him going for awhile.

June 5, 2013 at 11:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"God is the author and creator of all knowledge."

Proof?

"True science recognizes this and it's findings support that."

False. Science has makes no assumptions.

"The atheist "scientist" seeks to convince himself and others that God is wrong, an impossibility."

False.

"On the subject of how many people were on the earth long ago one need to only look at Genesis chapter 1 to discover that God created man and woman (Adam and Eve)."

Proof?

"Now think about this, Mankind started out with just these two. So we know that the earth at one time had as little as two people!"

False.

"This is of course even smaller than the 2,000 you and easy believe was reduced by some hostile earth."

What you're saying is also not true.

"God's word, contained in the Bible is replete with science,"

Proof?

"science that the pseudo atheist "scientist" is ever trying to refute."

Proof?

"As the common saying goes, "good luck with that.""

Good luck answering my questions.

"You will find no reputable scientist putting his name to the silliness that the atheist easy has asserted."

I've named over 20 and there are thousands more that accept those facts as well.

"He has not provided and cannot provide any such proof."

False. I have provided names and proof. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing.

"He can only type some names and assert, that is all."

That is actually what you are doing. I've provided names and studies. You've cited the Bible. You lose.

"Carefully read his silly belief at 1:38 and you will see why I have to laugh."

I've been laughing at your ignorance for months now.

"I didn't waste any more time reading anything else he wrote after that."

You know that's false. You're too much of a sore loser to not read my posts.

"He thought I did and I had him going for awhile."

I've had you going the whole time. I can get you to spout your ignorance and make yourself look like an imbecile at the drop of a hat. I own you.

It must really chap your christian behind to be outdone by an Atheist again.

June 5, 2013 at 12:47 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Haha! Conny said "science".

The funniest thing I've read today.

Like a fish discussing a bicycle..

June 5, 2013 at 12:59 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Conservative says, "There are also 'scientists' who are paid to lie about their research in order to fool the gullible." The method of scientific inquiry in fact does ferret our false data and theory because it does not work. Please identify these "paid" liars.

As for this supposed battle between religion and science that I hesitate to get into because the conservative element refuses to think rationally, but seems required. If you believe God made us, as I do, and the universe, and God gave us the power to inspect, observe and evaluate God's handiwork, then how can we observe something that is contrary to God, if God made it? The only way a dogmatic religious person can argue against scientific observation is to assume God intended to deceive us by planting information that does not reflect God's activity. That is a very heretical argument.

The evidence of human and human-like people in the fossil record as early as a million years ago is irrefutable. What is arguable is whether there was a continuity of these past humanoids with later species or not, and whether or when "human intelligence" began. One reputable biologist believes the 200,000 year ago humans were as intelligent as today given the way tools were made. It is also an unanswerable question. This is a little discussed scientific problem with "deep evolution" that even Darwin might acknowledge, that scientists avoid problems with the theory because they do not want to deal with the conservative naysayers.

June 5, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Oh, Easy123, you say "science makes no assumptions." Science in fact does nothing else but make assumptions called hypotheses that they seek to prove in order to form an explanation of experience, or reject because they do not.

June 5, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

Again on the subject of how few people had been living on earth at one time.

The atheist pseudo "scientist" that atheist antichrist easy has foolishly relied on for his science has, according to him, said that there were at one time as little as 2,000 people on earth.

Guess what. There were at one time even less. I am not talking about the first and once only two, Adam and Eve now. You see true scientist have discovered that there in fact was at one time a world wide flood! Yes, nucanuck, that scientific fact is in God's word, the Bible. In the first book of the Bible, Genesis.

God, because of wicked sinful man destroyed all life on earth except 8 according to 1 Peter 3:20.

Now, consider this, thousands of years before man and especially atheist man discovered science ( remember God created everything including knowledge), God has told us beforehand what these Atheist pseudo "scientist" are trying to discredit today with words about a hostile planet as if earth had a mind and will to destroy mankind. This is the thinking of fools. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

June 5, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

Another scientific fact stated in the Bible thousands of years before man began scientific investigation pertains to the shape of the earth.

The prophet Isaiah writing about the sovereinty of God spoke of the shape of the earth:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.

Did you see the word "circle"? Question, who was the first to refute a flat earth?

June 5, 2013 at 4:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

inquiringmind,

"Science in fact does nothing else but make assumptions called hypotheses that they seek to prove in order to form an explanation of experience, or reject because they do not."

You misunderstand. Science assumes nothing to be true. Sufficient amounts of proof and evidence must be found before something is accepted as fact. A hypothesis is not equivalent to an assumption.

June 5, 2013 at 6:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"The atheist pseudo "scientist" that atheist antichrist easy has foolishly relied on for his science has, according to him, said that there were at one time as little as 2,000 people on earth."

The moronic, christian ignoramus conservative has foolishly relied on a 2,000 year old book in place of modern science.

"There were at one time even less. I am not talking about the first and once only two, Adam and Eve now."

Proof?

"You see true scientist have discovered that there in fact was at one time a world wide flood!"

The theory of a worldwide flood has been disproven.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood

"Yes, nucanuck, that scientific fact is in God's word, the Bible. In the first book of the Bible, Genesis."

You mean that "myth" is located in the Bible.

"Now, consider this, thousands of years before man and especially atheist man discovered science ( remember God created everything including knowledge),"

Atheists didn't discover science. Science wasn't "discovered".

"God has told us beforehand what these Atheist pseudo "scientist" are trying to discredit today"

Name the verse.

"with words about a hostile planet as if earth had a mind and will to destroy mankind."

Those are anthropomorphic, you moron. You wouldn't know what that meant because you're a fool and far too dense to understand literary devices. Look it up.

Very many species have become extinct over time and many humans have died as well. The Universe is a very hostile place.

"This is the thinking of fools."

You would know all about being a fool.

Consider yourself owned by an atheist again.

June 5, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Another scientific fact stated in the Bible thousands of years before man began scientific investigation pertains to the shape of the earth."

You're about to get owned again.

"Did you see the word "circle"? Question, who was the first to refute a flat earth?"

The earth is not a circle. The earth is, in fact, a sphere. A circle is a 1-dimensional object i.e. flat. A sphere (which the earth is) is a three dimensional object i.e. it exists in three dimensions of the physical world. Thus, you, your book of myths, and your mythical god were and still are completely and utterly ignorant when it comes to anything having to do with science.

In conclusion, you are an ignorant fool. And, once again, I have made you spew your ignorance and expose yourself as a fool. I own you.

It must really chap your ignorant christian behind to be outdone by an Atheist again.

June 5, 2013 at 6:28 p.m.
conservative said...

Nucanuck, ever heard of the term hydrological cycle?

More science in God's word thousands of years before man discovered science:

Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable. “For He draws up the drops of water, They distill rain from the mist, Which the clouds pour down, They drip upon man abundantly Job 36:27-28

June 5, 2013 at 6:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable. “For He draws up the drops of water, They distill rain from the mist, Which the clouds pour down, They drip upon man abundantly Job 36:27-28"

Nothing in that entire verse describes the water cycle whatsoever.

Try again, ignorant christian.

June 5, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck, who only could have known this except God thousands of years ago:

All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. Ecclesiastes 1:7

June 5, 2013 at 7:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. Ecclesiastes 1:7"

All rivers don't flow into the sea. Many rivers flow into lakes, underground, into valleys (waterfalls), or swamps.

Thus, you, your book of myths, and your mythical god were and still are completely and utterly ignorant when it comes to anything related to science.

You literally can't help but make a complete fool of yourself, your book of myths and your mythical god.

Sorry, ignorant christian. Try again.

June 5, 2013 at 7:18 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck, More science from the creator of science.

Did you know that without clouds it would not rain? Clouds contain water! Guess who designed, created that?

“He wraps up the waters in His clouds, And the cloud does not burst under them Job26:8

June 5, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"More science from the creator of science."

Galileo? Francis Bacon?

"Did you know that without clouds it would not rain? Clouds contain water!"

Clouds are actually made of water and it can rain without visible cloud cover. Also, clouds don't "contain water" per se. Water vapor is different than water. The water vapor must condense before it can fall as rain.

"Guess who designed, created that?"

No one.

“He wraps up the waters in His clouds, And the cloud does not burst under them Job26:8"

Clouds do burst.

Thus, you, your book of myths, and your mythical god were and still are completely and utterly ignorant when it comes to anything related to science.

You literally can't help but make a complete fool of yourself, your book of myths and your mythical god.

Sorry, ignorant christian. Try again.

June 5, 2013 at 8:13 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

More science in the Bible.

Did you know that bloodletting was thought to be beneficial and not harmful to people for centuries and that George Washington himself died from the quackery.

However, God's word had stated thousands of years ago that life is in the blood! You may know that blood is given to patients now to save life, just the opposite of many times in the past.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood.." Leviticus 17:11

June 5, 2013 at 8:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"More science in the Bible."

Wrong again, ignorant christian.

Blood-letting was never "science".

Also, why did you omit the rest of the verse?


"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."


Thus, your mythical holy book and mythical god were not making any direct reference to anything scientific and is actually advocating blood-letting as an "atonement".

It's also important to note that this verse is literal about the statement that "life is in the blood". The writers really believed that the animal or persons life was actually IN the blood. Because of that misguided fact, your mythical god goes on to outlaw the eating or drinking of blood.

You, your book of myths, and your mythical god were and still are completely and utterly ignorant when it comes to anything related to science.

You can't help but make a complete fool of yourself, your book of myths and your mythical god.

Sorry, ignorant christian. Try again.

June 5, 2013 at 8:53 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Easy123 says "You misunderstand. Science assumes nothing to be true. Sufficient amounts of proof and evidence must be found before something is accepted as fact. A hypothesis is not equivalent to an assumption."

You need to be a little more rigorous in your definitions. Science is a hypothesis-based discipline. The purpose of hypothesis is to establish its veracity or the null-hypothesis. Having done so it builds a description of reality. A reality which Christian and Hebrew believers should find comforting since it can only describe what God has wrought.

You and conservative need to stop posting and chasing your tails. Why not take a breath to replenish your oxygen?

June 6, 2013 at 8:05 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

I just love this one, but it will drive the atheists and antichrists up a wall.

Science has only recently (less than a hundred years) discovered how to let people all over the earth to simultaneously see an event. Think about that.

Now, in the future during a horrible time for unbelievers called the tribulation, two of God's prophets will be killed and the lost world will rejoice. The whole story is in Revelation 11 but I will just focus on the science aspect, specifically technology.

Now, read carefully:

7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Now, as little as 70-80 years ago the world could not have seen this event. I don't know if atheists/antichrists were as organized as they are today but if they were they surely ridiculed the notion that the whole world would be capable of simultaneously view an event.

Who is laughing now?

June 6, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

inquiringmind,

"You need to be a little more rigorous in your definitions. Science is a hypothesis-based discipline."

You are incorrect. Science is not based on hypothesis. Science is based on proof or the lack thereof acquired during experimentation or through the scientific method. Hypothesis are simply the thesis statements of the scientific method. Nothing in science is based on hypotheses.

"The purpose of hypothesis is to establish its veracity or the null-hypothesis."

Yet, that is where the importance of the hypothesis and proof/evidence via experimentation take over.

"Having done so it builds a description of reality. A reality which Christian and Hebrew believers should find comforting since it can only describe what God has wrought."

The description of reality is only built when the hypothesis are proven or disproven. Science is about getting to the facts, not getting to the guesses.

"You and conservative need to stop posting and chasing your tails. Why not take a breath to replenish your oxygen?"

You need to delve deeper into the goal of science and what science actually is.

June 6, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"Who is laughing now?"

Several people that grasp the overwhelming level of ignorance your display have probably had a few guttural laughing sessions while reading any one of your posts.

June 6, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
joneses said...

Another attack by liberals on something that will get us energy independence. What is good for America is bad for the democrats.

June 6, 2013 at 10:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

Whatever joneses says is incoherent and steeped in ignorance.

Republicans/WingNuts are what is bad for America.

June 6, 2013 at 11:04 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.