|It's almost a triple rainbow! So intense! What can this mean?!|
That's right; from the folks who brought you the 6000-year-old planet, fig leaves, and Original Sin, the book of Genesis presents the indisputable reason that manmade global warming can not, will not destroy the planet.
'As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.' Shimkus read from the biblical book of Geneisis before a House Energy Subcommittee hearing in March of 2009,
'I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation.
'The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
Infallible word of God, is it? Then, Congressman Shimkus, could you please clarify the following quote you made before the same subcommittee?
'Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered.'
Whoa whoa. Back the truck up, John (can I call you 'John'?). The so-called (by yourself) infallible word of god-- hell even the same chapter of said infallible word-- says that the world is 6000 years old, and was created in seven days. And yet you yourself say "In the age of dinosaurs...". I'm confused. Maybe you can help me understand.
If you are acknowledging that there were dinosaurs, then perhaps you are insinuating that the biblical book of Genesis, while "infallible", clearly can not be literal. Am I right so far? After all, I know and (I hope) you know, the world (and the dinosaurs therein) existed millions of years longer than 6000 ago.
OK, stay with me here. If you know for a fact that this part of the bible can not be taken word-for-word literally, what makes you so sure that the whole Noah's Ark thing can?
Maybe you do believe that there were dinosaurs 6,000 years ago, but that they perished in Noah's flood. If this is true, then that would mean... no, you know what? I'm not even playing this game. Instead, I'm going to point out a few glaring phrases in your statement there. They include "I think", and "we were probably". You see, nothing's really exactly a lie, per se, if you put "I think" and "probably" in there. Then it suddenly makes a false statement an opinion, which can't be refuted because it's your opinion.
I paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynahan when I say, Congressman, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Now, this sort of thing might almost be laughable, if it were a local pastor making such claims. But this is an elected representative of the United States Congress; worse, one gunning for chair of the House Energy Committee, which plays a huge role in government policy regarding climate change.
Congressman Shimkus, f you want to bet your life and the life of your kids on what you believe to be true from an archaic holy text, that's your right. But to wager the existence of an entire planet on it? Unacceptably arrogant.