Illustration of Man's CO2 Contribution

Feeling guilty about your carbon footprint? You understand percent, which could be called parts per hundred. You’re almost there to understanding parts per million, which is the way trace gases are described. You are in for a big surprise!

48 Responses to Illustration of Man's CO2 Contribution

  1. Bob November 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    This is a very good illustration of ppm and what an insignificant impact man has had on the atmospheric content of greenhouse gases. However, if a little context of the global warming issue was added, this video could be distributed to the general population who could then understand how foolish the claims from Al Gore and the Chicken Little crowd really are.

    Keep up the good work!

  2. paul wenum November 3, 2009 at 1:27 am #


  3. Neil F. AGWD November 3, 2009 at 7:27 am #

    Nice to see that there still remains some common sense out there.

  4. Uasked4it November 4, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    Notice credibility is not here! Do we really want to put our heads in the sand and let “progress” continue to destroy our existence? None of anything on this site makes sense and certainly is unqualified. Please all of you innocents out there you are being duped (lied to) by forces that have gotten really strong throughout the past 3 decades starting with the deregulation of our economy, happened during the Reagan/Cheney 2 terms, These were laws put into place during Roosevelt’s years that made us leaders in the world. Also remember there are “foreign” nationals that are sucking our economy for their own power and attempts to control the world–remember Germany?? remember WWI and WWII–they now control the EU and we are next!

    Oh I am sure there will be name calling and other slanderous things following this comment but please just once take a step back, loose the anger and really think about what has happened to our isolated and comfortable existence that we once knew–the world once bowed to us now there is just laughter and jokes.

    • confused November 6, 2009 at 8:36 am #

      Did you mean Bush/Cheney? You might want to calm down a little during your rant to get the facts correct!

    • GuardSGT December 9, 2009 at 5:21 pm #


      Your post was almost totally fact free. You asked for it!

      If you was to be able to see the truth, you would learn the following.

      CO2 is number 4 on the scale of stuff that helps to determine how warm or cool we are. It is rather weak. You create it everytime you exhale.
      Methane is number 3. It is a very small part of the atmosphere. You create it each time you fart.
      Water Vapor is the most powerful green house gas. It is number 2. You create it each time you exhale. You create more than CO2.
      The number 1 force is the SUN! Without the sun, we wouldn’t exist. Earth would be colder than Pluto! Right now the Sun is in a 100 year low for sunspots.
      Everytime this happens, the Earth cools. Go back and study the little ice age. That was a time of very low number of sunspots.

      Sea levels have been rising. This has been happening since the end of the last ice age. At the peak of the last ice age, sea levels were over 200 feet lower. So this is normal.

      Computers are not powerful enough nor are the programs detailed enough to model what it happening. Each data point is square miles big. These programs can NOT account for the effects of water vapor, CLOUDS! So in the end this is as computer people say, a GIGO event. That is Garbage In, Garbage OUT!

      You asked for it, here, you got it! Now learn it!


  5. Henry Thurp November 4, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    Wow. Thanks for showing us what one million looks like. Looks like carbon dioxide is a really small part of that. So with that logic, if I have, say 50 trillion cells in my body, and I have 750,000 (check my math but that should be the same as 15:1,000,000) cells that are cancerous, I have nothing to worry about – sweet! This woman is incredibly ignorant, as are the people who believe her experiment actually “proves” something, other than your gullibility. Methane has 25 times more global warming potential as does CO2 so using 2 grains of rice to show how insignificant man’s contribution is irrelevant. And “man’s” contribution is swamped by the contribution of man’s food, i.e. cows and agriculture…which is still part of man’s contribution. If 350 out of a million is insignificant, take your rice to Chernobyl and plant them there. Grow the rice and eat it, and you can give it to all the other people who ate up this great little web gem.

    • Dan McGrath November 5, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

      Your analogy is meaningless. CO2 isn’t cancer. It’s a natural part of the atmosphere, and it’s needed for life to exist on this planet. Try again. Try water – a natural component of your body. It’s more apt for your metaphor.

    • Nick November 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

      I didn’t know CO2 breaks down other molecules into harful gases which cause cancer.. Thanks for this eye opener!

  6. Calvin Sonntag November 5, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    Anthropogenic global warming (or better said the new ‘religion of Climatism’) is the ‘Flat Earth Society’ of the 21st Century. Whether is takes 2 years, 20 years or 100 years to comes to our collective sense, we will at some point conclude that the ‘global warming hysteria’ was one of the biggest hoaxes of all time.

  7. Josh Perendy November 5, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    Man’s greenhouse gas emissions may be very small to the rest of the atmosphere… but have anyone ever considered taking this into context? What if that little extra is ALL the atmosphere needs to heat up? Duh! Just because our contribution is small, doesn’t mean that tiny amount is whats pushing it over the edge. Wake up and stop being mindless following fools.

    • Dan McGrath November 5, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

      And what if adding a wee tiny bit of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause ice-breathing space dragons from the planet Goreulon to attack the earth and eat all the children? CO2 has been higher in the earth’s past. It’s been lower. It’s in constant flux. A volcano erupts, a forest fire, a drought these all change the composition of the atmospere far more than our megar efforts. The Earth is still here. Clearly it’s more resiliant than the Chicken Littles of the world believe or would have us believe. Why does everyone these days think the entire history of all creation began the day they were born? Don’t schools teach geology anymore?

      • Josh Perendy November 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

        Well I’d say the Earth can handle a few ice-breathing dragons from planet Goreulon far better than millions of square miles of landmass underwater wouldn’t you say? I don’t debate in the slightest that the Earth’s CO2 content hasn’t been higher or lower in the past, but don’t you think, just THINK, that we’re speeding this process up? Its logical if you think about it. There were far more plants and far fewer humans the last time the temperature fluctuated to an extreme. Humans = CO2, Methane, Water vapor, Nitrous Oxide, etc. We produce these gases yes? From our cars, from our manufacturing plants, from HUMAN started forest fires, and along with tons of other factors. And these gases are called “greenhouse gases” yes? The greenhouse effect, which traps heat inside the atmosphere. Well if you multiple the humans and decrease the amount of plants that regulate these gases what happens quicker than normal? Hmmm well, temperature increases. Its common sense. By the way, my geology teacher was a strong advocate of the negative effects of Global Warming. 🙂

        I feel the need to comment on Uasked4it comment because he is absolutely right. I’ve looked around on this website and have seen 2 people writing these articles on the main page, both of which have shown me no evidence of their scientific knowledge or of having ANY knowledge for that matter. There is absolutely NO credibility on this site and I pity those ignorant enough to believe these lies.

        • Dan McGrath November 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

          There were far more forest and brush fires before modern civilization. We have the ability to contain them now.

          CO2 was also much much higher in Earth’s geologic and Ice core records predating industrial civilization than it is today. How on earth could that have happened?

  8. paul wenum November 6, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    Josh, Are you a scientist in climatology? I doubt it. Yes, we, like you are amateurs but have a belief after our own research. I assume that you are always right? No credibility? Where’s yours?

  9. summer p November 6, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    It makes perfect sense. Thank you for your perspective– Maybe, it will help SOME ignoramuses change theirs.

  10. LoveMyLiberty November 6, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    I love this video comparing the 1million grains of rice to what humans contribute…AWESOME!!!

    What do you think about this type of experiment?

    I would like to get this information to Lord Monckton or someone else who can give the experiment a lot of media and scientific attention. I have a really awesome experiment about CO2 that he can do to prove to the population that global warming is a crock. This experiment would be watched maybe live and take place over maybe a few weeks to a few months. It should be in direct view of the media and the people at all times as to show no bias.

    Here it is…

    Take 3 sealed glass containers of which lush foliage will be grown and be in a very sunny location, like Florida or Texas.

    Container #1–Control Container–This sealed container would have untreated, fresh air pumped into the container. The foliage would be watered with an exact amount of water and have equal amounts of sun as the other 2 containers.

    Container #2–This sealed container would have large amounts of CO2 pumped into the container and would be watered with an exact amount as container 1 & 3 (but reducing the amount of water if necessary) and have equal amounts of sun as the other 2 containers.

    Container #3–This sealed container would have filtered air, removing the CO2, and have equal amounts of water and sun as container #1.

    What this should prove is that Container #2 will be the most lush, healthy container as CO2 is food for the foliage and will consume less water. Container #1 will be average and Container #3 will have the least amount of foliage and look sick.

    I’m not s scientist but is there something that could improve the experiment?


    • Dan McGrath November 6, 2009 at 11:58 am #

      The plants in container #3 would die.

      This experiment has been done before. It’s a good one. The results are as you expect.

      • LoveMyLiberty November 7, 2009 at 1:18 am #

        Exactly my point, it would prove that CO2 is not toxic but is necessary to support plant life on earth and without plant life, we would die from lack of oxygen.

  11. Rob N. Hood November 6, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    Gee Paul, dismissive and rude as usual. To the sane ones who posted above, glad to hear from you. You know who you are. Most of the people on this site are right-wing (and extreme) and have all the answers, most of them wrong of course. But they like it that way! I say this because I’ve been trying to pry even small cracks in their religious-like devotion to their ideals, and even tried to find some middle ground, which I was finally only able to do re: the too big to fail B.S. (we agreed they all should have been left to fail), THAT is a big deal to me. But I have failed in all other aspects. But please keep trying, and I like your politeness. These people are thin-skinned, they like to dish it out, but…

    And re: the post above: she did mean what she posted i.e. the Reagan/Cheney eras. We all know who was really running the country, and it wasn’t Dubya.

  12. Dan Wright November 6, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    A lady gains temporary access to a science classroom to stage a video. Shaking with pent-up emotion, she shows 385 rice grains in comparison to a million, as an analogy to the 385 ppm of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere. She also shows 15 rice grains to represent human-produced CO2 and 1.8 ppm for methane. Then the video is over, that’s all she wanted to show.

    What she thinks she’s saying:

    She thinks she’s saying the percentage of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) is so small that scientists must be mistaken to believe it has a substantial effect. She also thinks she’s putting man’s contribution into perspective.

    What she actually reveals:

    She reveals that fundamental chemistry is beyond her understanding, and that she distrusts the consensus of the world scientific community. She reveals that she has managed to work herself into an emotional state, probably by repeatedly dwelling on the notion that world government will change and her money and freedom will be taken away for no good reason.

    385 ppm is small, but that’s the point where our greenhouse is currently balanced. Tiny amounts of CO2 are providing our current heat retention. This shows how powerful CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses are: small amounts can trap a lot of heat. We should be cautious about disturbing it, since the balance rests on such small amounts.

    CO2 percentages have varied a lot in geologic history but the earth is still here. The earth went though major climate changes in geologic history but it’s still here. Major climate changes are common. This time they might happen right in the middle of human civilization. Earth would still “be here” afterwards. And so would we, probably. In one form or another. The only thing is, it might get really bad for a few thousand years.

    How can we tell methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2? Three jars, one with our current atmosphere, one with some extra CO2, and one with some extra methane. All three jars exposed to the same amount of sun. The CO2 one retains more heat and the methane one retains lots more heat. The differences can be measured exactly. The experiment can be performed by Italian scientists and Brazilian scientists with the same results. They publish it in journals and other scientists criticize it and say “you didn’t measure the heat right” and the experiments are refined until nobody can find further fault with them. Then we know exactly how much heat CO2 traps and how much worse methane is and we got measurable numbers. Speculation and nervous emotion is not part of it.

    • Dan McGrath November 9, 2009 at 11:52 am #

      But CO2 doesn’t trap a lot of heat. It’s the weakest greenhouse gas. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor. Perhaps we should cap and tax H2O, instead.

  13. paul wenum November 7, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    Whatever. No comment to a non-rational person that does not look at both sides with an unbiased eye without chastising them as bible thumping “Repubs” as you call anyone that does not agree. Sounds like Alinky is alive and doing well. Must take better notes on how to stir that pot. Maybe “Repubs” should use his methods? I think not! You’d make a good “witch Hunter” Robby Boy. You have certainly been trained well I must say.

  14. Rob N. Hood November 9, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Wow, Dan Wright is a formidable advisary! (Finally, as I have only been a minor irritant). And guess who wins the head to Dan to Dan posting? Well, Dan W. of course. Dan M. simply ignores the methane aspect and goes back to the old tired speech about CO2, blah blah blah.

    I hope we hear more from Dan W.

  15. mahout November 9, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    The real problem of so-called global warming is the lack of accurate data, and even forged data. There is inadequate statistical data on the temperature range experienced by earth in the last 100,000 years so drawing a meaningful 3 sigma range is impossible. Those who seek to use short-term trends are completely erroneous.
    Their use is soley to obtain grant money for their salaries and existence. i’ve so many fights with Sierra Club types dependent on grant money for their career that they curse me outright if I show up. But every one of them folds up when they have to exhibit the raw data before they ‘manage’ it.
    Its not that we don’t need to conserve and be efficient; we do. But the lengths they go to persuade the planet is a failure to make it happen.
    The current ‘cap & trade’ bill is a cover to tax us on behalf of saving the planet, Calculate your carbon footprint and compare it to the average; what happens if you pay a $10 per Btu over the average? What happens if you fail a house thermal radiation test run from the street by bureaucrats and have to pay a $10 per ‘excess’ Btu tax. (bet Gore’s place would reap a bundle)
    What happens if we don’t drill for more crude in our ‘yard’ and we go empty-handed to crude price negotiationsAnd health care bills that lay an average of $1667/month per wage-earner making over $12/hr, considered the minimum wage that can contribute to universal health care BEFORE health care is free. Yeah, I know it’ll be graduated from 50 per month per wage-earner to 30% of gross for over *0k wages, but that’ll cost a lot of people their cell phones.
    Watch ‘townhall counting not shouting’ on you tube.
    Increase non-taxable assets and mninimize income til the Bama Bunnies are driven out. (I apologize to loyal Alabamans)

  16. May Lee November 10, 2009 at 3:02 am #

    It takes a woman to puncture the ignorance inflated myth of AGW with a little truth. I am proud of you.
    Thank you for this demonstration to show the proportionality of 385 ppm.
    In the same way one could demonstrate that 385 ml ( 15 ml = man made) of superheated CO2 cannot heat up 1000000 ml
    (1 metric ton) of icy ocean water sufficiently to affect the weather!
    The immutable Laws of physics determines that this is physically impossible and meaningless.
    However if that ton of ocean water was heated up just a little in the sun – voila! – CO2 escapes! ( like a soda left in the sun)
    More CO2 dissolves in cold water than warm water – any child can observe that with great glee!

  17. Rob N. Hood November 10, 2009 at 10:53 am #

    All this talk about CO2. What about the other greenhouse gases?? Why are they ignored all the time by you eggheads?

  18. Thomas, USA November 10, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    And how is giving someone all our money going to do anything but finance more for everything except living…..We give most of the American tax payer monies away to charity (almost 50% welfare state) and we, of course, have to send money to other countries for some reason. All of the money sent to combat hunger, and still sending, for the last 50 years for nothing but more hunger. When will anyone who does not pay taxes get it. Hoax after hoax, never let a good crisis go to waste. No crisis, then make one. This is what is happening and the world, minus a few elites, will starve to death……

  19. IBSharp November 10, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    a few years ago Jay Leno put all this B.S. of global warming in proper perspective. i’ll take alittle liberty and paraphrase his response. jay said “before we had cars, there were thousands of horses, etc to act as taxis or tranportation in each big city in the U.S. besides the co2s made by these animals of which they had a major problem of uncleanlyness and diasese and you would like to go back to that kind of living”. i have actually talked to much older people about the smog condition of 50-70 years ago and they all say the air is much cleaner now than then. the vast majority of the households, colleges, bussiness, schools etc., use to have coal as their sorce for heat leaving the winters in a virtual yellow haze for many months! we are much better stewards of the air today than in previous generations, but the LEFT wants to demonize americans for being too big of users of fossil fuels! what hypocracy!!!!! once the liberal leaders start living in tepees and walk to work, i might start to have alittle respect for them.

  20. Rob N. Hood November 10, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    Yes the air is cleaner now

  21. Rob N. Hood November 10, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Yes the air is cleaner now DUE TO POLLUTION REGULATIONS WHICH NOBODY EVEN NOTICES NOW THAT IS HOW ONEROUS IT IS. Except, gee, everyone likes clean air and water don’t they???

    And Mr. USA or should I say Mr. Patriot? The majority of your and my taxes goes to the MILITARY IDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. And gosh, ya know, I think you’re going to appreciate that CHARITY they call Social Security, when you get older and which is keeping your parents and/or grandparent ALIVE RIGHT NOW!

    Some of you people are unbelievable! Narrow-minded selfish two year olds. Grow up!

  22. IBSharp November 10, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    rob n hood: if you were ever taught history in school, you should know that the vast reason our government was formed, was to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic enemies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i.e. we have always needed a strong military presence!!!!!!!!!! they never intended for this coutry to go down the road of socialism!!!!!!!!!!!! they promoted personal freedom, personal accoutability and take responsibilty for your own screw ups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we should always have a overwheming military presence because of the ROT of other countries!!!!!!!!!! rome fell because they didnt!!!!!!!!!! i highly doubt that S.S. will be viable when i retire even though i have been putting in for near 30 years!!!!!!!!! i would rather people have their own retirement and not rely on the GOVT. TEET!!!!! you really have very little in common with the FOUNDERS and that makes you UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!! maybe you would rather a HAMMER AND CYCLE be on the flag instead of the stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe you should GROW UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. Bob Builder November 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    So what you’re saying is if I were to burp 5 or 6 times a day the Earth will likely be alright, but if I were to burp and fart simultaneously throughout the day I’d be polluting the atmosphere and causing global warming?

    1. What if my burps and farts were made a lot shorter.. as in a few belches after each meal and maybe a strict limit of 3 farts per day.
    2. If I were to fart into a plastic bag everyday and just keep resealing the bag after every use, will this help with global warming?
    3. Does certain foods I eat affect global warming? For instance, if I were to eat a lot more salad vs a large bowl of beans and meat would the climate change?
    4. Farting while driving a car or truck should be outlawed and violators should be tried with war crimes.

  24. paul wenum November 11, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    Rob, You have some that disagree.

  25. Paul Wenum November 11, 2009 at 9:20 pm #

    Bob Builder, I love it!! You made my day. I was imagining Deer hunting in late November and in my dreams I saw all the deer wearing Depends! Now that’s scary, however, the way it is going there will be a law passed. It seems to be getting that absurd!

  26. steve the mathman November 12, 2009 at 6:19 pm #

    I would suggest a good read for “believers” and “non-believers” is State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. A thoroughly entertaining book chocked full of facts. Yes, facts about climate records. The facts are from actual researchers and scientists and are all meticulously footnoted throughout the book. Like the temperature of Antarctica has steadily dropped since 1880. And the Antarctic continent holds 90% of all ice on earth. That is only 10% for ALL THE OTHER ICE IN THE WORLD! And ice in Antarctica is increasing by 2.68 gigatons per year. This is called pure science. It is called just putting out the data. It is called a fact.
    Read the book. Look up the references. If you are not going to at least read some facts then shut up. Saying something over and over does not make it so. Voting on it does not make it science. Global warming is the biggest political power grab in history. Look up the Harvard study on the middle ages. They were warmer than now. Oh, right – that time it was “different.”

  27. Paul Wenum November 13, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    Thank you, “Steve The Mathman,” I agree. I assume that the “Amuser” will be blasting your post as another “Denier” he calls us. Never changes. Read the facts as you state and then vote accordingly.

  28. Rob N. Hood November 15, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    Gee, then why are the ocean levels rising? Beaches eroding in Hawaii, etc. M. Chrichton’s book is for entertainment, as you say, and he obviously cherry-picked his “facts.” How are “they” going to hide the fact forever… either way, warming or cooling? We peons will become aware, sooner than later. It’s hard to swallow- this conspriacy of yours.

  29. Paul Wenum November 15, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    Beaches in Hawaii are eroding due to us, not “Global Warming” Development of new Hotels/causways changing natural water streams are the primary cause. How do I know? I’m there every year. Don’t lecture us on what you do not know. The water level in my area has not changed since I have been going since 1977! Everytime I pick up the paper or magazine anything that happens in the world always ends by saying its caused by “climate change” Usually New York Times or AP. Is there an agenda in the media??

  30. The NetProphet November 15, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    Criminy, what all the global warming pacifists are trying to cause, is telling you what you can drive, where you can drive, when you can drive, where you can go, where you can live, what you can live in, when you can live in said place, how you can live, ad nauseum. Sure would be nice if some of you would simply realize that just ONE volcanic eruption in ten years (give or take perhaps a few hundred years), puts out SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 than the entire history of mankind. Plus the fact that there is this star that is as big as what? A hundred thousand earths (or was it a hundred million?), whatever, doesn’t really matter, the point is, it is a star! It puts out so much more energy in one year (or less) that controls the climate on earth than all the events on earth past, present, and future, EVER will!

    Finally, for all of you naysaying evolutionary atheist idiots, if the earth is only six thousand years old or so, for any that should know the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then how are any of you global warming pacifists claiming to have data that is millions of years old-or extrapolated that far back? And further, if God made everything, don’t you think He can control it too? The only thing He expects, is that we respect the environment and utilize some common sense in being good stewards, not this Bullsh*& New World Order agenda to further control us.

    • Dan McGrath November 16, 2009 at 11:37 am #

      Where does this notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old come from? I’ve heard it a number of times, but I don’t recall seeing a creation date in Genesis.

  31. Dudeman November 16, 2009 at 1:40 am #

    have you felt the weather lately???? IT’S FREAKING COLD!!!!! and a very mild summer I might add! screw your global warming BS! If it is true, then I don’t mind looking at hotties in bikinis in mid january in the midwest. I say BRING IT ON!

  32. Paul Wenum November 16, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    Always wanted a palm tree in my yard! I golfed in Blaine, MN last year and there was a house on one fairway with actual palm trees. He must have won the lotto? Just kidding, about the lotto that is, The palm trees are changed every year. Climate changes daily be it you or I or a volcano.

  33. IBSharp November 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    dan mcgrath: if the Bible is held as 100% accurate(of which i belive), then you can go to scripture (genesis 5) and find that Adam was 130 years old and begat seth, and then Seth was 105 years old and begat enosh and so on, and so on. alot of people dispute the ages, but one thing you have to keep in mind is that God created the earth “and said it was good” and in that statement man was originally made to live a longer life span! 1 chapter later when the evil of mankind was so great, that God made it so mans life span was drastically shorter(the global flood). if all the ages from genesis3, genesis11 and other passages are added up, you come up with 6000 or so years to the present time.

  34. Dan McGrath November 19, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    The Earth was void and without form. This implies that the Earth existed in some state before God “finished” the Earth we now recognize. For how long? The scientific evidence would suggest millions of years. There is no indication of how much time passed between “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth,” and “Let there be light.” Who knows how long the earth was in a state of “darkness over the surface of the deep.”

  35. IBSharp November 19, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    imagine a bare canvas that had yet to be painted. you cant call it a painting, and so the canvas has no real special value or meaning till it is painted. the earth in the same way was “null and void” and it took the “fiat” power of God to give the earth purpose. there was no such thing as time since God in real essence is outside and not affected by time. so the true point of origin of the earth is when God breathed life into the earth, whether it be the seas, birds, plant life,mankind,stars etc. time for man began at creation, whereas God is eternal and outside of time.

  36. paul wenum November 19, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    As my Friends around the “Fire pit” always ask me,”Mr. Wenum, if God is the Creator, then who created God.??” I have yet to answer that question until I finally meet my Maker. Until then, I will never know. Interesting…..As to IBSharp, I’m familiar with canvas being an old art major. Like is a canvas, and by the way, the canvas always changes and is never, in the eye of the artist, finished. Enough pontificating from the ole Scot. Get back to the subject at hand!

  37. IBSharp November 20, 2009 at 12:44 am #

    God himself anwers the question as to His origin. He has infinitly existed (cant place a time or date on His origin Psalm 90;2)and we cant unscrew the unscrewtable, but take it on faith since we are finite. the only commonality is that all of mankind has an eternal soul and a future glorified or corruptible body. now where we will reside in a eventual eternal existance will depend on peoples faith! sorry to say from a Biblical perspective is that only a relatively few are saved(matthew 7 :13-14 many vs. few Jesus own words) there is a heaven and a hell and no in between. the Word is here, there and everywhere and how people respond determines the outcome. no one will just slip into heaven because God knows all peolpes hearts(if GOD doesnt know all he ceases to be god). if you want to listen to a good ole scot whos got it right, listen to pastor John MacArthur who has poured himself into a lifetime of obedience to the Word and rightly understands it. tremendous wisdom through decades of intense submersion in biblical college studies, mentors, and the godly walk of life. hes very black and white and that doesnt make him popular in todays socalled christian circles.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.