Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. What I do with the Bible is read it and try to understand it.Isn't that what you do with the Bible?
Why should I believe someone with an agenda when it comes to interpreting data?This is what we mean by ignoring the evidence.
Because it's someone's interpretation of the data, it's an opinion.
I don't know. I'm not the one searching for evidence.
No. I don't believe mankind is mostly responsible for Global Warming.
That's not what I said. You asked about a specific parable. I can guarantee you that every character in that, or any, parable are real people. And I can prove it. Fables are not parables, but the characters in Aesop's Fables represent real people.You think a parable requires the characters in the parable to be real people? When you read Aesop's Fables, do you really think animals were talking to one another?
No. What I do with the Bible is read it and try to understand it.
Why should I believe someone with an agenda when it comes to interpreting data?
Statistics are statistics. People get paid big money to interpret statistics. Usually, if they know who's asking the question, they know how to give them what they want.
That's not what I said. You asked about a specific parable. I can guarantee you that every character in that, or any, parable are real people. And I can prove it. Fables are not parables, but the characters in Aesop's Fables represent real people.
They are one, or several, or many's opinion/conclusion.How is it supposition?
When you have data that backs your claim, and you have an opinion which the data appears to support, because you want to come up with a certain result, it's a supposition.When you have evidence that backs your claim it isn't an opinion, nor is it a supposition.
No. Faith doesn't require evidence. Sometimes there is evidence, such as the Bible as evidence of a global flood, but not always.Shouldn't you have the evidence before you believe something is true?
It's not supported, in many people's mind. But once again, we're digressing from the question of the original post.We have the evidence that man is the primary driver of recent global warming, so it isn't and unsupported claim.
You mean like the predictions of the presidential campaign? Look, people, meteorologists, cannot accurately predict the weather with any real accuracy, why should we believe that they can predict the long-term effects of doing one action or another? I am not saying we shouldn't take care of the Earth, or any such thing, we're called to take care of the planet. That's a Christian idea.What you do is offer the Bible as the only proof that there was a global flood, and as the only reason to believe that there was one.
1. What agenda do the scientists have? They aren't being paid to find global warming. They are getting paid to find out what the climate is doing, and why. They are getting paid to find the truth.
2. Why don't you look at the data yourself?
3. If you are going to claim they are wrong, why don't you show that they are wrong? Why should I believe you?
Their methods and raw data are out there for everyone to check themselves.
Parables and Fables arent the same thing, either. I said the subjects of the parables are indeed real people. The characters in the fables represent people.Are they real people or do they represent real people? Those aren't the same thing.
You mean like the predictions of the presidential campaign? Look, people, meteorologists, cannot accurately predict the weather with any real accuracy, why should we believe that they can predict the long-term effects of doing one action or another?
Note that it says "Simulated"? That means it's not real.Because their models accurately predicted past climate. The models have already been tested and shown to be reliable.
Look at those graphs again:
The grey line is the model, and the red line is the actual temperature from historical data. Look at graph (c), and look at the x axis. Notice how the dates start in 1875? Notice how the grey line of the model matches the red line for temperature going clear back to 1875? That means the model works.
The part that is simulated is the model. The red line are the actual observed temps - that's the "real" part. The graphs show that the simulation that take into account bothe natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing match the real recorded data. So, the model is accurate.Note that it says "Simulated"? That means it's not real.
Proving my point. We don't deny the data, we do question the interpretation, or the thought that mankind is the major cause.The part that is simulated is the model. The red line are the actual observed temps - that's the "real" part. The graphs show that the simulation that take into account bothe natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing match the real recorded data. So, the model is accurate.
I hope this post wasn't an allusion to the 70s Ice Age myth.Well yeah, I can read that too and a lot of stuff on the internet, am not sure why I should accept that as a scientific consensus, which in itself is not even a scientific thought. All we are talking about here is a herd mentality and the support for it. When the wind shifts the herd will go in the opposite direction, as it has twice done in my lifetime already.
Again, the fact there are actual scientists, meteorologist who also agree like me that the trend though small is upward right now, but disagree on the role we have played, are playing or even that we should play in that. We should want better and cleaner processes because that is the right thing to do, which is a fundamental Christian principle. We don't need to imagine a significant human impact on temperature to drive us to do what is right. No one in the 60s-70s was arguing for starting more fires when the herd was moving the other way on this point.
The tallest above water mountain is primarily sedimentary rock - limestone I think. That was the only point, not that we have to imagine all mountains covered with water
it was alluding to what the herd was doing then applies to what the herd is doing now.I hope this post wasn't an allusion to the 70s Ice Age myth.
We have moved past the point of painting all those in disagreement as people that deny it is getting warmer. Same post the "Oh wow" was made to gives nod to the observation that glaciers have been and remain in retreat before there was an industrial revolution to supposedly "start" that.Oh wow. I can't believe someone with a college degree would cite Taylor's intellectual train wreck. Leaving aside for a moment the title of the piece is a lie, I would hope a college educated person would realize that surveys aren't peer reviewed.
The comment about sedimentary rock on Mount Everest was not a denial other types of rocks cannot be found there. Neither was the statement an insistence that any particular sedimentary rock anywhere, including the highest above water mountain, could be pointed to as the "missing" evidence science requires for a global flood that they could understand anyway, which even I agree rather effectively rules out a naturally occurring global flood very well. That such agreement with science says nothing about what a Supernatural event can or cannot do I would think even an educated atheist would have to agree.A significant section of Mount Everest is metamorphic rock. How did that form during the Flood?
Note that it says "Simulated"? That means it's not real.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?