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.
Why should I believe someone with an agenda when it comes to interpreting data?
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.
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.
No. Faith doesn't require evidence. Sometimes there is evidence, such as the Bible as evidence of a global flood, but not always.
It's not supported, in many people's mind. But once again, we're digressing from the question of the original post.
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.
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.
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.
Proving my point. We don't deny the data, we do question the interpretation, or the thought that mankind is the major cause.
I hope this post wasn't an allusion to the 70s Ice Age myth.
it was alluding to what the herd was doing then applies to what the herd is doing now.
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.
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.
