Weather and Climate change

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 11:19 PM)Beaker Wrote: I dont hang my hat on Roy Spencer. And the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is long established. In any scientific topic, you can find credentialed scientists who do not agree with the majority. And if you really wanted educate yourself on the subject, you can find more than just the abstract on the study out there. There are plenty who have written summaries. I wanted to post a link to the actual study....not a magazine article.

Beak, just wondering. I know you have in the past waxed eloquent in defense of the theory of evolution.

Were you aware that Spencer has become a defender of "intelligent design"? 

In the following he makes a claim for "evidence-based faith," but the evaluation of evidence is rather poor--e.g., the way the Bible "agrees with itself."  If biblical authors were merely recording what they saw "without exaggeration," then he believes in miracles, like changing water to wine and the raising of the dead. He goes on to use God as kind of covering theory for planetary as well as biological evolution.  As argument, his arguments are not very good--e.g., something as complex as the universe must have a cause, but an infinitely more complex god does not? How does turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt "agree with the facts of science"? Or "the spitrit of God"?

Testing Truth with an Open Mind  http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

As I investigated religions other than Christianity, I became aware that many of them assume evolution to be true. The Bible was the only 'holy book' in which I could find a record of God's creating the material universe from nothing! Next, the work of many historians revealed to me that the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors. Furthermore, nothing in that two percent affects any of the major Bible teachings or events.

When I turned to the gospels I learned that the contemporary enemies of Jesus, who wanted to disprove His divinity, could not deny His many miracles, there being too many eye witnesses. Not being able to dispute the fact of His amazing deeds, they questioned the source: they asserted, feebly, that an evil superhuman power had performed the miracles, not the Spirit of God!

I was struck by the unity of the Bible's message – the way it agreed with itself even though it was written by 40 different authors over a period of

1,600 years. I realised that the gospel records were free of comment from the writers. They merely recorded what they saw without exaggerating the events, without covering up the faults and failings of the followers of Jesus and without trying to present the story in exactly the same way.
... My advice to you would be to seek out the truth for yourself. Unfortunately, much of what people believe is based less on evidence and more on unsubstantiated just-so stories. In relation to the basic claims of Christianity, do what I did! Read the Bible. Judge it for itself. Put it to the test. I am confident that you too will find the Bible not only to be in agreement with proven facts of science, but also to be the book which will lead you to a personal faith in God the creator of all things.