On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:36:36 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 12:02:17 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Until then, perhaps you can point out the parts of the Bible which has
errors and which parts you find trustworthy. If no part of the Bible is
trustworthy, then why do you quote from it so extensively?

You are conflating "errors" with "totally corrupt" again. Most of the
Bible is correct, but there ARE errors. Rather than throwing out the baby
with the bathwater, there are ways to find out the truth.

I know. The way to find the truth is science. We have no better way than
that.

Nope. We've already discussed that science is incapable of discerning
truth where phenomena cannot be controlled.

There are two ways. The first is by inspiration from God:

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
-- 2 Timothy 3:16

A circular "proof". I already know the Bible says that the Bible is
correct. WHat else could you expect?

What else could a closed mind say?

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -- 1 Peter 1:20-21

Another circular "proof". I already know the Bible says that the Bible is
correct. WHat else could you expect?

You are being dishonest. It's not really circular at all. It is saying
that a mortal has no right to interpret scripture by himself.

So one my know the truth by the Holy Ghost. You might ask why do we need
scripture if we could get the truth from the H.G? Because it isn't easy.
You can read a scripture and ask and get a yea or nay easier than you
can receive a whole passage.

The second way is to ask a prophet:

WHICH profet?

Mohammed, who created Islam?

Joseph Smith, who created Mormonism?

Both claimed that an angel explained "the truth" to them...

MANY people have claimed that they have seen and spoken to angels. THAT
alone does not give them the right to start a religion.

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his
servants the prophets.+ -- Amos 3:7

Yet another circular "proof". I already know the Bible says that the
Bible is correct. WHat else could you expect?

You have blinded your mind with this baloney. That scripture (and many
others) isn't telling you to believe the Bible: It's telling you to pay
attention to prophets.

Aren't you also going to say something like "You heard the voice of
corrupt round earth advocates and you follow them like a sheep" ???

When we were children, all of us followed our teachers like sheep,

I did that to my parents perhaps, for what else can an infant do? But
when I started school, I first objected strongly.

And parents usually teach their kids useful things. Those parents who
don't will run a much larger risk that their children die of some
accident because they weren't handled correctly. In the long run, such
parents will get extinct due to natural selection.

If your parents didn't have any children, the chances are that you won't
either :-)

But I see your point. Your list of "churches which teach the full truth"
would be an empty list.

Nope. You are jumpimg to a biased conclusion again. That's not thinking
critically.

So wher is that list?

Of course, since religions aren't in ageement with each other, there can only
be either one or none in that list.

"I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the
sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that
all were wrong)—and which I should join." __ Joseph Smith

So your claim that an angel "explained the truth" to Joseph Smith is
egregiously incomplete and misleading. He claimed the Father and the Son
visited him. When he asked which church he should join, he was told none
of them. And he didn't run off and start a religion after having an
experience MUCH more profound that Mohammed.

.....

Another quote from an untrustworthy source...

How do you know that? Certainly not from critical thinking.

By information from you, who admitted that there are errors in the Bible.
And since there are errors there, it's not an untrustworthy source.

And since there are errors in the climate models used by the IPCC, they
are untrustworthy sources. If you maintain one is trustworthy but the
other is not, you are a hypocrite.

However, even then you are biased, since you think there are errors in my
Bible quotes, but not in yor Bible quotes.

What evidence do you have that YOUR quotes are correct? None at all.
You're just playing word games. I explained how you can tell.

If you think I am corrupt, why do you even talk to me? Wouldn't it be
better for you to spend your time talking to someone you think is free
from corruption?

Do you know anyone like that? :-)

You see? Not even Jesus is free from corruption....

I was asking YOU. I don't know for sure any mortals that are, but I know
MANY who are much closer than you or I.

Why do you think it's tricky to enter data which is easy to find?

Modtran doesn't have an explanation for how much water vapor (i.e.,
gm/cm3) its standard of 1.0 refers to. I used a table of vapor pressures
to calculate the ratio for beginning and final temperatures and put that
ration into modtran for water vapor. The tricky part is not doing that,
but realizing that is the way to do it.

That's one major weakness of Modtran, or at least on how you use it.
The amount of water vapor is not a constant.

Umm, THAT'S why it can be changed in the program, of course :-))

It is not even in a constant ratio relative to the saturation pressure
of water vapor. The amount of water vapor in our atmosphere is highly
variable, and can be anything between 0 percent and about 4 percent.

That's why the IPCC models just throw in the towel and ASSUME that that
the effect of CO2 is multiplied by a fixed constant.

Does Modtran match well with the very low humidity over the Sahara
desert?

Do the IPCC models? Of course not. "Sauce for the goose is sauve for the
gander."

But of course! That's the very purpose of science, to verify our
observations and build models upon these verified data. If you
don't like that method you should turn to e.g. religion instead,
there they are vastly more sloppy with the verification of data.

Most "religious" thinking is rather sloppy, but there is more to life than
what can be measured scientifically.

Of course. But when we can measure, we know more if we measure than if we
don't.

And MacDougall made measurements, so we know more than we did before.

That's a limitation of science,

It's a strength of science. After all, it is useful to distinguish what
we actually know from what we merely believe. And you cannot blame
science itself for not having data about something you'd like to know
more about. Abandoning the scientific method will not give you any more
knowledge about it.

I'm not "abandoning" the scientific method. It has it's place, but life
is more than the scientific method.

"Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
"Did you love your father?
"Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
"Palmer Joss: Prove it.

That's something different.

Palmer Joss asks Ellis Arroway to prove his feelings for his father. But
Palmer Joss does not question that the father did exist.

Right, but point is that there are important things, like love, memories,
and, yes, even experiences that lie outside of science. And some actual
evidence, even though it was captured by a fighter jet's targeting computer,
isn't "scientific" because it cannot be controlled "scientifically."

I'm not questioning your religious faith. You could lie about your faith
of course, but I see no reason why you should lie about that, so I
believe you. After all, there are a large number of religious people, so
there's nothing remarkable about that.

So what I'm questioning is not your feelings, but the existence of the
object of your feelings.

If you require "scientific evidence" for that object, you're outta luck!

And I don't think you'll find any scientific study that concludes that
god does not exist, or the human soul/spirit/whatever does not exist.
THose questions are simply outside the scope of science.

Yes, they are, now.

Since when?

I was referring to the future, not the past.

"I believe God himself will someday debate with and answer every objection
arrogant men can come up with against him" -- Criss Jami

Try the Monte Carlo method: assume there is some unknown mecahnism
which causes global warming....

Yes - hypothetical, unexplained, and very unlikely possibilities...

Really? Water vapor is known to be THE major greenhouse gas and water
vapor in the atmosphere increases with temperature. ANYTHING that
increases temperature has a feedback effect. CO2 is not enough so
other causes of temperature rise must be investigated.

It is very plausible that H2O provides a positive feedback loop,
amplifying the heating due to increased CO2. Also, when the air gets
warmer, more water evaporates from the oceans, causing even more water
vapor in the atmosphere.

However, humans are burning fossil coal at a large scale. If we instead
had burnt hydrogen at a large scale, there would have been large amounts
of human produced water vapor in the atmosphere. But we don't burn
hydrogen at a large scale, we burn coal at a large scale. Therefore the
major human contribution is CO2, not H2O.

Two hundred years to double the CO2 level and produce a 1.1 degree rise
in global temperatures. Something else is happening and we'd better find
out what it is before our great great great grandchildren burn up.

Coal use has dropped significantly in the U.S. and probably will all over
the world in the coming decades.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glo...emissions-data

Electricity and heat production account for 1/4 of the GHG emissions,
industry almost as much and agriculture, forestry and land use an equal
amount. Transportation is only 1/9. So how do we cut the CO2 production
in half without cutting our throats, too?

And half isn't good enough. That still puts an additional 1 ppm/year
into the atmosphere (assuming the same ratio going into other sinks
as now). It'll just take twice as long for the burn to happen.