Sounds good.
I am a big fan as long as the claims are supported by weighing all the evidence.
I am all in when a hypothesis has been repeatably tested.
2 Likes
Hereās text from an earlier posting of mine on CO2:
" In 800,000 years we had 8 major glaciationsā¦ followed by deglaciation and dramatic increases in sea levelsā¦ all because the net effect of 3 Milankovich cycles pushed CO2 up and down every 100,000 yearsā¦ from 180 ppm up to 280 ppm and back down again.
Now the cycle is swamped out with CO2 at 400+ ppm and still rising."
Apparently the Earth was in the Milankovitch āsweet spotā because 180 ppm waa enough to cause mile high glaciers over NYC. Yet 280 ppm was enough to cause the glaciationsā¦ and virtually all glaciers ā¦ to vanish.
So this needs to be correlated as the cause of warming vs warming being the cause of co2 (more rises from the ocean with increase temp) which appeared to be the case in prior data I looked at.
I am convinced that humans are raising co2 levels what this causes I am not sure.
Again, I am all for being conservative here and continuing to reduce co2 emissions.
8 cycles of 180 ppm to 280 ppm back to 180 ppm.
Each time we hit the low part, we reached the highest temperatures, the highest sea levels and the least glaciers.
At 400 ppmā¦ with win a of carbon now in the air and oceansā¦ We will have to wait hundreds of years before we figure out how to fix that much co2 in an inert form again.
The one thing we know is that we could have stopped at 300 ppmā¦ and the Earth would have maxed out the same as if we cycled to just 280.
Essentiallyā¦ We are past the point of easy mitigationā¦ and past the point where the worldās poor can be protected against the worst effects.
1 Like
yes, please extend that requirement to your God hypothesis.
Fine, continue to provide all the evidence for your theistic claims also so that we can weigh all the evidence for and against.
1 Like
Well it may be the failure of your test that something can come from nothing 
The origin of the universe or space time
The origin of atoms
The origin of molecules
The origin of organic molecules
The origin of life
The origin of the eukaryotic cell
The origin of multicellular life
The origin of vertebrates
The origin of the flight feather
The origin of mammals
The origin of man
This is all best explained by a creator as each event required a deterministic change.
1 Like
Nope, all the above have been discovered and continue to be researched by science which is neutral on whether a creator exists. So far, no creator (nor God nor IDer) is necessary to explain the origin of all the above. But science will continue looking and researching and discovering new things everyday.
1 Like
I am claiming a creator is the best explanation for all these origin events and you have not made any argument for an alternative explanation. You failed to explain something from nothing and you are failing to explain any of these origins other then a ānature of the gapsā argument.
I really donāt care about your creator beliefs. They are irrelevant in a scientific discussion on origins. Science will fill in those gaps you mention in due time perhaps during your lifetime. Also I donāt feel the need to explain anything to you as you seems to be closed minded. But other than that, I wish you a nice day. 
1 Like
@colewd
You may have already heard of him, but all your questions about climate change, including about CO2 causing warming vs warming causing CO2 can be answered by Potholer54ās many excellent youtube videos.
e.g.
The basic physics of the Greenhouse Effect tells us that increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will necessarily trap more heat than would otherwise be trapped if that CO2 were not there. I agree that the actual impact in temperature is difficult to untangle, but there is really no argument that human activity is trapping more heat than would otherwise be trapped.
Itās both. The Milankovitch cycles warm the oceans and overall temperature. The warming oceans release stored CO2 and this causes more warming. CO2 amplifies the effects of other mechanisms that increase temperature.
The situation we have now is a bit different. CO2 is increasing independent of temperature which could raise temperatures above what we would see with natural cycles.
1 Like
Please keep climate change discourse to a separate thread for that topic if possible.
I have never understood what makes a Creator the best explanation. I can fully understand why someone who believes in God would think that a Creator was responsible for what we see, but if we start with no beliefs I donāt see how a Creator would be the best explanation.
3 Likes
It is the best explanation, but not the best scientific explanation.
1 Like
Good question. Every origin event I listed looks planned as It contains parts that have precision specifications which are matched together. In no way would I expect this from random events.
How could a living organism be built with atoms if atoms did not have the specificity to assemble into living organisms.
What is the best scientific explanation?
Will not discuss further due to Joshuaās request but we have common ground here 
Why wouldnāt you expect this from natural processes?
Are you also saying that you conclude God is involved if there isnāt a natural explanation?
1 Like
I think the only rational explanation for the predictability, precision and interdependency of nature is a creator. I think that nature being made up of common components (atoms) also supports this idea. I agree with Joshua that this is a philosophical conclusion and not a scientific one.
Once I concluded design was the best argument for the origin and evolution of life this conclusion has continued to build on itself.
Natural process cannot explain themselves. In addition information is hard to explain with natural processes.