Creationism and Climate Change

[Hossfly]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

Serious question: According to evolutionists, what started it all? What do they think was the beginning that everything evolved from? There had to be matter in some form in order to have something evolve. So, where did that original matter come from?

There was a long thread about the big bang last month. As far as I know it was because everybody farted at the same time. Nothing was solved.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Serious question: According to evolutionists, what started it all? What do they think was the beginning that everything evolved from? There had to be matter in some form in order to have something evolve. So, where did that original matter come from?

How can we consider this to be a serious question? Anyone who payed attention in school knows what the theory entails. If there's a question in your mind about it, that's not the fault of liberals, it's yours for not applying yourself in school. As my H.S. biology teacher said, "you don't have to believe the theory, but you do have to learn the principles involved". Good advice since, even if you totally discount evolution, it helps to know the ins and outs of the theory, if you're trying to debunk it. That's why so many creationists do so badly in debates, they employ off-the-wall reasoning having nothing to do with the real tenets of the theory. To answer your final question, where matter came from is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That matter existed is a given. Whether it came about by the action of God or some other unknown agency is neither here nor there as far as the theory is concerned. If you say all matter came from God, then evolution was the way He created life. No problem.

But those that believe in evolution rarely believe that there is a GOD the creator. Most believe that everything evolved, but from what? And, if they don't believe in a creator, what's their explanation for the beginning? I believe that it is a serious question to ask. Especially since so many are quick to discount creation by a creator. Yes, I did go to school. Yes, I did pay attention. But, theory doesn't explain, nor answer the question. There are theories about many things. But, theory alone doesn't provide all of the answers. There has to be a basis from which to form theory. If it weren't so, then anyone could pull a basis off the wall and form a theory about anything. There has to be something from which theory is based.

 

[Flopper]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

While 62% of Americans believe global warming is real, only 44% of Christians share that believe. Most Christians are conservatives and buy into the hate Big Government scenario and efforts to stop global warming certain require a lot of support by big government.

It's not just political but it's religious ideology that's involved. Christian teaching hold that the earth was created by God for the use of mankind. The very idea of making use of what God has provided will result in the destruction of the Earth by man, not God is just contrary to Christian beliefs. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, "God's still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous."

The debate on Evolution which has raged for over a century has been responsible for Christians concluding incorrectly, that all scientists are just a bunch atheists. Deniers of global warming have been quick to use this distrust of scientists to their advantage. The reasons for so many Christians rejecting global warming is easily understood.

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real Mother Jones

 

[Sonny Clark]

And, they forget quickly that the Earth is in constant change, and has been since the beginning. The Earth has gone through many periods of change, and will forever change. The Earth is not stable, nor will it ever be. And, if there is such a thing as "global warming", it's just more change following suit, no biggie. Besides, who knows, we might be frozen over 10,000 years from now. Did you read recently about the depth of the ice on both poles getting thicker and deeper?

That's totally untrue. No one that believes in AGW forgets that conditions have changed over time. What the deniers forget is that they're talking about changes that happened over tens of to hundreds of thousands of years. AGW theory is basically the study of what's been happening over the last 200 years, e.g. since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

And, likewise, the other side has as much data to show a different opinion. Both sides are presently in debate, and neither side has slammed the door on the other.

 

[konradv]

But those that believe in evolution rarely believe that there is a GOD the creator. Most believe that everything evolved, but from what? And, if they don't believe in a creator, what's their explanation for the beginning? I believe that it is a serious question to ask. Especially since so many are quick to discount creation by a creator. Yes, I did go to school. Yes, I did pay attention. But, theory doesn't explain, nor answer the question. There are theories about many things. But, theory alone doesn't provide all of the answers. There has to be a basis from which to form theory. If it weren't so, then anyone could pull a basis off the wall and form a theory about anything. There has to be something from which theory is based.

Rarely? Do you realize that most Christian churches have no problem with evolution. That being said what a person may believe, pro or con, about God has nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution occurred. If you look at the fossil record, you see species emerging, from the distant past to the present. How can that be true, if there was creation as in Genesis? Wouldn't that indicate that there were multiple creations or at the very least Genesis gets the order all messed up. IMO, the Bible needs to be looked at as a moral work, NOT a scientific text.

 

[konradv]

And, they forget quickly that the Earth is in constant change, and has been since the beginning. The Earth has gone through many periods of change, and will forever change. The Earth is not stable, nor will it ever be. And, if there is such a thing as "global warming", it's just more change following suit, no biggie. Besides, who knows, we might be frozen over 10,000 years from now. Did you read recently about the depth of the ice on both poles getting thicker and deeper?

That's totally untrue. No one that believes in AGW forgets that conditions have changed over time. What the deniers forget is that they're talking about changes that happened over tens of to hundreds of thousands of years. AGW theory is basically the study of what's been happening over the last 200 years, e.g. since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

And, likewise, the other side has as much data to show a different opinion. Both sides are presently in debate, and neither side has slammed the door on the other.

You slammed the door by declaring that AGW theorists forget simple things like past changes on earth. There's no equivalence here. We know that CO2 absorbs energy. We know its concentration been going up for ~200 hundred years. Given those two facts, what happens to the energy all that extra CO2 absorbs, if not to heat the earth? If anyone forgets anything, it's the deniers forgetting that they DO have to account for the Law of Conservation of Energy, if they're to be given any credence at all.

 

[Hossfly]

Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution. There seems to be a very close correlation between these people and folks who deny the facts of climate change. Since they reject the undeniable scientific fundamentals of evolution how can anyone take them seriously on any issue concerning science? Why would their opinions matter?

In U.S. 42 Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

While 62% of Americans believe global warming is real, only 44% of Christians share that believe. Most Christians are conservatives and buy into the hate Big Government scenario and efforts to stop global warming certain require a lot of support by big government.

It's not just political but it's religious ideology that's involved. Christian teaching hold that the earth was created by God for the use of mankind. The very idea of making use of what God has provided will result in the destruction of the Earth by man, not God is just contrary to Christian beliefs. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, "God's still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous."

The debate on Evolution which has raged for over a century has been responsible for Christians concluding incorrectly, that all scientists are just a bunch atheists. Deniers of global warming have been quick to use this distrust of scientists to their advantage. The reasons for so many Christians rejecting global warming is easily understood.

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real Mother Jones

Global warming is real. Global cooling is real. After all when Al Gore goes bugfuck about global warming and becomes a billionaire, you know it's real.

 

[cnm]

Good luck trying to link AGW to real and actual science..

The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. Scientific consensus is how science works, it defines what a group of peers agree is the best available knowledge in any area of nature.

Apart from which, the theory of greenhouse gases predicted rising temperatures, rising temperatures were observed. What is more scientific than that?

 

[cnm]

Serious question: According to evolutionists, what started it all? What do they think was the beginning that everything evolved from? There had to be matter in some form in order to have something evolve. So, where did that original matter come from?

No one knows. So what? Evolution deals with best present knowledge.

 

[Sonny Clark]

But those that believe in evolution rarely believe that there is a GOD the creator. Most believe that everything evolved, but from what? And, if they don't believe in a creator, what's their explanation for the beginning? I believe that it is a serious question to ask. Especially since so many are quick to discount creation by a creator. Yes, I did go to school. Yes, I did pay attention. But, theory doesn't explain, nor answer the question. There are theories about many things. But, theory alone doesn't provide all of the answers. There has to be a basis from which to form theory. If it weren't so, then anyone could pull a basis off the wall and form a theory about anything. There has to be something from which theory is based.

Rarely? Do you realize that most Christian churches have no problem with evolution. That being said what a person may believe, pro or con, about God has nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution occurred. If you look at the fossil record, you see species emerging, from the distant past to the present. How can that be true, if there was creation as in Genesis? Wouldn't that indicate that there were multiple creations or at the very least Genesis gets the order all messed up. IMO, the Bible needs to be looked at as a moral work, NOT a scientific text.

OK. YES. I see what you mean now. I totally agree. Obviously, we were talking about two different things here. Yes, you are absolutely correct. Animals evolved from previous forms, and adapted to environmental changes. Plants evolved and adapted to environmental changes. Man evolved in order to adapt to change. Everything, almost, has adapted to change, and most have changed form.

But, I was speaking about evolutionists that believe that even the earliest particle, the smallest tiniest matter, suddenly appeared from nothing, and evolved into everything in existence. The ones I am speaking of, do not believe in creation, nor a creator, period. They believe that it all just happened from nothing. We were obviously talking about two different sides of evolution. My bad. I see where you're coming from now.

 

[cnm]

Let's not forget, this is the same branch of science which, just a few decades ago, was in "consensus" that the planet was in imminent peril of an impending glacial period. The planet was supposed to be a snowball by now.

Bullshit. A couple of papers or newspaper articles taken up by mouth breathers. Most scientific papers in the 70s predicted warming.

 

[cnm]

But, I was speaking about evolutionists that believe that even the earliest particle, the smallest tiniest matter, suddenly appeared from nothing, and evolved into everything in existence.

'Evolved everything into existence.'

That's not evolution.

 

[cnm]

I think the OP has been amply demonstrated already.

 

[Sonny Clark]

And, they forget quickly that the Earth is in constant change, and has been since the beginning. The Earth has gone through many periods of change, and will forever change. The Earth is not stable, nor will it ever be. And, if there is such a thing as "global warming", it's just more change following suit, no biggie. Besides, who knows, we might be frozen over 10,000 years from now. Did you read recently about the depth of the ice on both poles getting thicker and deeper?

That's totally untrue. No one that believes in AGW forgets that conditions have changed over time. What the deniers forget is that they're talking about changes that happened over tens of to hundreds of thousands of years. AGW theory is basically the study of what's been happening over the last 200 years, e.g. since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

And, likewise, the other side has as much data to show a different opinion. Both sides are presently in debate, and neither side has slammed the door on the other.

You slammed the door by declaring that AGW theorists forget simple things like past changes on earth. There's no equivalence here. We know that CO2 absorbs energy. We know its concentration been going up for ~200 hundred years. Given those two facts, what happens to the energy all that extra CO2 absorbs, if not to heat the earth? If anyone forgets anything, it's the deniers forgetting that they DO have to account for the Law of Conservation of Energy, if they're to be given any credence at all.

No one doubts the affects of man made gases. What is in doubt is the catastrophic effects, which are still being debated. Yes, man is producing gases that rise into the atmosphere, very true. But, the debate centers around the degree of damage and the whether the long range results will be catastrophic and devastating enough to cause extinction and a tremendous lose of life, both human and plant life. The jury is still out on the end results. Both sides have presented arguments that supports their position.

 

[Sonny Clark]

But, I was speaking about evolutionists that believe that even the earliest particle, the smallest tiniest matter, suddenly appeared from nothing, and evolved into everything in existence.

'Evolved everything into existence.'

That's not evolution.

It's the part of evolution absent a creator. And, there are those that believe there is no such thing as a God or creator. They believe everything just evolved.

 

[Flopper]

Serious question: According to evolutionists, what started it all? What do they think was the beginning that everything evolved from? There had to be matter in some form in order to have something evolve. So, where did that original matter come from?

How can we consider this to be a serious question? Anyone who payed attention in school knows what the theory entails. If there's a question in your mind about it, that's not the fault of liberals, it's yours for not applying yourself in school. As my H.S. biology teacher said, "you don't have to believe the theory, but you do have to learn the principles involved". Good advice since, even if you totally discount evolution, it helps to know the ins and outs of the theory, if you're trying to debunk it. That's why so many creationists do so badly in debates, they employ off-the-wall reasoning having nothing to do with the real tenets of the theory. To answer your final question, where matter came from is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That matter existed is a given. Whether it came about by the action of God or some other unknown agency is neither here nor there as far as the theory is concerned. If you say all matter came from God, then evolution was the way He created life. No problem.

But those that believe in evolution rarely believe that there is a GOD the creator. Most believe that everything evolved, but from what? And, if they don't believe in a creator, what's their explanation for the beginning? I believe that it is a serious question to ask. Especially since so many are quick to discount creation by a creator. Yes, I did go to school. Yes, I did pay attention. But, theory doesn't explain, nor answer the question. There are theories about many things. But, theory alone doesn't provide all of the answers. There has to be a basis from which to form theory. If it weren't so, then anyone could pull a basis off the wall and form a theory about anything. There has to be something from which theory is based.

The Theory of Evolution provides an explanation for the diversity of life, and how life evolved. It simply does not address creation either of life nor does it address the creation of the earth or of the universe.

Darwin provided the first observations and research that led to the theory. In Darwin's time there were a huge number of missing pieces in the puzzle. However, after 130 years of research, the theory now provides an explanation for the existence of the vast major of species in the animal and plant kingdom. Each day that passes, more and more pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

Will the theory ever provide a complete picture of the relationship of all life on earth? Probably not, but that does not discredit the theory because a theory is not a scientific law.

 

[cnm]

There has to be something from which theory is based.

The theory of evolution is based on observation and evidence.

 

[cnm]

And, likewise, the other side has as much data to show a different opinion.

No they don't. That's why the scientific consensus is that human activiety emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Serious question: According to evolutionists, what started it all? What do they think was the beginning that everything evolved from? There had to be matter in some form in order to have something evolve. So, where did that original matter come from?

How can we consider this to be a serious question? Anyone who payed attention in school knows what the theory entails. If there's a question in your mind about it, that's not the fault of liberals, it's yours for not applying yourself in school. As my H.S. biology teacher said, "you don't have to believe the theory, but you do have to learn the principles involved". Good advice since, even if you totally discount evolution, it helps to know the ins and outs of the theory, if you're trying to debunk it. That's why so many creationists do so badly in debates, they employ off-the-wall reasoning having nothing to do with the real tenets of the theory. To answer your final question, where matter came from is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That matter existed is a given. Whether it came about by the action of God or some other unknown agency is neither here nor there as far as the theory is concerned. If you say all matter came from God, then evolution was the way He created life. No problem.

But those that believe in evolution rarely believe that there is a GOD the creator. Most believe that everything evolved, but from what? And, if they don't believe in a creator, what's their explanation for the beginning? I believe that it is a serious question to ask. Especially since so many are quick to discount creation by a creator. Yes, I did go to school. Yes, I did pay attention. But, theory doesn't explain, nor answer the question. There are theories about many things. But, theory alone doesn't provide all of the answers. There has to be a basis from which to form theory. If it weren't so, then anyone could pull a basis off the wall and form a theory about anything. There has to be something from which theory is based.

The Theory of Evolution provides an explanation for the diversity of life, and how life evolved. It simply does not address creation either of life nor does it address the creation of the earth or of the universe.

Darwin provided the first observations and research that led to the theory. In Darwin's time there were a huge number of missing pieces in the puzzle. However, after 130 years of research, the theory now provides an explanation for the existence of the vast major of species in the animal and plant kingdom. Each day that passes, more and more pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

Will the theory ever provide a complete picture of the relationship of all life on earth? Probably not, but that does not discredit the theory because a theory is not a scientific law.

Correct.

 

[Hossfly]

I have an ancient Pug who doesn't care one way or the other about evolution or the Big Bang. Or Adam and Steve. All he knows is when he's searching relentlessly for a treat, when he's not looking, I'll toss a dog biscuit into the middle of the porch and when he finally spots it, gives it a sniff and gingerly wolfs it down. I've often wondered where he thinks it came from. He probably thinks it just appeared. That would explain creationism.