(March 16, 2013 at 9:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Question is, how much of their undoubted credited work is based on their creationist beliefs? For example, Sir Isaac Newton was, among many things, a firm believer in alchemy, yet it is his contributions to physics and mathematics which have stood the test of time.

I don't think there is much science anywhere based on creationist beliefs because I don't think they are true. But I also think that people that make blanket statements like "all creationists are backwater fundamentalists from Louisiana with IQ's of 94" technically, that isn't true. 5% of the science community is Young Earth Creationist.

Clearly, then, they don't let their beliefs get in the way of their work. Admirable.

(March 16, 2013 at 9:47 pm)jstrodel Wrote: 5% of the science community is Young Earth Creationist.

I think you'll find near 100% of those YEC "scientists" are in scientific disciplines that have nothing to do with astronomy/physics.

The same thing happens with Global Warming being attributed to Anthropogenic means. Well over 90% of scientists believe that global warming is anthropogenic; however if you look at those who are specifically involved in climate related science the "consensus" soon dissolves.

(March 16, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(March 16, 2013 at 9:47 pm)jstrodel Wrote: 5% of the science community is Young Earth Creationist.

I think you'll find near 100% of those YEC "scientists" are in scientific disciplines that have nothing to do with astronomy/physics.

The same thing happens with Global Warming being attributed to Anthropogenic means. Well over 90% of scientists believe that global warming is anthropogenic; however if you look at those who are specifically involved in climate related science the "consensus" soon dissolves.

When people argue that "90% of scientists believe in Anthropogenic climate change", they are committing the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority. In all arguments of this type, we need to base our arguments on the scientific evidence at hand. Whether or not a majority of scientists believe that for example; anthropogenic climate change is true could be wrong, if the scientific evidence does not support it.

As far as I know the scientific evidence does support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.

But most people can't evaluate the evidence at hand.

Found this article very interesting ...still looking for the one from June 2012 that was very similar in outlook.

There is no such thing as climate change denial

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environm...z2NlWDgNMf

Quote:In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.
There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.
A number of surveys of the climate science community since the early 1990s have measured the level of scientific consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming has steadily increased. As the body of evidence grows, the consensus is getting stronger.

---

Sorry. Just finished scanning the entire environment section and am unable to come up with the source.

Essentially it was taking pot-shots (criticism) at the "Global Warming believers" as nothing more than blind theists thus ensuring that there is a body of "Global Warming Deniers" on hand to persecute.

I am of the opinion that unfortunately, for the Climate scientists, this fundamental human trait has high-jacked important studies and accurate information getting to your average plebeians (self included).

---

\0/ yay found it!

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politi...1fuu1.html

Climate change issue bothers believers and pagans alike

Quote:A few months ago, while browsing at a groovy music shop in Melbourne, the friend who was with me casually said, "You're a climate change believer, aren't you?"
The question took me by surprise. After a pause, I replied, "No."
I'm not a climate change sceptic. I don't doubt that climate change is real. But I haven't put my faith in climate change the way some people put their faith in God.
One serious problem with allowing the debate to divide into opposing camps of believers and nonbelievers is that it distorts our understanding of what responsibility for climate change entails. Sceptics and card-carrying believers tend to share a view of climate change that equates it to a charge of personal and cultural culpability which must be either denied or admitted.
If the message of climate change is that we are sinners, responsible for a massive crime against humanity and the environment, then it is little wonder that some people react by rejecting climate change as fiction, and others become fervent in declaring their exemplary willingness to make personally purifying sacrifices to atone for it.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politi...z2Nlhizash

(March 16, 2013 at 11:31 pm)jstrodel Wrote: But most people can't evaluate the evidence at hand.

The pot calling the kettle black i see.

As an aside, wouldn't believers be more willing to trust the idea that humans are causing global warming, perhaps on a level that might endanger human existence? "Ruining the Earth" and all of that?

(March 17, 2013 at 9:42 am)Tonus Wrote: As an aside, wouldn't believers be more willing to trust the idea that humans are causing global warming, perhaps on a level that might endanger human existence? "Ruining the Earth" and all of that?

Depends on the believer, really. I'm sure we've all heard of that American politician (his name escapes me) who stood up in congress and said that discussing manmade global warming is pointless, because only god is able to destroy the world. Which always struck me as somewhat odd; christians are generally willing to accept that they are tainted with sin, flawed and inherently low individuals that can only be saved by constant obeisance to the creator, but for some reason those exact same people find the idea that they could damage the environment ridiculous.

They're members of a species that was able to go against god in the infancy of humanity when there was only two of them, and individual members are able to go against god's will in droves every day just by holding different beliefs, but harming the planet? Impossible.

(March 16, 2013 at 8:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's called creative interpretation, GC. Or "making shit up and adding it to the bible".

Really, scriptures say Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. The interpretation that Eve's sons Cain and Able had sex with her is disturbing, when someone uses such interpretation to degrade God's word, especially when scripture tells us different. The kid needs to read scripture before making such baseless accusations, wouldn't you agree.
As far as Gen.1:1, I quoted it, so how is that making up anything, how do you see it read? Please do not say it did not happen, the Nerd was making a statement from the assumption God created, so that's where this stands.