Why do fundamentalist Christians object to the science behind climate change?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wrong, a significant portion of Christians (presumably the fundamentalists and conservatives) reject evolution:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/gallup-poll-americans-creationism-evolution_n_1563800.html

You need to learn to read your own sources more carefully.

snip:
Today, 46 percent of Americans accept this creationist explanation for human existence, a negligible change from the 44 percent who said they agreed with it in 1982, according to Gallup polls.

In the most recent poll, conducted by phone in May, 15 percent of Americans fell on the other end of the spectrum, saying they believed God played no part in human evolution, a process that had taken millions of years. Nearly all of the rest of the respondents, 32 percent, choose the third option, saying they believed humans had evolved, but that God had guided the process, a belief called "theistic evolution."

Here are the three responses:

46% - God created humans in present form (does not indicate they reject evolution).
32% - Humans evolved with God guiding (theistic evolution).
15% - Humans evolved but God had no part.

We don't know how many completely reject the theory of evolution, that question was not asked.

Irrelevant. Nobody claims that evolution explains the origin of life. That would be the theory of abiogenesis.

And that is what I stated. However, you and others continue to juxtapose evolution with creationism, as if they are opposing ideas. Here is evidence of that in the article you posted from HuffPo:

Beginning in 1982, Gallup has asked Americans which of these three explanations of human origins they believe.

If no one claims that evolution explains origin of life, why does HuffPo indicate this is the question being asked?

So you think that just because we can't explain something, god must have done it? You believe that is a logical conclusion?

That isn't what I said, is it? I'm saying if we can't explain something, it is ignorant and foolish to run around claiming it has been. All the proof of evolution in the world, doesn't negate the possibility of a creator, if anything, it makes such a possibility even more intriguing. The miraculous and amazing circle of life didn't likely "just happen because" and you don't have any other real explanation for that. Rather than concentrating your thoughts on HOW origin of life happened, try to think about WHY origin of life happened.

ID is a topic worthy of discussion, but is outside the realm of science because it cannot be tested.

Correct, so why do you continually attempt to use science to disprove creation theory? I'v always maintained, in order to have an objective intelligent discussion about spiritual theory, you first have to use spiritual evidence. If you refuse to accept spiritual evidence, it's like having a scientific discussion with someone who rejects scientific evidence. Spirituality and Science, by definition, are two completely opposite things. However, objective intelligent discussions are the same for both. If we are to debate matters of science with scientific evidence, we have to also debate matters of spirituality with spiritual evidence. There is no other way to have a rational debate.

Sure, there could be a god that used natural processes to create everything, but without evidence to support its existence, I have no reason to believe in it.

Well I think the beauty and wonder of life itself, is a living testament and "evidence to support" a creator. I don't really need anything further, that's how I see it. How can you comprehend the marvels of life around you, the things in nature that are so complex, yet so intertwined and dependent on each other, working in such a concerted harmonious effort all around, and not realize it didn't happen by chance? It's not possible, and it's actually quite intellectually and scientifically closed-minded to presume that it all happened "just because."

 

[Rune]

Natural selection is certainly a process of evolution.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/16/content_460623.htm

[URL="http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html"]http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

[URL]http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/34595[/URL][/URL]

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The one thing that puzzles me is the almost unanimous objection amongst fundamentalist and conservative Christians to the science behind climate change. What's their angle, exactly?

first of all objection to the absurd notion that humans caused climate change isn't based on religion....it's based on hard, cold evidence.....such as the hard cold ice samples which show that not only is climate change cyclical but its current stage in the cycle is right where it would be expected to be......

 

[Timshel]

I have already answered this question as has Voltaire who has conveniently run from this thread.

Now since this is the second time you have misread one of my posts, you have exhibited a lack of attention to detail making you unworthy of further attention.

You must perform some form if pennance

I catch my own mistakes or admit them when pointed out. That is my form of pennance here. Meanwhile, you and your retard crew keep chewing on your own feet. You have misSPEEDread or misrepresented everything I have provided. Self correcting vs reactionary decay.

Now, I would like to know where you think Voltaire answered?

ID has produced no scientific theories of any value. Behe came up with irreducible complexity (which is what you reference in the human eye) but that was a joke and quickly dismissed.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Natural selection is certainly a process of evolution.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/16/content_460623.htm

[URL="http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html"]http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

[URL]http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/34595[/URL][/URL]

That is true. But the article makes it sound ad if evolution is responding or articulated a different way gives the impression that evolution is being proactive. That is misleading and all I am saying no am not suggesting that selection is not taking place. It most clearly is. The question is if it can be reversed. For example if the slaughter of elephants were to stop, would try revert back?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I catch my own mistakes or admit them when pointed out. That is my form of pennance here. Meanwhile, you and your retard crew keep chewing on your own feet. You have misSPEEDread or misrepresented everything I have provided. Self correcting vs reactionary decay.

Now, I would like to know where you think Voltaire answered?

ID has produced no scientific theories of any value. Behe came up with irreducible complexity (which is what you reference in the human eye) but that was a joke and quickly dismissed.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

But you keep repeating the same mistakes which highlights a character flaw.

Read the thread and you will find your answer to your question about Voltaire.

I never claimed intelligent design is science. Far from it. That is why it is called faith.

What I do know is this. The human body is sufficiently complex with biochemical processes that are interdependent on each other to such a degree that it is statistically and biologically impossible for evolution to explain our creation. For some reads when I state that, the anti religious crowd goes nuts screaming "you don't believe in evolution". No. You aren't listening to what the fuck I am saying.

So to sum up; evolution, man made global warming and intelligent design are not science because you can not rigorously test them with a control to disprove your theory.

 

[Timshel]

first of all objection to the absurd notion that humans caused climate change isn't based on religion....it's based on hard, cold evidence.....such as the hard cold ice samples which show that not only is climate change cyclical but its current stage in the cycle is right where it would be expected to be......

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064

According to William D’Andrea of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his co-authors, summer temperatures in the Svalbard Archipelago, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years, on average, than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.

View of the area around Ny-Ålesund, located on Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of mainland Europe.

“As more research has come in over the past decade,” D’Andrea said, “it’s becoming clear that this medieval period was not uniformly warm, and we can see that for sure in this one location.”

The question isn’t just academic. Climate scientists are convinced that rising temperatures during the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and especially over the past 50 years, are largely due to
heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases generated by the burning of coal, oil and other carbon-based fuels. If they’re going to project how fast and how high temperatures will rise in the future — to know where we’re going — it’s important to know where we’ve been.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064

According to William D’Andrea of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his co-authors, summer temperatures in the Svalbard Archipelago, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years, on average, than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.

View of the area around Ny-Ålesund, located on Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of mainland Europe.

“As more research has come in over the past decade,” D’Andrea said, “it’s becoming clear that this medieval period was not uniformly warm, and we can see that for sure in this one location.”

The question isn’t just academic. Climate scientists are convinced that rising temperatures during the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and especially over the past 50 years, are largely due to
heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases generated by the burning of coal, oil and other carbon-based fuels. If they’re going to project how fast and how high temperatures will rise in the future — to know where we’re going — it’s important to know where we’ve been.

All interesting points but they still don't prove anything.

Just use your common sense. The earth is estimated to be 100 million years old. You are trying to extrapolate 25 years of data and claim that we are seeing something we have never seen before. The fact is that it is unprovable. Do the fucking math. You are trying to correlate 0.000025% of the earths existence. Really?

 

[Timshel]

But you keep repeating the same mistakes which highlights a character flaw.

Read the thread and you will find your answer to your question about Voltaire.

I never claimed intelligent design is science. Far from it. That is why it is called faith.

What I do know is this. The human body is sufficiently complex with biochemical processes that are interdependent on each other to such a degree that it is statistically and biologically impossible for evolution to explain our creation. For some reads when I state that, the anti religious crowd goes nuts screaming "you don't believe in evolution". No. You aren't listening to what the fuck I am saying.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. You begin with limited information and all you have done since kindergarten is speed read.

I went back over the thread very carefully. This is all I can find of what Voltaire said on the subject but you can point me to a post number if you like.

ID is a topic worthy of discussion, but is outside the realm of science because it cannot be tested.

Sure, there could be a god that used natural processes to create everything, but without evidence to support its existence, I have no reason to believe in it.

There is evidence to support the theories surrounding evolution and global warming. It has produced science that is testable. That is NOT true of intelligent design.

Do you go to unfrozen caveman doctor for medical care?

In conclusion, science.

 

[Timshel]

All interesting points but they still don't prove anything.

Just use your common sense. The earth is estimated to be 100 million years old. You are trying to extrapolate 25 years of data and claim that we are seeing something we have never seen before. The fact is that it is unprovable. Do the fucking math. You are trying to correlate 0.000025% of the earths existence. Really?

That's not science. You can falsify it and the theories surrounding evolution.

So, please get busy on finding those accurate predictions made by the global warming "skeptics."

 

[canceled.2021.1]

That's not science. You can falsify it and the theories surrounding evolution.

So, please get busy on finding those accurate predictions made by the global warming "skeptics."

I don't have time for your straw men. I don know any climate skeptics who are making predictions and if they were I would as dubious about them as I am the predictions by the Warmers. My position is clear.

 

[Timshel]

I don't have time for your straw men. I don know any climate skeptics who are making predictions and if they were I would as dubious about them as I am the predictions by the Warmers. My position is clear.

Because the climate "skeptics" are not doing science. Science is about forming a hypothesis making a prediction and testing. Your position is VERY clear, you reject science.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF has NOTHING. He is saying, "look over here... these quotes don't say that man is the primary cause of warming." But they don't refute or challenge that either. They are talking about other issues. But here is something that indicates they think it is happening and impacted by man.

You really are a dumbass. They most certainly DO refute it. How fucking retarded are you?

Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, explained.

LMAO... that is your evidence? That someone stated man has an impact on the climate? Of course we have an impact dumbass. The point is whether or not we are the primary cause of global warming. Even if the percentage of impact was 0.1% of the change, the above statement would be correct. Idiot.

 

[Timshel]

Let's go back and look at what I carefully stated about the quote before leader of the flying monkeys took to wing and started flinging poo.

But here is something that indicates they think it is happening and impacted by man.

 

[Timshel]

It is evidence of EXACTLY what I said it was. Superfreak changes the subject AGAIN and attacks his strawman.

 

[Timshel]

As to whether we are the primary cause. That is clearely stated in the quote referenced by Tom.

Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements). (Yale - here)

Superfreaks comments have been addressed. Whatever strawman he will erect next, no. I will have to wait until he is done wasting his time trying to think his way out of it. That could be a while.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064

According to William D’Andrea of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his co-authors, summer temperatures in the Svalbard Archipelago, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years, on average, than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.

View of the area around Ny-Ålesund, located on Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of mainland Europe.

“As more research has come in over the past decade,” D’Andrea said, “it’s becoming clear that this medieval period was not uniformly warm, and we can see that for sure in this one location.”

The question isn’t just academic. Climate scientists are convinced that rising temperatures during the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and especially over the past 50 years, are largely due to
heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases generated by the burning of coal, oil and other carbon-based fuels. If they’re going to project how fast and how high temperatures will rise in the future — to know where we’re going — it’s important to know where we’ve been.

and this is where we've been.....

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ID has produced no scientific theories of any value. Behe came up with irreducible complexity (which is what you reference in the human eye) but that was a joke and quickly dismissed.

I wanted to address this, because you posted a video of a guy with a nice power-point, telling us how irreducible complexity is 'debunked' but his entire case is rested upon the argument that IC depends on 'zero' inherent functionality of reduced complex, and that is not the IC argument. It is an often misinterpreted, and therefore, misapplied argument made by the debunkers.

Instead of myopically focusing on technical semantics regarding bacterial flagellum, which is what he did, we need to remain focused on the example of the human eye, and the argument presented regarding irreducible complexity. The human eye is an amazing combination of components, that can not function as anything, without all the parts which make it work. As he said, natural selection is blind, it can't "think ahead" and evolve things into existence that will be needed later on. Once it was believed the human eye was an evolution from a precursor, perhaps similar to photosensitive spots found on some aquatic life. But as we've examined this, we find it's not the same functional concept, the two do not work in the same way with regard to process and stimulus to the brain. The human eye is almost like a 3D projector, working through a series of lenses and aperture to cast an image on the inside macula of the retina which is picked up by the optic nerve. We not only see light, we see depth and have perception of detail. The entire system is far too complicated to have 'evolved' from any less-evolved state, it simply doesn't function if any component is missing.

To believe that evolution produced a working human eye, is to believe in magic more impressive than any god worshiper.

 

[Timshel]

and this is where we've been.....

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

Much of that data is being reevaluated as new information becomes availalble.

But NONE of it challenges the fact that we ARE warming (it substantiates that) or challenges the theory that MOST of the warming is likely due to MAN made greenhouse gases.

If you want to join the RATIONAL debate on what our policy should be then you need to reject the IRRATIONAL dismissal of the facts. That is a tool useful only to propagandists and lying pos who care nothing for facts.

 

[Timshel]

I wanted to address this, because you posted a video of a guy with a nice power-point, telling us how irreducible complexity is 'debunked' but his entire case is rested upon the argument that IC depends on 'zero' inherent functionality of reduced complex, and that is not the IC argument. It is an often misinterpreted, and therefore, misapplied argument made by the debunkers.

Instead of myopically focusing on technical semantics regarding bacterial flagellum, which is what he did, we need to remain focused on the example of the human eye, and the argument presented regarding irreducible complexity. The human eye is an amazing combination of components, that can not function as anything, without all the parts which make it work. As he said, natural selection is blind, it can't "think ahead" and evolve things into existence that will be needed later on. Once it was believed the human eye was an evolution from a precursor, perhaps similar to photosensitive spots found on some aquatic life. But as we've examined this, we find it's not the same functional concept, the two do not work in the same way with regard to process and stimulus to the brain. The human eye is almost like a 3D projector, working through a series of lenses and aperture to cast an image on the inside macula of the retina which is picked up by the optic nerve. We not only see light, we see depth and have perception of detail. The entire system is far too complicated to have 'evolved' from any less-evolved state, it simply doesn't function if any component is missing.

To believe that evolution produced a working human eye, is to believe in magic more impressive than any god worshiper.

No, that is a lie. Behe chose the flagellum as a falsifiable test of ID. However, when his claims proved false the proponents fell back to the eye.

ID has made no testable and verified predictions about what we might find. When it did, with the flagellum, it proved wrong. It has produced no science which we can build upon. That is not true with theories surrounding evolution or global warming.

No more monkey poo in aisle 5.