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

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, that is a lie.

What is a lie? I posted numerous things, are they all lies? When you begin the discussion with "No, that is a lie" we can't have rational dialogue. You've already made your mind up to disagree with everything I say, so I may as well beat my head against a brick wall, there is no need in having a conversation with you. Now, go back and start over, and post the portion of my post that is a "lie" and explain how it's a lie. Remember that a "lie" is something purposely told knowing it is not true. I haven't done that. I have posted my observations and opinions on things, those can't be lies. If something I posted is incorrect or erroneous, it's up to you to point that out and refute it with facts. This is how you prevail in debates, not by instantly proclaiming your opponent a liar and yourself the victor.

Behe chose the flagellum as a falsifiable test of ID.

No he didn't. One of the examples of falsifiable testing he presented, was flagellum. The ID theory is very extensive, it relies on a whole lot more than bacteria being reducible in complexity.

However, when his claims proved false the proponents fell back to the eye.

Well his claims weren't proven false. A counter-argument was made, of which he wasn't given a chance to address. His initial assertion was regarding irreducible complexity, and he illustrated this by using the example of the human eye. Thus far, no one has refuted this. You keep running back to bacterial flagellum, and clinging to the fact that some flagellum are reducible... that doesn't prove that everything is reducible in complexity, including the human eye.

ID has made no testable and verified predictions about what we might find. When it did, with the flagellum, it proved wrong.

I don't know what you mean here... have you 'tested and verified' that cross-genus evolution has happened with humans? Where are these studies, so I can review them, because if that's the case, it's pretty fucking amazing and earth-shattering news. It is indeed 'tested and verified' that no evolutionary process we are aware of, has produced things that are irreducibly complex. Evolution doesn't have a brain, natural selection is blind, it can't create things it will need in the future, it doesn't know how to do that. Go look at a standard illustration of how a human eye is constructed, and how it works. Come back and tell me how 'evolution' knew that the optic nerve needed something more than a light-sensitive photo spot and coordinated it's own Manhattan Project to come up with a functioning eye? Evolution did not just *poof* one day decide to evolve an eye into existence. However, an eye will not function or work in any capacity other than the current nomenclature. Without ALL the parts of the eye, the eye doesn't work and would serve no use or purpose to the species. It is impossible for the eye to have evolved over time, because it can't be reduced in complexity and still function. It would be a completely useless system, which Darwin and others who argue natural selection, will tell you can't happen. So either, evolution is nothing like Darwin proposed or anyone else has proposed, and it can magically create all kinds of fascinating complexities on the fly as needed, or the eye can't be a product of evolution.

It has produced no science which we can build upon.

Again, I don't know what you mean. Since when has this been the criteria for anything related to Science? Discovery doesn't have to produce something you can build upon. Questions don't have to be predicated on how you might benefit from the answers.

That is not true with theories surrounding evolution or global warming.

Well apparently it is. We can't continue practicing Science (the physical exploration of our universe) if we are going to close our minds and try to use Science as a weapon against Spirituality. The very nature of Science is the ongoing questioning, not conclusion. Once you have proclaimed something "proven" in Science, you stop practicing Science and begin practicing faith. Pause for a moment and let that soak in, read it again if you need to, it's important. Science is not there to disprove God. Attempting to use it in this effort will always fail.

The theories of evolution do not contradict or refute the possibility of an intelligent designer. Darwin is very clear on how evolution works, and he simply rejects the notion that evolution can come up with components that are not reducible in complexity, like the human eye. I've read Darwin, I know what he said about this. What you are arguing contradicts what Darwin himself has said. And there are other things regarding ID that you can't explain. Darwin says attributes inherent to a species are important to the species or they wouldn't exist, they would have been rendered out through natural selection. As far back as we have any evidence of human existence, we have evidence of those same humans practicing some form of spirituality. It is a behavior that has paralleled our existence, and is dominate and unique to our species. Through thousands of years with wars and oppression, persecution and death, mankind has remained spiritual in nature. It is an attribute that stubbornly refuses to be stomped out. Whether any particular incarnation of a "God" is real or not, this spiritual aspect of our species is very important to who we are.

 

[Timshel]

blah blah blah.

You think this is some sort of game and you can just turn the arguments on their head and they will still hold up.

You made an ASSERTION that you knew was wrong because we have been over this before. You are a liar.

It was clear what I was claiming was a lie before you split every sentence up to remove context. Your misrepresentation of his argument is a BLATANT lie. Behe set the focus on the flagellum, not Miller. Behe presented the flagellum in relation to ID as something that was falifiable. It was falsified and proponents of ID fell back to the human eye because those are not falsifiable. They are based on nothing but speculation and do nothing to further our understanding. ID is a closed system and is not science.

Evolution has provided many theories and predictions that ARE falisifable. It has produced science that has been built upon and is USEFUL to us in our daily lives. It is not a closed system. No, it does not refute speculations concerning an intelligent designer. That does NOT make those speculations science.

 

[Timshel]

It must have taken you an hour to come up with what I refute in mintues.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

At what rate did it happen back then and weren't there more volcanoes erupting to promote the greenhouse effect?

see the graph above.......and if you have some evidence to prove volcanoes coincided with cyclical climate change, feel free to document it......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, the average person that has not considered all the factors affecting climate or developed theories to explain the variations might conclude that.

but you haven't bothered to explain any of those factors......you've just insisted it's caused by human activity......have you ever shown that there isn't any other factor?....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It must have taken you an hour to come up with what I refute in mintues.

but you haven't refuted anything.....

tell me this, Miss Sackett, can you, can any climatologist tell me that the temperature trend over the next one hundred years is going to be higher?.........

 

[Timshel]

but you haven't refuted anything.....

tell me this, Miss Sackett, can you, can any climatologist tell me that the temperature trend over the next one hundred years is going to be higher?.........

I refuted everything he said. The science surrounding evolution has lead to numerous benefits, it is open, expanding our understanding and it is science. ID has produced nothing of benefit, it closed, does not further understanding but would actually reduce our understanding (pray that you don't get the flu) and is not science.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I refuted everything he said.

You didn't refute anything I said, you didn't even bother to repost it and address my points. You simply posted that you thought I was a liar, and that's all you've done, other than repeat the same things that I refuted already. You see, I don't think you understand how refuting works, you have to actually take the points made and find contradictory evidence to present, you can't refute things simply by claiming they have been refuted.

As I said, until you can explain how the human eye evolved from a less complex state, you've not proven it isn't irreducibly complex. You want to harp on Behe, but Behe isn't the only scientist to contribute to ID theory. You want to parse Behe's point about flagellum, but this is not the only element to ID theory. But beyond the fact that you lack the intellect to actually present a case, you seem to be content with ignorantly proclaiming science has proven something and no further investigation need happen. It's a good thing you weren't a science advocate back when the world was flat.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ID has produced nothing of benefit, it closed, does not further understanding but would actually reduce our understanding (pray that you don't get the flu) and is not science.

Now you are confusing the question of intelligent design with religious spiritual beliefs. You do comprehend that it's entirely possible for every single aspect of religious spirituality to be completely wrong, and yet we are still the result of an intelligent designer, right? The theory of ID is not a theory that God exists. I think this might be your big stumbling block and what is keeping you ignorant of science on this.

It's ironic that you are actually using Science to do what you claim is the fundamental purpose of religion, to explain the unexplained through faith. Whereas in the past, people would cling to religion and say "God did it" you wish to cling to Science and say "Science can explain it" even when it can't. You've placed your spiritual faith in Science rather than Religion, that's the only difference here. The problem is, science only deals with the physical universe, it isn't adequate to examine the spiritual universe. Science deals with physical evidence, not spiritual. There is no difference between you and someone who refuses to accept science and stubbornly clings to religious beliefs instead. Closed-mindedness is still closed minded, it doesn't matter how you dress it up.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I refuted everything he said.

objecting to something is not 'refuting' it....

 

[Timshel]

Now you are confusing the question of intelligent design with religious spiritual beliefs. You do comprehend that it's entirely possible for every single aspect of religious spirituality to be completely wrong, and yet we are still the result of an intelligent designer, right? The theory of ID is not a theory that God exists. I think this might be your big stumbling block and what is keeping you ignorant of science on this.

It's ironic that you are actually using Science to do what you claim is the fundamental purpose of religion, to explain the unexplained through faith. Whereas in the past, people would cling to religion and say "God did it" you wish to cling to Science and say "Science can explain it" even when it can't. You've placed your spiritual faith in Science rather than Religion, that's the only difference here. The problem is, science only deals with the physical universe, it isn't adequate to examine the spiritual universe. Science deals with physical evidence, not spiritual. There is no difference between you and someone who refuses to accept science and stubbornly clings to religious beliefs instead. Closed-mindedness is still closed minded, it doesn't matter how you dress it up.

Nope, intellignet design is a matter of faith. It IS religion. It produces no science and does nothing to further our understanding of our world or the universe. Science does not explain EVERYTHING. What science explains is testable and falsifiable. ID explains nothing that is testable or falisifable. Behe made an attempt with the falgellum but his prediction was wrong.

Again, logically, one can believe in ID and evolution simultaneously. Absolutely, CAN. Theories related to evolution DO NOT disprove the article of faith known as ID. That does not make ID science.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nope, intellignet design is a matter of faith. It IS religion. It produces no science and does nothing to further our understanding of our world or the universe. Science does not explain EVERYTHING. What science explains is testable and falsifiable. ID explains nothing that is testable or falisifable. Behe made an attempt with the falgellum but his prediction was wrong.

Again, logically, one can believe in ID and evolution simultaneously. Absolutely, CAN. Theories related to evolution DO NOT disprove the article of faith known as ID. That does not make ID science.

ID doesn't have to produce science or further any understanding. Does the fact that black holes exist, become something we can pretend doesn't exist because we don't fully understand them, and they don't provide us with any further knowledge or understanding of science? What you are doing is marking off a whole lot of potential knowledge and understanding by proclaiming science has proven something beyond it's ability to prove, as if that were what science is supposed to do. Science, when you look at it's history, is very often quite WRONG about things. Other scientists literally laughed at Einstein. "The Big Bang" got it's name as a pejorative insult and ridicule of the theory! They nearly ran Louie Pasteur out of France over the very idea that 'living organisms' could grow inside our bodies! These crazy scientific "debunkings" all happened in science within the past 200 years! In all three cases, it was a result of closed-minded intolerants who decided to use Science as a weapon and proclaim it conclusive.

Science has answered a lot of questions in the past 200 years, but for every question answered, hundreds more emerge. Science is a never-ending quest for knowledge and understanding, it doesn't conclude things or determine things "impossible" because that's not Science. Whenever you have drawn a conclusion of scientific fact, you have stopped practicing science and have become a person of faith.

 

[wanderingbear]

"intellignet design" Is junk science. Supported but lieing christians.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

"intellignet design" Is junk science. Supported but lieing christians.

You are just a denier

 

[Timshel]

ID doesn't have to produce science or further any understanding. Does the fact that black holes exist, become something we can pretend doesn't exist because we don't fully understand them, and they don't provide us with any further knowledge or understanding of science? What you are doing is marking off a whole lot of potential knowledge and understanding by proclaiming science has proven something beyond it's ability to prove, as if that were what science is supposed to do. Science, when you look at it's history, is very often quite WRONG about things. Other scientists literally laughed at Einstein. "The Big Bang" got it's name as a pejorative insult and ridicule of the theory! They nearly ran Louie Pasteur out of France over the very idea that 'living organisms' could grow inside our bodies! These crazy scientific "debunkings" all happened in science within the past 200 years! In all three cases, it was a result of closed-minded intolerants who decided to use Science as a weapon and proclaim it conclusive.

Science has answered a lot of questions in the past 200 years, but for every question answered, hundreds more emerge. Science is a never-ending quest for knowledge and understanding, it doesn't conclude things or determine things "impossible" because that's not Science. Whenever you have drawn a conclusion of scientific fact, you have stopped practicing science and have become a person of faith.

You continue to cite as proof theories that lead to new discoveries or proved useful in understanding other things as if I will reject them because they were once rejected by scientists. It's a pathetic strawman.

Again, do you go to an unfrozen caveman doctor, a witch doctor or pray away illness? You likely go to a doctor that is better able to treat you due to understanding gained from theories surrounding evolution. ID offers no advancement of knowledge.

ID is not science. When it offers up some testable/falsifiable theory, like Pasteur's, then it will be adressed as Behe's ideas on the flagellum were addressed. Until then it is a matter of faith and should not be taught in a science class.

 

[wanderingbear]

ID doesn't have to produce science or further any understanding. Does the fact that black holes exist, become something we can pretend doesn't exist because we don't fully understand them, and they don't provide us with any further knowledge or understanding of science? What you are doing is marking off a whole lot of potential knowledge and understanding by proclaiming science has proven something beyond it's ability to prove, as if that were what science is supposed to do. Science, when you look at it's history, is very often quite WRONG about things. Other scientists literally laughed at Einstein. "The Big Bang" got it's name as a pejorative insult and ridicule of the theory! They nearly ran Louie Pasteur out of France over the very idea that 'living organisms' could grow inside our bodies! These crazy scientific "debunkings" all happened in science within the past 200 years! In all three cases, it was a result of closed-minded intolerants who decided to use Science as a weapon and proclaim it conclusive.

Science has answered a lot of questions in the past 200 years, but for every question answered, hundreds more emerge. Science is a never-ending quest for knowledge and understanding, it doesn't conclude things or determine things "impossible" because that's not Science. Whenever you have drawn a conclusion of scientific fact, you have stopped practicing science and have become a person of faith.

Bull shit!!! scientific relies on logic on years of reserach by thosands of veted scientists.Though its true that nothing is imposible,many things are improbaple.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You continue to cite as proof theories that lead to new discoveries or proved useful in understanding other things as if I will reject them because they were once rejected by scientists. It's a pathetic strawman.

Well I am sorry if you think it's a strawman, I think they are fairly good examples of people who thought they knew everything science had to offer, but discovered that science isn't always correct and there is sometimes more to know! It's hard to know what mysteries and doors might be unlocked if we opened our mind to possibility. You have decided to close your mind and reject possibility.

Again, do you go to an unfrozen caveman doctor, a witch doctor or pray away illness? You likely go to a doctor that is better able to treat you due to understanding gained from theories surrounding evolution. ID offers no advancement of knowledge.

It's very interesting you would bring up faith and medicine. Did you know there are literally thousands of recorded medical cases where science has no explanation, but faith apparently played some role? People who have overcome all sorts of terminal conditions and illnesses, through strong spiritual faith and prayer. Of course, I guess in their situation, you'd be fucked, because you lack spiritual faith. Still, the case records are there, and science has no explanation for the recoveries, by all scientific measures, the people should have died, but they didn't. If this only happened one time, it might be considered a fluke, but it has happened thousands of times all over the world, with all sorts of religious spiritual beliefs. How do you explain this? Oh yeah, that's right, science can't explain everything, right?

ID is not science. When it offers up some testable/falsifiable theory, like Pasteur's, then it will be adressed as Behe's ideas on the flagellum were addressed. Until then it is a matter of faith and should not be taught in a science class.

Pasteur's theories were addressed, as I said, they nearly ran the man out of France, called him a kook, accused him of heresy. The Big Bang Theory, was addressed, they called it the crazy idea of a great big bang, and debunked it resoundingly. Like I said, that's where it got it's name. Interesting to note, the idea of the Big Bang does not forward or advance our understanding of science, it merely poses more questions for science to answer. Almost every time science discovers something, it refutes something scientists previously thought. You claim Behe's ideas on flagellum were debunked, but his theory of irreducible complexity still exists, and you've not refuted it.

What should be taught in science class, is that there is a debate, and there are different views on the issue of origin. Surely you aren't suggesting we teach science as an absolute that can't ever be questioned? If that's so, I reject your attempt to pervert Science and only teach people your propaganda. You're a closed-minded intolerant, the same kind Einstein and Pasteur had to deal with.

 

[The Dude]

You are just a denier

Whereas you are a pagan believer!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Bull shit!!! scientific relies on logic on years of reserach by thosands of veted scientists.Though its true that nothing is imposible,many things are improbaple.

It's important to clarify, the theory of Intelligent Design does not state that ID is established fact, only that it's a probability. It is a theory as valid as anything else proposed by science regarding origin of life. The whole entire debate here, is whether or not it is possible, you are admitting it's not impossible, therefore, it has to be possible. If possible, it means the theory itself is legitimate... not proven true... science doesn't do that... but legitimately possible, which is all any theory posits. Thanks for your endorsement!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"intellignet design" Is junk science. Supported but lieing christians.

oddly, I thought this thread was about man made global warming....but to be fair, let me just point out that abiogenesis is junk science......the sad thing is, while Christianity admits creation is a faith choice, seculars still pretend abiogenesis IS science.....