Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

Atheism has as much correlation with climate change as creationism has with sanity.

Without having any numbers to back me up I'd stick my neck out and say this is very wrong. Creationism, as a denial or reality, has a moderate to high negative correlation with sanity. On the other hand, atheists (I like to think) examine information and reason somewhat more rationally than many. Pedantically, this has nothing to do with "climate change" itself but it suggests to me that being an atheist will positively correlate with an acceptance of climate change as a reality.

quote:

---

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

---

50 Top Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!andhttp://www.americanthinker.com/...gainst_global_warming.html

quote:

---

It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

---

Because science has become political. There's way more power and money in shouting down religion than there is in actually doing science.Also;The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia

Evidence includes written history. The scientific community obviously chooses to sometimes ignore or replace written history when it clashes with a proclamation of the past that science wishes to make. There's not always objective empirical evidence for every question about reality. The time has come to realize that science has been taken over by political special interests. It's no longer a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", and needs to be policed for what it has become. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the U.S. is getting more and more religious, it’s actually getting more and more secular, Every statistic shows it. Statistics also show that some new, BAD things are happening, in a perfect correlation with religiousity going down, such as increased drug use, legalized gambling, less productivity etc.. Co-incidence, according the scientific community probably, but some are thankful that they’re not completely in charge of political decisions. But it’s what the constitution is based on. I know the extreme left doesn't agree, as don't many non U.S. residents. Are you from the U.S? Some participating in this thread are, some aren’t. Some don’t have their location listed by their name, you being one. When I see a non-religious, non resident of the U.S. claim that weakening religion in the U.S. would be good for it, I wonder if it could be because they’d love to see the U.S. brought down to the level of their own country. The words stupid, ignorant, insance, wicked are sophisticated scientific information? Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism? Now all we need for a scientific community takeover of the political process is for it to become increasingly obvious to the general public. Here is link showing the results of a survey taken to find out how scientifically literate tea party members can be. At least he was honest enough to report his (surprising to him) findings.

"Climate Change" as a reality?The Climate has always been changing. I suppose the current hypothesis is that it is changing faster than ever before. Where is the proof for that? What I disagree with is that the change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm in preindustrial times to 390 ppm in todays times is responsible for the increase in global temperatures since that time. Other factors could produce such a change and nobody has proven what the climate sensitivity is to a doubling in CO2 concentration.

Whether or not Global Warming is actually totally irrelevant and just another example of dishonesty and con jobs.In fact, the very best scenario would be if global warming was man made since it is only man made contributions that we can do much about.That marc9000 even brings up such total irrelevancies is at best an example of his inability to actually think; at worst yet more dishonesty.

50 Top Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!
Not climate scientists.Also, I am a little suspicious about this. I can not find an original reference for this. Everything points back to the site you reference. That being said these people are not climate scientists.http://www.americanthinker.com/...gainst_global_warming.html
Again not climate scientists.Do you read things you post?
The Great Global Warming Swindle - WikipediaCare to try again?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed first two links (originally in message 49). You need to copy the "peek" version of the links, not the message display form which includes "..." in the middle.

Only 50 of the thousands of scientists and engineers employed at NASAhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/s1493/section2.htm#topic%203DEngineers are not climate scientists, medical scientists are not climate scientists, astro-physical scientists are not climate scientists ...Those that are listed as scientist do not have their field of study identified.But even if that were 50 out of only 1000 scientists that is only 5% so we KNOW that the number of climate scientists in this group is actually smaller than that. Much smaller.Typical creationist ploy -- but with fewer signers than the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list:Creation Moments – Bible Creation Lessons | Creation Vs. Evolution Debate | Creation ScienceAnd you have only listed NASA, not scientists from around the world ... so your list is both small and incomplete. Ah yes, the old suppression conspiracy again. People that do bad science somehow do not get recognized for doing good science ... I wonder why that is.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

The words 'science', 'atheist' and 'liberal' are not synonyms. Your conspiracy paranoia is telling.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

History is evidence of what someone wrote, and does not necessarily represent truth. It is anecdotal evidence rather than objective empirical evidence. When it is contradicted by objective empirical evidence it is discarded.Troy was uncovered due to clues in Greek myths -- does that mean that Achilles, also in the same myths, was an actual person with supernatural invincibility from being dipped in the river Styx as a child, leaving only his heal unprotected?Trojan War - Wikipedia Says you who desperately wants to run science according to religious beliefs (see On The Limits of Human Talent) and force it to comply with your opinion/beliefs. More unsupported bs. The US is definitely getting dumber due to the removal of science from textbooks due to pressure from religious interests (see creationist propaganda affects text books used and what is (not) taught). This of course is in comparison with other countries that are not so hide bound by fundamentalist ideologists. How was this tested, what were the questions. And yes these are important to the validity of the study. Was evolution a critical part of the study or just general science? How does this compare to a non-tea party group with the same education background?Enjoy

And here is the good professors actual post, not cherry picked.
What the full post says
And him bemoaning how what he has written has become misconstrued and warped.
Second postGuess it shows that Tea Party supporters don't understand science that well.I have stated this before, but will reiterate again, you really should read these things you find through Google (I suggest DuckDuckGo, no tracking). Many things you use as a reference, like this, don't actually support what you claim. You should read both of the posts by Professor Kahane. If you understand them you wont think they are in any way supportive of your position. Why wouldn't he? He was naive thinking that people like you would not distort the results. He must be a liberal, since he was honest.

Here's a nice blog from The Sensuous Curmudgeon that deals with efforts by the Discovery Institute to spread their brand of creationism under the guise of science:What is the Wedge Document?

None of this will be new to our regular readers. Big chunks of it come from our earlier posts, but we’re putting it all into one convenient place this post so we’ll be able to link to it from now on. Besides, creationists are always recycling their oldies, so they shouldn’t mind if we do it too.

​

The Wedge Document (sometimes called the Wedge Strategy) was drafted in 1998. It’s the founding manifesto of the Discovery Institute they’re described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article which describes it: Wedge strategy. You can read the actual document at the NCSE website: The Wedge Document. Here’s a scan of the original: The Wedge. It’s a pdf document which begins with a graphic of Michelangelo’s God creating Adam.

​

[links in the original]

​

Lots more

Of course not --- there's no need to.

A gradual emergence with no discernible beginning.Two half-verses, with their own existence, combining to make a whole universe.Or, you know, something like the Big Bang model where time is a component of the universe, itself, and thus the question of a beginning is meaningless.But we've been over this before. You never acknowledge that there's other options and then some time goes by and you just repeat your tired old refuted claim again.Pretty much the same behavior that we see from the YEC's. Its one of the ways in which YEC is bad for America.You just can't budge on your position, despite any explanation or evidence, and then you go on holding the position regardless.

Hi CS, A gradual beginning just means that it had a beginning but just took a long time to complete. Which agrees with what I have presented in the past, as far as the universe and earth that we see today. But I do believe the energy and matter that they were created out of has existed eternally in the past. But those two verses existed already just not in the form it was after they combined. Would those two verses you are talking about have had a beginning to exist or would they have existed eternally in the past?My first claim is the universe has existed eternally in some form just not the form we see today. In other words the materials it is made of existed eternally. Did the universe exist at T=0? No
Did it exist 1 billionth of a second later? Yes
That constitutes a beginning to exist.
So the BBT requires a beginning to exist. You haven't ever presented another option.You presented two universes combining into one which is a beginning to exist from previous material which has existed from their beginning or eternally.You presented the BBT which requires a beginning to exist as the expansion the universe is experiencing now had it always existed it would be dead. Once you have presented evidence I will consider it. If it is true then I will change what I believe.Until you are some one else presents evidence that the universe has not always existed in some form or had a beginning to exist I will keep that position.God Bless,