Creationist = Anti-Environmentalist?

The point that gets left out of these discussions is that the only part we can do anything about are human actions.It really doesn't matter whether Global Warming is wholly human caused, wholly natural or some combination of the two.The ONLY thing we can have any control over are the human contributions.If we decide that Global Warming is an issue to address, the way we address it is through human actions.That is the only option.If Global Warming is 100% due to Human Contribution, the thing to do is reduce the Human Contribution.If Global Warming is 100% due to Natural Contribution, the thing to do is reduce the Human Contribution.If Global Warming is 100% due to a combination of Human and Natural Contribution, the thing to do is reduce the Human Contribution.The thing to do is reduce Human contributions and to plan and prepare for the effects.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How about Joe Stalin, or Mao, or Pol PotCrashfrog, you impress me. At one time you were a born again Christian going around telling everyone about how you were enlightned and had everything figured out. I'll bet you pushed that on everyone you met.Now, thank God, you're an atheist who goes around telling everyone about how enlightened you are now and have everything figured out. Are you still pushing it on everyone? Looks like it to me.Why don't you tell me about how you are DIFFERENT now.

The correlation between creationists and opposition to a strong concern for the environment is based on more than personal impressions.For the past several decades, the most powerful political coalition in the U.S. has been evangelical Christians and wealthy corporate interests, i.e., the Republican Party.The corporatists have been happy to sign-off on the evangelical's socially conservative agenda--gay bashing, race baiting, foreigner hating--in return for the votes which allowed the most wealthy persons and corporations to become even more breathtakingly wealthy.Working class and middle class incomes have stagnated since the 1970s since the liberal Nixon left office, but Reagan, et al. were able to distract attention from this with jingoism and the bashing, baiting and hating they did so well. Tax cuts for the wealthy were sold on the basis that "it's your money," while in fact the tax cuts have overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy.Since Reagan and his "acid rain is bee piss" and "trees are the biggest contributors to air pollution," the Republican neo-conservative coalition has opposed even the most commensensical environmental actions, and demonized those who disagreed as "liberal tree-huggers" who were going to take our jobs away. Instead, those jobs were sent overseas where environmental controls are even more lax and wages even lower.The neo-con coalition not only opposed Clean Air and Clean Water, they actively sought to despoil areas precious to environmentalists because they were precious to environmentalists. Opening National Parks to jet skis, snowmobiles, and ATVs; drilling for a trivial amount of oil in our last great wilderness in Alaska; logging old growth forests on national lands; and allowing West Virginia's magic mountains to be decapitated by Big Coal, their downslope streams filled with rubble and slurry; proposing to allow high levels of mercury emissions...the list is long and dirty.The equation is clear: evangelicals and corporate interests have made the Republican Party a potent force for the past few decades.The Republican Party has opposed nearly every initiative intended to protect our air, water and land.In recent years, when a small group of evangelicals announced their concern for the environment, the response from major evangelical leaders was instant and sharp: expressing concern for the environment is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.No, we probably won't find a major survey correlating creationist beliefs and anti-environmentalism. But recent social and political history is clear, and the recent response to the minority evangelical concern for the Earth is even more so.It is always amusing to hear a creationist in an evidence-demanding frenzy, but in this case we need only point to history. If the correlation between creationists and anti-environmentalism were specious, the creationists would be swelling this thread with evidence of their deep love and concern for our good earth.I assure you that they cannot.AbE: To view some interesting surveys that show growing concern among religious Americans over our deteriorating environment, including global warming, just Google "survey shows evangelical environmental." The past antagonism to environmentalism and the current tectonic shift are both well documented. You can fool some of the people some of the time...Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Not left-wingers according to the American system, nor are they authoritarian followers, but rather leaders, obviously. Also, they've never sat down for Altemeyer's test, now have they?Were you paying attention to context? Or did you think you'd just pop in your ignorant rant without checking to see what we were talking about? I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. Did you read Altemeyer's research?Or does this personal rant simply flow from a deep vein of ignorance?

How about you look up Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption, and then compare that with the total yearly contribution of CO2 by human activity and see which is bigger. Now, I'm no math expert, but I'm pretty sure that 24 billion is greater than 20 million.Solar output data can be found at nearly any solar observatory.

Sure you do.I just said there is no difference between the Crashfrog born again Christian nut bag and the "NEW" Crashfrog atheist nut bag.You just traded one belief system for another.If you don't think so just look through your 14,000+ posts

No, of course not. I should probably add that I would absolutely love doing away with oil altogether. Unfortunately, in order to fuel us we need something major. I was all for the introduction of Ethynol, much like Brazil is doing. And for the most part, I still am. The only problem is that it cannot currently sustain a nation the size of the US. I'm still waiting for cold fusion. Until then, we have to be realistic. We need oil. That's just the bottom line, as unfortunate as it is.My biggest issue is that the biggest loudmouth's about how to conserve energy do no such thing. Cripes, Al Gore spends more on fuel in his lier jet, traveling to seminars so he can chastise us! Hey, how about leading us by example buddy?See, the issue is that they aren't really offering any viable solutions. Of those they are presenting, are they leading us by example? No. So instead of telling us that the sky is falling, how about implementing something plausible?http://youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Weren't you the whiner recommending suspension for somebody a few posts ago?Maybe we can find a creationist exception for you.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I traded faith for evidence.A trade-up, in my opinion. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.Did you have a point, aside from spewing personal attacks? (We had a whole thread for that, it just closed this week. You should really have blown your load there instead of here.)

The rest of us have been dealing with YECs for years. Only recently after Bush finally admitted (after years of denial) that global warming was real and that the cause of it is manmade. When I say recently, I mean like the last 5 months or so. Coincidently, at about the same time I started to see some YECs beginning to admit that global warming was real.Before that point, they not only didn't show any concern for the environment, they actually vocally spoke out against global warming and other environmental concerns. If you don't believe me, just start watching televangelists at night. I do it about twice a week.Do I have any formal evidence? Nope. This is something that you're just going to have see and hear for yourself. Just start visiting christian and creationist forums. Start a topic on global warming and see how they react. In fact, start any kind of environmental topic and see how they react.Actually, I can think of one formal evidence for this. A few months ago, I was listening on NPR and they were interviewing evangelical christians on the issue of global warming and other environmental concerns. According to NPR, the few christians that show concern for the environment are often shunted by their peers. Like Ann Coulter said, this Earth was given to us to rape as we wanted, and this is the prevalent view among evangelical christians for quite sometime now.Why do you think Bush had been denying global warming for so long?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Actually, that's exactly what he did, by being one of the first to offset his carbon emissions from travel with purchased offset credits, and paying a premium price for his home-office to be powered by strictly carbon-neutral electricity.I guess in your mind, Al Gore is supposed to advocate for the issue without traveling anywhere, except perhaps by astral projection. So, you're saying that it's totally fine to waste gas, oil, and power with inefficient vehicles and homes just as long as you're also working as hard as you can to deny the reality of global warming, and opposing any effort by the government to reign in energy use?I really don't understand how it works in conservative-land anymore.

I am still waiting for someone to supply me with a scientific study showing YECs have no environmental concerns/want to trash the earth.As has been established here on EvC I am not interested in your anocdotal evidence.Before I can comment I have to see the evidence that YECs hate the environment.I'm tired, but I don't give a shit if this goes on for 20 years, You will either provide me with the data, or say it was anecdotal BS.Edited by petrophysics, : typo & grammer

Read much?Look, Newbie, one of the first things you are going to have to understand if you wanna hang on the threads is this: RTFP
Read The F**King Posts.Your demands have LONG since been answered.Now, rather than throwing a tantrum, why don't you go and supply some evidence that what we are seeing is incorrect.Why don't you find an Ann Coulter op-ed that's pro enviroment?
Why don't you like a Fox News clip about Fundamentalists marching to protest Bush's env record.See, this door swings both ways.We've reported what we are seeing.
You've acknowledged that you have NO EXPERIENCE.
So now it's up to you to prove that you can go out and learn.

Did you follow any of the links I've posted? The one that outlines Altemeyer's research is at least partially probative in this regard.We can, and have, supplied you with all the research you could want. If you refuse to go an take a look at it, there's no power we possess to cram it down your throat. If you're not willing to be educated, then you will remain ignorant.

No. The issue is creationists and their attitudes to the environment. Nobody else's shortcomings are on topic.I'll rephrase my comment: Why aren't creationists more concerned about good stewardship of the planet? Why aren't they more vocal about saving fuel, etc.?------------- But it's best to steal the bait and spring the trap, for the safety of others.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC