i am fast becoming a creationist. why? I think I have been lied to. The political interest has ment scientists get funding for evolution. I saw a programme on global warming and it said it was wrong and that scientists were trying to get data to show global warming which were inaccurate figures. Now the question of evolution popped up in my mind. There are many scientists who accept the idea of intelligent design scientifically and no I do not rate dawkins as a reliable scientist cus he has an agenda to argue his immoral life same with bertrand russell. anyway back to evolution a pastor showed me comments from scientists against evolution and proof of the six day creation. Now when I recieve this proof through email I will post it on here. One of the the proofs was to do with the fact that an active volcano a few years back produced rock and when they analysed it it looked like it was millions years old but the scientists knew it was a recent event so the rock looked older than it actually was.
34 comments
You know, when you do your own research it's tougher for people to pull a fast one on you.
Of course, it is more work to do your own reading, instead of relying on a bunch of bullshit from your self-serving pastor, but the results would have the potential for greater accuracy than the crap you seem to have swallowed.
Raptor Jesus
This guy was a creationist LONG before he even made this comment. He is on CARM after all.
Sorry charlie. I post on carm almost daily. (in between bannings that is) There are SOME intelligent folk over there, but they are few and far between.
"i am fast becoming a creationist. why? I think I have been lied to."
You haven't believed in fairy tales until now, but now you think that a global conspiracy has been taking place for 100+ years?
The question Piers should ask himself is why he is convinced GW is a lie by one skeptical television programme, but not convinced evolution is true by the dozens of natural history programmes that include it?
It's called 'confirmation bias', the programme Piers watched supported his a priori view, so is accecpted, while he would treat a half-dozen Horizon programmes on the science behind - and consequences of - GW much more critically because they contradict it.
So Dawkins isn't reliable because you think he has an agenda, but your pastor presumably doesn't?
Also, today's Independent investigated The Great Global Warming Swindle , and pointed out all of its distortions and outright lies .
Wise Son wrote:
"Also, today's Independent investigated The Great Global Warming Swindle, and pointed out all of its distortions and outright lies."
Add to that, an editoral piece in yesterday's Guardian , and a rebuttal on RealClimate.org . One of the contributors (Karl Wunch) has complained to Channel4 that "my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks [...] comes close to fraud."
The Head of Science Programming at Channel4 claimed that he "commissioned The Great Global Warming Swindle: to reflect the views of the significant minority of respected scientists who do not agree with the prevailing consensus on climate change". But Wunch does broadly agree with the prevailing consensus (he has complained of "over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts"), yet Channel4 instead chose to present him as an expert who was arguing that global warming was entirely natural.
The Head of Science Programming at Channel4 claimed that he "commissioned The Great Global Warming Swindle: to reflect the views of the significant minority of respected scientists who do not agree with the prevailing consensus on climate change".
If ever you were to compile a list of recently-coined phrases that have done untold damage to society through abuse, misapplication and misunderstanding, "significant minority" has to be among the top ten.
get funding for evolution
Evolving costs money now?
I saw a programme on global warming and it said it was wrong
I saw a program on vampires and it said they were real. Fortunately, I don't believe everything I see on TV.
...I do not rate dawkins as a reliable scientist cus he has an agenda...a pastor showed me...
Yeah... 'cause pastors don't have an agenda at all...
Global Warming is an exaggeration of the natural occurance that our climate changes. I will call it climate intensity, but not global warming. The last ice age happened 100.000 years ago, with smaller "ice ages" happening periodicly every 20.000 years...The last mini "ice age" happened 20.900 years ago...do the math
Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, and let the light shine!
Also, just because I don't believe in GW doesn't mean I don't believe in putting in order environmental controls....analogy, just because I don't believe in the death penalty doesn't mean I don't believe in punishing people for their crimes. I just think a lot of organizations are making money taht could be better spent on real life experiments and not Computer models that are just educated guesses on what could happen.
Let's see I can make this simple enough...volcanic lava is made from molten rocks. That means rocks that have melted. Now, for something to melt, it has to exist first. This means that the rocks coming out of volcanoes have already existed long enough to melt. They're not baby rocks.
If he's refering to what I think he is, then the reason rocks dated older than they knew they were, was because their rapid cooling trapped radon gas inside the rocks, which accelerated the decay.
......I think it went like that, it's been a while since I read about it and I'm bit scetchy on the details.
Anyway, the tests were done to prove that this type of thing can happen with volcanic rocks, naturally fundies use it to 'prove' that all rocks are just 6000 years old.
Sorry, all I'm seeing here is "Baaaaaa".
And back the fuck off of Bertrand Russell, you waste of carbon. Those tales of his so-called "immoral lifestyle" were fabricated by your fundie ancestors to ruin him.
@Finkel: I haven't read anything of Crichton's since The Andromeda Strain demonstrated just how egregious abuse of a deus ex machina can get in the hands of a lazy writer. I suppose it works as a thriller, but as science fiction, or just as a novel, it's weak. He's a hack, Friis-Christensen is a quack, and I'm too ignorant of climatology to claim my opinion is worth anything, but I can still tell when a source is bunk.
If you're becoming a creationist, then you must indeed have been lied to.
No-one gets funding for evolution any more than they get funding for electricity or the wheel or fire.
Global warming, or rather global climate change is a proven fact. What is under debate is whether man is making it worse, and if so, how much worse. And, most important of all; can we do anything to reduce our impact on the climate? Sitting around yelling "lalalala, I can't hear you" is not a good way to be Stewards of the Earth, like God told you to be.
There are more scientists called Steve that accept evolution, than there are scientists (regardless of namen) who accept creationism.
I bet that pastor of yours has a much more outspoken agenda than any scientist.
The magma that comes shooting out of a volcano is the same age as the mountains around it, stupid! It's not newly created, it's just "liquid" rock.
"One of the the proofs was to do with the fact that an active volcano a few years back produced rock and when they analysed it it looked like it was millions years old but the scientists knew it was a recent event so the rock looked older than it actually was."
Radiometric dating of a 2x4 does not tell you when the house was built.
"and no I do not rate dawkins as a reliable scientist cus he has an agenda to argue his immoral life same with bertrand russell."
You know that your creationist pastors or whoever have an agenda too, right? I can tell you his is not to spread scientific truth, because it might contradict the bible and that can't be wrong ever.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.