2007-03-26 05:30:20 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LOOKS LIKE I STRUCK A
NERVE!
2007-03-26 05:36:49 · update #1
No, but you go ahead and live in the fantasy world that you choose to live in.
2007-03-26 05:33:47 · answer #1 · answered by Al Dave Ismail 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
What a wonderful assumption you are making. Science has studied the idea of God and conclusively proved her existence, so why waste time on that issue.
The science of climate change on the other hand is based on speculation that human behavior can be dangerous to mankind in general. Just check out the Book on Nuclear Power, the process is so stable know and understood that we really need to get government out of the business of regulating private power companies.
If one of these nuclear power plants blows up and kills everyone in Texas, for example, at least all the bad guys will be dead also. The market will take care of the rest. You do have faith in the Free Enterprise system don't you?
2007-03-26 05:44:31 · answer #2 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One has a scientific basis, the other stems from pure faith with no empirical evidence to support it. Hard to make a connection between these two things.
You think you struck a nerve? That's kind of cute. If you struck a nerve your answers would be full of vitriol and obscenities. They aren't, they are just run of the mill answers. If striking nerves is your goal, and it always seems to be, you failed with this one, sorry. Guess you'll have to try harder next time :).
2007-03-26 06:05:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one "God's existance" is not subject, at this time to scientific proof.
Weather and Climate certainly can be addressed by science, but I am not sure our science is up to the task of proving or disproving it.
We are passengers on the planet, as so many ecologist seem happy to point out, and I doubt that we can do anything as a race that will affect the planets climate for the foreseeable future.
Do people really think that our race has that much control and impact as to be able to affect a planets climate?
I love science fiction, but I can tell the difference between an author's vision of a potential future is being influenced by their own personal ecological perspective.
Doesn't make either of them real and I can tell the difference between fact and fiction.
2007-03-26 05:38:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the idea of wise layout holds that particular efficient factors of the universe and of residing issues are ideal defined by technique of an wise reason, no longer an undirected procedure mutually with organic determination. by the study and analysis of a gadget's elements, a layout theorist is in a position to be sure no matter if countless organic structures are the made from chance, organic regulation, wise layout, or some mixture thereof. Such study is performed by technique of staring on the kinds of information produced at the same time as wise brokers act. Scientists then search for to discover gadgets which have those similar kinds of informational homes which we frequently understand come from intelligence. wise layout has utilized those medical the right thanks to come across layout in irreducibly complicated organic and organic structures, the complicated and certain information content textile in DNA, the existence-protecting actual structure of the universe, and the geologically quick foundation of organic and organic range interior the fossil record in the course of the Cambrian explosion about 530 million years in the past.
2016-12-02 20:27:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont know. Humans elvolve. I've always thought that through the study of psychology that Man's "proof" of anything is the result of his chemistry.
I think there is a fear of the unknown that Man solves by claiming there is a God., There could be 100 for all I know.
And all that writing in The Victorian Age about religionists using the God theme to justify ceratin behaviors. Call me an Agnostic.
2007-03-26 05:36:17 · answer #6 · answered by Da Man 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Given there's evidence refuting human caused climate change (global warming throughout the solar system), and no evidence to refute the existence of a supreme being, I'd have to say you are correct.
2007-03-26 05:42:29 · answer #7 · answered by Michael E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the fact that one of GOD's volcanoes (mt.st.helen's) can emmit more "greenhouse" gas than all the cars and industry in the past century is proof enough that albert gorlioni is a false prophet. Truth is God's domain and He will make it manifest soon enough.
2007-03-26 05:39:34 · answer #8 · answered by mr.phattphatt 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although I believe in both, I'd have to say that there is way more evidence of global warming over the proof of the existance of God. If you don't believe in God, you'll probably go to Hell; if you don't think global warming is real, you'll probably create Hell.
2007-03-26 05:35:42 · answer #9 · answered by juddthestud1987 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We are the ones who cut down trees, burned fossil fuels and threw our garbage in the ocean. God created it all.
2007-03-26 05:49:52 · answer #10 · answered by applecrisp 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And God, through evolution, granted man a large brain, to be used for science, that explains that global warming is occuring.
2007-03-26 05:36:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋