Does it make any sense when someone from the religious right argues about global warming?

Question

They tend to think creationism is correct, many go for the 5,000 year old earth idea. Adding this all together they heap derision on science but then take up the arguement in a very strenuous fashion that global climate change is completely natural. How would they know? They werent there when it happened (one of the great genius arguements that creationists use), there are no books from that time?

Answer 1

No, it makes no sense, IMO.
That's one of the main problems I have when trying to be Christian.
We are supposed to have faith and believe in what we cannot see, but ignore the obvious and proven.
I mean, most in my group tell me that there never were any dinosaurs, that the only explanations for the bones is that they are the remains of the Philistine giants - what the heck? Come on.
I can't imagine that David struck down a Philistine with 6ft-long teeth, with a STONE, no less!
Now, some Christians are crediting the scientists, saying that SOME of thier proof is right, but they are wrong on the timescale - I'm tired of this fickle attitude, it just makes me doubt more. There's just too much proof that no dinosaurs existed in the last 5000 years. They can't argue that climate change is natural and at the same time it's Gods will. That's a contradiction.
They tell me that God sent Satan to makes us doubt and disobey - well if God is purposely making me doubt, well then I don't see how he can judge me for doubting, if it's His fault.
Whether global warming is God's will or natural, in any case He's not doing anything to fix it. Maybe he can't. Maybe he's waiting for us to fix it for him (like I call a chimney-sweep to clean my chimney - I can't do it).
I don't know. I just don't.
I do believe our climate is changing fast, and I do believe that we can change that.
If I'm to believe what my Christian fellows tell me, Christians should not even bother themselves with global warming or try to slow or stop it - because everything that happens in this world is supposedly God's will, and advocating such actions would be trying to change God's will.
So no, it makes no sense.

Answer 2

I'm no big fan of the religious Right, but it may be because the Bible predicts the earth will soon be destroyed by fire (as opposed to flooding). It's long been known that the earth and Venus are very similar, but Venus has a surface temperature sufficient to melt lead. Astronomers a century ago established that the difference in distance from the sun could not explain the difference, but the difference in the atmosphere does. All existing data indicates the original atmosphere of the earth was almost identical to Venus. The observable differences, including our cooler temperatures is believed to have resulted from the development of plant life, removing the CO2 gas from the atmosphere and replacing it with oxygen gas , and storing the carbon as solid carbon compounds. We now observe that as we convert the carbon and oxygen back to CO2 gas, the temperature rises as expected. The observed increases in temperature are about double what can be accounted for by natural processes.

Answer 3

I think the whole issue of creationists and global warming is kind of obscure. If they believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, then how do they account for the formation of fossil fuels? (Rhetorical question; they don't) It took millions of years of evolution to get plants that captured carbon from the atmosphere and millions more years for these plants to be transformed into hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.

The existence of oil proves the world is millions of years old, unless the chemists, geologists and biologists have all been wrong for all this time. However it seems that the religious right- today represented by the Bush administration- is very concerned with oil.

Maybe the religious right is less inclined to believe in global warming because they don't believe in the stuff that's causing it?

Answer 4

Not all religious people adhere to that view. A lot of us do believe in evolution (to a certain extent) and that time as described in the Bible is different than time today. A key belief of the denomination I was raised in is that we humans are to take care of God's creations, including the earth and the animals. There really is no religious basis for not taking care of the earth; some people just pretend there is because they go along with a political party on every other issue and they think they can't deviate.

I find it really offensive when people (such as Go Girl up there) think that just because someone is religious (or from a certain part of the country or a certain background) that they are stupid and incapable of an intelligent conversation. You're being just as close minded as the people you rail against when you make these types of assumptions.

Answer 5

Is there any concern the place the religious appropriate is smart?i don't think of so.which would be a customary. "advent technological know-how" is a contradiction in words. A crucial guiding principle of recent technological know-how is methodological naturalism--it seeks to describe the universe merely in terms of suggested or testable organic mechanisms. to that end, physics describes the atomic nucleus with particular recommendations governing be counted and capability, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new debris, which includes quarks, to flesh out their theories purely whilst documents instruct that the previous descriptions can't properly clarify suggested phenomena. the hot debris don't have arbitrary residences, besides--their definitions are tightly limited, because of the fact the hot debris could desire to extra healthful in the present framework of physics. repeatedly, technological know-how has shown that methodological naturalism can sidestep lack of know-how, finding progressively extra specific and informative solutions to mysteries that as quickly as appeared impenetrable: the character of sunshine, the motives of affliction, how the strategies works. Evolution is doing the comparable with the riddle of ways the residing international took shape. Creationism, by employing any call, provides not something of psychological value to the attempt.

Answer 6

I find it even more ridiculous for someone to pretend that they believe in an exclusively scientific view of evolution while ridiculing those who don't believe in it at all. It seems more like people trying to find a difference and ridiculing them for it. It's no different than racists exaggerating or fabricating stereotypes based on the color of someone's skin in order to feel superior.

If we all TRULY believed in evolution then those who have either the genetic ability or resources to adapt to the climate changes would welcome the change since it would favor their and their offspring's ability to succeed. They would feel no guilt whatsoever about exploiting others outside their group or worry about their fate especially if their attrition increased the availability of resources. Even those with moderate success would refuse resources to those with little to offer the gene pool - those people would be an "anchor" inhibiting the moderates from ultimately becoming more successful. So the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly - all would be seen as a needless waste of resources. And of the remaining, those that pose a "threat" to the lifestyles of the majority of the more successful would be disposed of regardless of genetic superiority or accumulation of resources. But that is from a purely scientific viewpoint...

Do you adhere to this purely scientific viewpoint? Or do you believe in some spiritual middle ground that eschews "natural" tendencies and allows our "humane" care of each other and all living things. What do you call this spirituality, and what makes you believe you are right in ridiculing others' spirituality?

...or would you rather ALL of us behave like the soulless, competitive animals that nature - OR SCIENCE - demands?

Answer 7

Everyone had a belief - whether it's in a god or in no god. Science or nature. Sometimes people have a marriage of these things.

As far as global warming - greenhouse gasses CO2 (carbon dioxide) dissolves in water. Warmer weather means wetter weather. The added clouds will reflect sunlight and help to reduce CO2. The earth should balance itself out - thought this may take some time.

Only if we stop flooding the atmosphere with CO2 does the earth stand a chance. For religionists - waiting for God to do something is like waiting for him to earn us a living. We can't have it unless we work for it.

Me personally, I don't believe in a god. This is a personal decision, and not all will agree with me. Still, while I don't chide those who DO believe in God, I ask that you respect my views same as I respect yours.

Good luck with Global Warming and the Religious Right.

Answer 8

Simple. At one time the polar caps were over one mile thick over New York City. What caused the global warming that caused these glaciers to retreat? Clearly this was a natural occurrence.

Since warming occurred naturally before in the past, why would anyone think that warming today was not natural?

Answer 9

We don't even know that the earth is warming. The records say it's getting warmer, but there apparently isn't any standard on location of the "official thermometer". This leads to all sorts of inaccurate reports. Check out this story.

As for the religious right or the liberal left, I don't see any correlation between their religious views and the hocus pocus issue of "global warming". Everyone is getting snowed.

Answer 10

You could only be a second old, all your memories everything, and everyone you know created in an instant. You cannot prove or disprove it, that makes more sense than a trace gas in the atmosphere controlling climate when it never has before.