Creationist = Anti-Environmentalist?

This is on-topic, since this is a thread about an alleged link between relgious affiliation and environmental concerns.- This is not on topic, since this is a thread on the alleged link between religious affiliation and environmental concerns. A better thread for this question is the Why do biologists believe in the ToE thread. It is, after all, the same question. How can scientists, who spend their careers looking at data, be woodwinked into believing something that is false? The answer, I think, is going to be the same. Just like biologists are indoctrinated into evolution, environmental scientists are indoctrinated into global warming. Just like geologists cannot get a job unless they toe the party line, so must climatologists toe their party line. And just like geologists make up radiometric dates, so the atmospheric scientists just make up their data, too.I think that the linked thread will be a more enjoyable venue for you.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Sure. And one time scholars thought the stars and planets revolved about the earth. Now they think that the earth and other planets orbit the sun.The obvious conclusion is that no one really knows whatsoever how the planets move.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Hi, Nem. I'm not saying that it is inconceivable that ignorance on a topic can exist forever. I'm speaking about your implied point that if the conclusions of the concensus of a field changes, then that is a sign that we cannot trust their conclusions. You said:Here you are clearly implying that since the opinion of climatologists have changed, their current theories cannot be trusted. I am trying to explain that this isn't true when I say: The point I'm trying to make is that a change in the theory has no relevance to whether the current theory is correct. In fact, by itself it doesn't even raise suspicions that the theory might not be correct. In fact, we expect that details should change as scientists acquire more data and their understanding increases. A theory stands or falls on the evidence; just as the fact that scientists decided to change the theory of combustion by abandoning the concept of phlogiston doesn't imply that the current theory of chemical combination with oxygen is incorrect, so that increased understanding of the physics and chemistry in climatology led to a change from a prediction of an ice age doesn't imply that the current prediction of global warming is incorrect.Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed gratuitious statement. If you saw it, Nem, then I apologize for it.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Huh. Someone should make you a moderator; the current thinking among the admins is that fairness requires more moderators incapable of rational thought.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

*sigh* If only I understood what I was talking about so that my explanations were correct.But thanks.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

The newbies have met Tal!I was going to write a long post about Tal that would have been a deliberate violation of forum guidelines, but then I decided, why bother? Tal's posts really do speak for themselves.Hey, enjoy, boys and girls!

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

Heh. I wouldn't say it would be a waste of time to write a response to a particular post of his. Not that engaging in a "debate" with Tal would be all that productive in itself, but it would serve the purpose of educating lurkers and others who would be reading the thread.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

Hi, Ned. Well, while I think you are correct, to be fair it should be pointed out that, considering his past posting history, it isn't unreasonable to think that Tal did, in fact, claim that things haven't gone extinct.At any rate, mass extinction is only one part of environmental concerns. Tal quoted a sentence about protections of endangered species which, by definition, aren't just part of some hypothetical mass extinction but actual particular examples of species that we know are truly in danger of disappearing. His protest against the idea of mass extinction doesn't really say anything about the many, many species that we definitely do know have gone extinct, and that are currently in danger of extinction, and how many of these species are, like the proverbial canary in a coal mine, indicative of deeper environmental dangers facing us.That said, it just occurred to me that his post is off-topic anyway. This thread was originally supposed to be about a correlation with creationist beliefs and a lack of concern for environmental issues. (although, to be fair, I haven't checked to see whether the thread evolved beyond that).

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

Well, you'd pretty much be talking to yourself even if Tal were responding.- Thanks. I'm not really familiar with either Taibbi -- I don't watch TV and I prefer physical print over websites, so I'm kind of ignorant of these things. I don't even check on Pharyngula as often as I should!I got this quote from an article to which someone else linked on another message board, (And in that article, Taibbi claims that the Soviet Union is a better comparison to the Bush Administration!)Edited by Chiroptera, : added "on another message board"

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi