Why Christians shouldn't be bothered by Carbon emissions

[cathy]

Marc the only people I know who deny climate change on purely religious grounds are of the extremist creationist sect. You, thankfully, do not represent any of the Christians I'm friends with. None of whom are creationists or extremists.

Can I ask just one question please Marc. Have you always been creationist, brought up that way and why choose that over normal Christianity? And please not the science answer again. Even if you were the only biologist not to accept the mountain of evidence for evolution-there is still NONE for any creationist claim so that can't really be it. As you yourself have finally admitted, albeit in twisting words fashion. I've told you why it 'unsaved' me

So why creationism-I'm genuinely intrigued-cos I see nought good or appealing in it at all. I'm also interested in your answer to Peters question-do you agree with CMI that non creationists are not fit for high office (or any office) in the church?

I would go so far as to say that many of the newer creationist Christians are only that way because they've been conned by unreliable or untrustworthy pastors into thinking it is necessary or 'helpful' to their faith, in a sort of God loves the dumb and unthinking more. I bet there are many would happily embrace science if they thought they could. Perhaps the many who try to avoid the topic-hence Stevie Lloyds specially composed speech to the deliberately agnostic on the issue Christians.

Marc I'd also be interested to know if you agreed with that sort of talk-given you've stated creationism isn't necessary and I've stated it is a barrier to religion?

None of those questions require evidence Marc so are easy to answer.

I'm sure I've been told before but what on earth is a dispensationalist?

Natman quote mining and twisting words is a essential creationists skill. Marc cannot help but do it, t'is in the blood of all who follow the dark path of creationism.

[marcsurtees]

Can I ask just one question please Marc. Have you always been creationist, brought up that way and why choose that over normal Christianity? And please not the science answer again. Even if you were the only biologist not to accept the mountain of evidence for evolution-there is still NONE for any creationist claim so that can't really be it.

I have been a creationist for as long I have believed in the creator (and that is a fundamental Christian belief). I became a YEC as a result of the conflict between the Bible and the ideas that the Earth is billions of years old and all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor and realised that there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with the fact that Genesis 1 to 11 is history.

[Michael]

Marc

You have never told us what that evidence is!!!!!

Is there ANY?

[Dagsannr]

I became a YEC as a result of the conflict between the Bible and the ideas that the Earth is billions of years old and all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor and realised that there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with the fact that Genesis 1 to 11 is history.

So why don't you agree with the evidence that Genesis 1-11 isn't history, despite the fact that there is more of it and it has much more scientific legitimacy?

I'll hazard a guess - the bible.

You don't give a flying sack of monkey's poop about the evidence, you don't give one pile of bovine excrement about it, you want to believe in the bible so you scour anything you can for any tiny scrap you can use to uphold your belief whilst ignoring the vastly more compelling and numerous pieces of evidence to contrary.

You, in the greatest tradition of fundamentalist thinking, established your conclusion first, then looked for stuff to agree with it, instead of examining the evidence and then drawing a conclusion.

If you'd just admit that, people here would respect you a lot more.

[marcsurtees]

I became a YEC as a result of the conflict between the Bible and the ideas that the Earth is billions of years old and all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor and realised that there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with the fact that Genesis 1 to 11 is history.

So why don't you agree with the evidence that Genesis 1-11 isn't history, despite the fact that there is more of it and it has much more scientific legitimacy?

I'll hazard a guess - the bible.

Wrong again.

Jesus is my saviour and He believes Genesis 1 to 11 to be history.

[marcsurtees]

Marc

You have never told us what that evidence is!!!!!

Is there ANY?

All over the place... Just look around you, or pick a copy of any scientific journal, or watch a David Attenborough program.

[Michael]

Marc

You are just being childish

[Peter Henderson]

All over the place... Just look around you, or pick a copy of any scientific journal, or watch a David Attenborough program

A 6,000 year old Earth along with a global flood 4,500 years ago is rejected by all scientific journals, and David Attenborough. Have you watched any of his recent programmes Marc ?

[a_haworthroberts]

Can I ask just one question please Marc. Have you always been creationist, brought up that way and why choose that over normal Christianity? And please not the science answer again. Even if you were the only biologist not to accept the mountain of evidence for evolution-there is still NONE for any creationist claim so that can't really be it.

I have been a creationist for as long I have believed in the creator (and that is a fundamental Christian belief). I became a YEC as a result of the conflict between the Bible and the ideas that the Earth is billions of years old and all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor and realised that there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with the fact that Genesis 1 to 11 is history.

Shouldn't the full stop be placed after the word 'ancestor'?

[a_haworthroberts]

I became a YEC as a result of the conflict between the Bible and the ideas that the Earth is billions of years old and all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor and realised that there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with the fact that Genesis 1 to 11 is history.

So why don't you agree with the evidence that Genesis 1-11 isn't history, despite the fact that there is more of it and it has much more scientific legitimacy?

I'll hazard a guess - the bible.

Wrong again.

Jesus is my saviour and He believes Genesis 1 to 11 to be history.

Not sure why fundamentalists are so argumentative with (sometimes aggressive) sceptics.

You say "wrong again" - but then say "He believes Genesis 1 to 11 to be history". Are you claiming that you got that info by 'special revelation' rather than from reading the Bible?

[Michael]

No after "marc"

[jon_12091]

Jesus is my saviour and He believes Genesis 1 to 11 to be history.

Chapter and Verse?

[cathy]

"I've been a creationist for as long as I've believed in a creator"

Marc, YECism may have robbed you of the ability to think like a scientist anymore, but I thought you'd at least retain some of the precision from your training (and job). I wasn't expecting a cryptic, vague, waffly riddle, I was expecting an age or date, eg at 17 or 1996 or I was brought up like that. i'm trying very hard to understand what on earth could be appealing about it.

You became a YECer because of conflict between bible and science is honest for you-or literalist view of bible anyway.

But why a YECer rather than normal Christian? Genesis does not have to be read literally (in fact can't be read literally its contradictory)-millions don't read it that way and haven't since way before Darwin. Why choose something so obviously wrong? All evidence is against it, you have to engage in intellectual and literal dishonesty to believe it, and it does, whatever you may say, diminish your God. Compared with the real science accepted as the method of creation by non creationist Christians anyway.

As for the last bit-you know as well as I do that there is NO evidence consistent with YECism-if there was there would be no need to engage in the sort of dishonesty that you have to engage in daily. Misquote, stuff out of context, anomolous result=wipes out all else rather than being interesting field to study, lies, ignore stuff etc etc etc etc.

I know you dislike me intensely and dislike answering any question I ask. But why creationist rather than normal Christian.? What exactly can you see that is remotely good or appealing in it?

And you still havent' answered Peters question about whether or not you agree with CMI, nor mine about whether you agree with Steve Lloyds talk aimed at reluctant creationists.

[Dagsannr]

Jesus is my saviour and He believes Genesis 1 to 11 to be history.

<citation required>

And (in a question I'm afraid might irk our less fundamentalist christian contributors), do you have any evidence that Jesus was history?

Aside from your rather unreliable and unverified bible, there are no contempory accounts of Jesus. At all. With any other historical account, secondary sources, written some time after an event, are usually discounted as valid evidence unless supported by strong primary sources.

[Roger Stanyard]

Can I ask just one question please Marc. Have you always been creationist, brought up that way and why choose that over normal Christianity? And please not the science answer again. Even if you were the only biologist not to accept the mountain of evidence for evolution-there is still NONE for any creationist claim so that can't really be it.

I have been a creationist for as long I have believed in the creator (and that is a fundamental Christian belief). I became a YEC as a result of the conflict between the Bible and the ideas that the Earth is billions of years old and all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor and realised that there is plenty of scientific evidence consistent with the fact that Genesis 1 to 11 is history.

Strange, isn't it, that the creationists keep telling the US courts, under oath, time and time again, that their position is purely scientific and doesn't need religion to justify it, no siree Bob.

There's scientific evidence that the moon is made of cheese; after all, it appears to be yellow.