I'm always curious when I meet someone who either believes the majority of climate scientists that MCGW is occuring, but doesn't believe the majority of evolutionary biologist that evolution occured/is occuring, and vice versa.

It would seem to me that if you agree with the majority of scientists on evolution you would also agree with most of the scientists on MCGW. This is ASSUMING that you yourself are not knowledgeable enough in the field of evolutionary biology or climatology to make a fair, and unbiased decision regarding either.

Anyways, just curious to hear from people who either only agree with scientists about ONE of the issue, or NONE of the issues, and their reasonings for that. Personally I'm more inclined to believe evolution over MCGW, but thats because I have the impression that MCGW scientists have more of a monetary reason to perpetrate the MCGW "myth" (if such a myth actually exists).

Scientifically, evolution has an incredible amount of evidence behind it - pretty much the only people who don't believe in evolution are biblical literalists. I'm not very informed about MCGW, but by its nature I'm sure the case for it will be much weaker than for evolution. (I still believe in it, of course. I'm just saying that it's not simply a matter of "trusting scientists.")

Yeah, evolution >>>>>>> MMGW in pretty much every way, MMGW is flimsy by comparison.

But I'm still with the scientific consensus, I mean, I'd say the evidence that human actions affect global climate change is quite strong, it's just not a dead lock.

Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the climate flavor of the day. Global Warming is so 2007. 2009-???? is the age of Global Cooling.

They're hoping you don't notice the change in popular opinion.

Um. no.

It has been cold here the last few days...

Yeah, yesterday was one of the coldest days I can remember seeing this early in the winter. *smug grin* Global warming amirite?

Like the others have said evolution is way more solid than global warming. But then again evolution is on the toplist of solid theories and climatology in general are gargantuan statistical models with lots of unknowns churning about.

That being said I see no reason to disbelieve global warming. I certainly have some skepticism to the most outrageous claims - maybe it is unfair but in recent years there has been an unhealthy tendency for those who scream the highest to get large grants which makes me question the motives of some of those researchers.

i just thought it was interesting because i know a lot of christians who agree with scientists regarding man made global warming, but not evolution. The reasons are obvious (at least to me), but I was hoping someone who fell in the "agree on climate change, but not on evolution" group would come into this thread and share their thoughts ... but i'm guessing they are avoiding it for now.

You need to start getting your information from someone other than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

I would suspect it would hinge on "Global Warming is real science - we can study it and it's been shown to have happened. Evolution is about millions of years ago, we cant really do experiments it's just taken on faith."

I believe in microevolution but don't now accept macro.

I've always thought MCGW was bunk. Over the last couple of years I've reluctantly admitted there may be a warming trend, but still am unconvinced of GW.

Then I google "global cooling" and find this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=10783

Boy am I confused.

Either define 'truth' or admit that Christianity is nothing but a masturbatory claim of special privilege for a (uniquely simple-minded) confusion of logical and actual categories.

It's not even a good superstition. At least superstitions like Buddhism offer a framework of skepticism and honesty. Christianity is spiritual suicide.

There's a reason why "Global Warming" was traded in for "Climate Change". With CC you can be right either way.

Just happened to stumble across this link posted on christianforums.com:

29+ Evidences For Macroevolution

FYI, The person who posted the link is a "Senior Contributor" on there (not a troll or anything, and he has ~10000 posts) and followed it up with this sentence:

"If you can read that entire essay and still think there's even a ghost of a chance that common descent is wrong, well, something is wrong with you."

Also, read this thread:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7307275

The OP is a creationist with 337,000 (that's right 337,000!) posts. The posters who attempt to explain evolution to him, most of whom are also Christians (and INCREDIBLY polite people I must add), do a great job of answering his questions.

When you're finished reading, give me an honest answer on how stubborn...

1) Not stubborn at all
2) Somewhat stubborn
3) Pretty stubborn
4) Beyond stubborn

...you feel OP was being about the replies.

I am making my way through this now. If I have questions will anyone actually try and answer them?

It seems everytime I try and ask a question about evolution it is dismissed like I am trying to disprove something.

I'd go so far as to state that understanding (and therefore, acceptance) of evolution is a reasonable litmus test of intelligence for any literate, informed person. Those who don't understand/accept it are quite simply dumb.

(However the converse is not necessarily true. Some dumb people nevertheless manage to understand evolution, at least at a basic level.)

I might take a look at it and if I do I will do so in conjunction with its critque, found here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

which if you're open minded you also will read.

If you mean macroevolution then this is really dumb.

Hmmm. I will look at this also. Thank you.

Is anyone else willing to look at both sides? Or just us closeminded theists?

Been on it for about 45 minutes so far, but might have to stop reading soon.

Good to here. I am still working on your link, so I have not gotten to NR's yet. I think that it should be interesting to discuss once we have both finished.

Just to be fair here:

http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/CritiqueResponse.html

is Theobald's response to Camp's critique. And before you bring it up I realize Camp isn't a scientist. I haven't read any of this yet, only skimmed.

Edit: Oh, just in case you run out of things to do, Theobold's response includes a link to Camp's critique of his response - thankfully, Theobold said he wasn't going to respond to that response.