is denying global warming comparable to denying evolution?
344402
well, what a unique question!...obviously we cannot prove either one or the issues would have already been settled. this is like asking which is worse?.....'the tree hugger or the chain around the tree?......global warming can only happen if it has happened before..if it happened before, it is sure to happen again but then thats saying that we will evolve into another type of being.....we cant prove we evolved from apes, i dont like to think we did. but i dont like to think we will ever use nuclear weapons but we already have......the earth will surely go through some catastrophy at some point in time, i mean they claim it on t.v.,.....we see shows about asteroids and so forth, why cant we have global warming or even a type of supernatural winter?.....maybe caused by a huge volcano or comet or something.  if you can dream it up,...our goverment will make it happen even if it's only on t.v., at any rate, the proposition will end up costing you tax dollars. global warming is the tree hugger's way of getting on television. the evolutionist just got there before him.....everybody gets thier 15 seconds of fame.  so the answer to your question is "yes".
314675
Scientific data is ambiguous and conflicting as it pertains to "global warming." Current data only exists for a few hundred years. The rest is from computer "models" which use differing assumptions and yield differing results.\n\nSince no conclusive data exists upon which to base conclusions, actions ought not be based on inconclusive data. Those are facts rarely discussed or admitted globally.
976022
Argue about Global Warming by showing a chart of the temperature rising, but also show a shart of the average temperatures in the world 100,000 years ago, and argue if Global Warming is something to worry about.\n...because years ago, there was a warming trend alot, and a cooling trend which produced ice ages.
797870
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
663844
Jumping into the Evolution vs. Creationism is a messy fight.  What Baumgardner proposes is a very rapid movement of the plates to get them into the current position and also creating the massive flood referred to in the Christian Bible.  Geologic evidence refutes the theory at every turn.  The structure of the earth as we know it will not allow this.  The aesthenosphere is the plastic-y layer over which the solid plates move.  Geophysical and surface observed evidence tell us that this is a very slow process, inches a year at a maximum.  The type of catastrophic event describes in this theory would not be physically possible by the natural laws we have observerd.  Also, radio carbon dating shows the varying ages of rock throughout the Earth, ages that far exceed the several thousand years he posits.  His response is that the radio isotopes decayed at a diferent rate.  Basically, he wants the laws of science, the laws that have never been seen to change, to be broken to support his creationism theory.  I suppose if you believe in an omnipotent being that created the world, that being can change the laws as it sees fit; however, that isn't science, that is belief.\n\nMy opinion is that Baumgardner's theory is a feeble attemptto put a scientific face on religious thought.  The website I reference is a Evolution vs. creation discussion group.  Many people spent far more thought on the subject and you can find some very good points in the discussion thread.
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
171179
As far as I know, the US is unique in this. The US is the main western industrialized country struggling with this debate at the moment. The opposition to evolution is mainly from the fundamentalist Christian right wing. However, I have found some web sites that describe opposition to evolution by Hindus, Muslims and Jews for a variety of reasons.
166140
Evolution is still happening today, so it is observable. However, it takes many generations for any adaptation to become part of the genetic code of a species, and therefore, only in a great many generations will there be any concrete proof. Scientists do not claim to have proved it, at least, none of the scientists I've consulted on this matter. They say there is a lot of evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution and none to disprove it, which I believe to be true. Because of this, it's a theory that has ceased to be contested. However, it is still a theory, with lots of evidence in it's favor but no proof.
806892
The 'debate' is in the media only.  The data only supports human-caused Global Warming.  It has nothing to do with political party IF you actually look at the data like a scientist.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
883860
I have been studying Science for the last 40 years and as for the comments made above by my colleague Kuraimizu, I like to point out that in six paragraphs and several hundred words, he has managed to miss the truth completely. What he says is not worthy of someone who has studied science for six months. So, safely ignoring his noises, I should point out that evolution is not a hotly debated subject among scientists – it’s accepted as fact to the point where it really needs no support. Evolutionary biologists and other researchers that investigate evolution do form a community but there is no single website where we all gather to boost each other up. \n\nThere are hundreds of sites that discuss evolution, most are university or college sites that serve their students, a few seek to educate the public, and some are bogus.  If I were looking for honest information, I would avoid blogs and discussion forums and stick to the .edu and .org websites that state their intention without trying to be subversive.  The following short list contains a few sites that are representative:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\nhttp://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/\nhttp://explore-evolution.unl.edu/
481449
It's not. The Bush administration refuses to admit that global warming exists.
669746
While it's certainly nice to want to embrace some of the tenets of Christianity the cost of actually believing is far too great.\n\nI could never put aside my belief in reason and embrace intolerance just because some book has levied a threat against disbelief.\n\nEvolution is undeniable. We see it at work every day. Dog breeds, anti-biotic resistant strains of germs are both evidence in favor of evolution. I know, I know microevolution versus macroevolution. However, seeing it in any capacity lends credence to the greater argument. \n\nOur knowledge base is still in its infancy. Six-hundred years ago the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Now we know better. What will we discover in the next six-hundred years?
241208
Evolution is a lie perpetrated by the "man". There is no evolution or creation. Our planet is one of fourteen, "Mother Earths". We purchased our planet a millenium ago, second hand, from a planetary garage sale.\nThe reason we do not keep this in our historical record was the extreme embarrassment over the formation of the northern ice cap.\nWe were not created so much as reconstituted and microwaved until done. You know how unreliable microwaves are, that is why we have races.\nWhy do I know this? I am special, I do 36 sit ups and 15 kneebends every morning, that gives me an inside track.
320406
There are many things that support the theory of evolution.  Mainly, the fossil record and the fact that you are here, though if natural selection holds true, you will not be working in any fied of science any time soon. \nThe tide example that you state does not disprove evolution because it's false; the amount of water in the world has not change as you suggest.  There is no reason to believe that any change in tides would work increasingly to cover the earth with water.  There are fluctuations in the level of the seas that follow geological and thermal events over the course of centuries and millenia, like the ice ages. In second place, evolution is not about the age of the earth, it's about natural adaptation to the environment. Examples to prove it can be found anywhere in nature.  Sea iguanas in Galapagos are one of the best-known examples of adaptive development.   If there was no evolution, these iguanas would be terrestrial like all of the other species of iguana in the world.  But they're not, they have evolved an adaptation to marine environments.  Think of that as a microcosm of what happens in the rest of nature.\nWhy do we have a residual tailbone?  Why do whales have residual fingers?  We don't have tails and we don't need them, but the tailbone is there...  If someone meant for us to have a tail, they would have given us a tail or none altogether.  The fact that we have a bone structure that serves no apparent purpose but to cause pain when you fall on your but and break it proves that there is an ongoing process that we are a part of.\nEvolution does not exclude creation, it just makes creation dynamic and alive at a much broader scale.  That creation cannot be a process driven by biology instead of a stagnant  pile of events is not written anywhere in any holy book.
430814
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
98989
I believe global warming is more natural than the enviro-Nazis are giving credit for. I believe whole-heartedly that the Earth has gone through this cycle MANY times. While our polution is having an effect, and we should not have unlimited polluting, it does not have the effect of a volcanic eruption and other natural events.\n\nI refuse to be one of those uber-whackos that thinks that we should try anything to force the human race to go back to loin cloths and spears, riding on horseback. But I also do not believe we should dump and spew everything back into the environment without thinking of the effects. There has to be a happy medium.\n\nI do not really know, as even the scientists do not really know, if we are still moving away from the last ice cycle, or we are past the opposite point and we are moving back towards another ice age. In any case, we need to try and understand it more, and the effects of everything more.\nGood question though.
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.