Can anyone explain the logic behind this?
No but it is a pretty funny and good point. Warmmongers can't win an argument using science so they resort to insults and comparing you to people they consider bad (e.g denier = holocaust denier) and Christians are an opposing religious belief that they apparently find threatening and small minded. Just as an added thought, imagine the confusion of the few self professed christian warmmongers who post here.
Not believing proves nothing. Most creationists think God created GW if they believe it at all. GW is a proven scientific fact regardless of anyone's opinion So it doesn't matter that they don't accept the science, they will feel the effects as GW progresses.
Like the deniers here. They keep presenting the same lame arguments over and over again. Each time a new denier shows up they run through the gamut of all the arguments that have been questioned hundreds if not thousands of times here but have absolutely no real science or any climate science at all to prove even one single point.
"If a creationist doesn't believe something is that scientific proof that it's true?"
Of course not
The arguments though from the evolution denier industry are just regurgitated by the climate change denier industry - eg :
- "its only a theory"
- a global conspiracy involving communists/socialists/UN/atheists
- make the theory be based on one person (eg Darwin/Gore)then attack them with ludicrous irrelevant claims
- pretend that buffoons are scientists , then use this to cast doubt on the science (eg Hovind/Monckton)
- pretend scientists are fabricating data to keep getting grants
- ignore all related science (eg radiation science works in all areas except radiometric dating ; IR spectrometry works for all chemicals except CO2)
- a tiny piece of missing evidence invalidates the entire science (eg any gap in the fossil record totally invalidates evolution but the theory of gravitation is fine even though the actual cause of gravity is not fully understood)
- the slippery slope hypothesis - accepting climate change or evolution or Big Bang or plate tectonics etc etc will lead to immoral anarchy & a communist NWO
I've been here off and on for several years and NEVER have I known anyone to reach the illogical conclusion that belief in creationism equates to any sort evidence proving AGW theory. There is no kind of logic behind this except in terms of a question asked by someone in order to undermine the credibility of people with opposing views, a commonly used tactic that sometimes influences the feeble minded.
In fact, no one I have ever known, associated with or heard of anywhere on the planet has ever made this argument to my knowledge. Simply put, it is no argument at all that anyone with an IQ over 7 would propose. Primarily, the only reason such a patently infantile proposition is worthy of any notice whatsover is it gives one the opportunity to redundantly ridicule and mock whomever brings it up.
No i believe in creation but just believing isnt proof of anything in any situation. There is alot of evidence backing creation in my opinion and in others opinions there is alot for the big bang and evolution and 4.6 billion years. I believe in god and have faith in his word and believe that he created the world even before i knew anything about the world. But the more i learn the stronger my belief is. My believe doesnt prove it. I just have faith in god. And i look at the world and science and all of the evidences not excluding any of it in seeing how it connects to god and his miracles. Thats my way of thinking. Theres a difference in that faith and what some of you are talking about.
No but it serves the purpose of showing what the creationist bases his 'proofs' off of. Why do you think people are creationists? It certainly has very little to do with science. Rather it has more to do with what they read in their bible or other holy book. If they are so easily swayed by things that are not science is forming judgment on things that are science then what basis does that give them for their beliefs on actual science? This is why you rarely see a young Earth creationist speaking about science on this site or linking to articles from publishers with actual scientific credentials.
Edit: I have been told that you, for instance, do not believe vaccines are the means to better health and I have seen you post answers concerning HAARP and chemtrails. In your opinion, does this mean you know more about science than someone who studies up on the greenhouse effect, how it works, and so on? If you want to search for logic I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to your personal beliefs. If we look at other things related to your own personal beliefs that deal with psuedoscience we can often also include your beliefs in things such as anthropogenic climate change conspiratorial thought in that as well. And oddly many of those that post in here that fall under the same beliefs have much the same sense of conspiratorial thinking. This is why it's brought up. To show your stance on science not for your stance in climate change science itself.
No, but I don't get my scientific advice from creationists, and I wouldn't recommend that you didn't either.
Maxx, for example, believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, but continually cites an astrophysicist. That has to be the height of hypocrisy, to completely reject a man's entire life's work, but then use them as an expert on the one thing on which they agree.
If a creationist does not believe something, it sure doesn't prove that it is false.
Not proof but it is a good indicator, they are stupid over a wide range
nothing people tell you is ever true
I only ask because this point seems very important to a lot of you and a lot of you seem to cite it as evidence which proves agw theory.
Can anyone explain the logic behind this?
no and yes.
there is no logic.
