I know exactly what you’re saying and, like yourself, I find it to be a fascinating subject.

One of the main problems I have with the YEC’s is that they are so convinced they are right and yet appear quite incapable of supporting their position with any rational evidence or even logical reasoning. When pressed the response is either “because it is” or “read this website”. The adherents of these beliefs simply seem to accept them without question, and you can’t really get less scientific than that.

Ask a YEC to explain how it’s possible to measure and observe 13.7 billion years of time when the Earth, as they claim, is 6,000 years old, and you’re met with complete silence, a change of subject, or reference to some website or publication that also completely fails to provide any explanation.

If any YEC reads this please help out by explaining: fossils, oil, the dendro record, the observation and measurement of time and space, paleontological records, sedimentary and depository records, light, tectonics, radioactive decay, carbon dating – there’s 10 to be going on with.

One of the things I find interesting concerns the views hold by religious folks concerning Darwin. When he first published the Theory of Evolution many believers seized upon this as proof of the existence of God. How, they asked, could anything so complex possibly happen naturally; it had to be the work of a divine being.

What they rejected was the notion of “survival of the fittest”. This horrified them, in their mind no god would create a world in which species were in a constant battle for survival, they refused to accept that animals even fought each other or could die of starvation; as they saw it, this couldn’t possible be part of God’s plan. Now of course, they completely reject evolution and yet seem to accept ‘survival of the fittest’. Why the complete about turn? It seems clear that they believe what they’re told to believe.

I’m not knocking religious people for who they are, but for what they believe and perhaps more importantly – why they believe it. I have a hard time with these “it just is” people, to me that’s inconceivable. I can’t accept something on that basis, I need to see the evidence and to be able to strip it down to it’s constituent parts and to understand and question them.

I would say that by and large I find those who have a God to be more honourable and respectful than the average Joe because they have a set of values and principles by which to live by and in many respects this makes them better people.

As for what ‘religion’ I am, I think you can probably figure this one out without too much trouble.

Not religious - although I can see why people are. Religion has been embraced by humans for a significant period of time.

I believe that the earth has been here for over 4.5 billion years. I have no way of checking this.

Expecting people who agree with you about one thing to agree with you about another is not sensible.

Religions are strongly defended by adherents even though the basis for the belief cannot be proved or even defined very well. AGW fits that definition for me. I believe that man is contributing to some global warming but I am not an AGW believer because the believers seem to believe much more than that.

Many believe that it is all man's fault, many blame it on CO2, many believe that it will be catastrophic, many believe we can stop it happening by raising taxes, many believe that it is unprecedented, many believe that global average surface temperature anomaly is a good measure of something, many believe that the precautionary principle should apply. I have issues with all of those views (and more).

I also believe that there is only one true science. AGW believers and skeptics alike will have to accept that. The views of both groups will gradually home in to the same science at some point. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is becoming better aligned at the moment, for instance. Other issues will become similarly resolved.

I changed over time, I believed in a god, became an agnostic after one year of bible classes at an early age and I consider myself and atheist now.

I don't mind if people are religious and believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, as long as they don't impose their dogma on the rest of the world. The religious people will understand why I reject all gods when they understand why they reject all other gods other then the one they accepted, providing they are both open minded and and willing to understand.

Funniest interaction about the bible in this section was one guy claiming that "the earth hanging from nothingness in the North" is prove that the bible states that the earth is round and that "a tree so tall that it could be seen from all corners of the earth, should not be taken literally by two of the more prolific deniers of science.

I consider myself a nonspecific theist (I believe in a Higher Power, but also believe it is essentially impossible to truly understand said Higher Power with our limited mortal minds, so I think it's kind of silly to argue about religion).

I accept the scientific consensus about the age of the Earth, evolution, et cetera.

I accept the scientific consensus about AGW.

For the most part, I can't think of specific examples, but I have noticed the same general patterns of thinking between creationists and denialists. Asking questions that demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the underlying science, posting the same debunked lies over and over, thinking that science claims things that it does not, in fact, claim (eg "crocoduck" vs "the campfires of cavemen ended the ice age"), and so on.

Atheist.

Was raised as a protestant which is what my parents were but luckily they did not continue to force this on me the moment I reached puberty. I still remember being asked about what I thought of Sunday School. When I said I did not like it (primarily because rather than provide me with answers it just made me ask more questions), there was no push from my parents to attend it anyway. And thus, I slowly but surely stopped believing in a god and, through my unstoppable desire to find answers, discovered Science which did give me answers. Eventually, my parents also 'lost their faith'.

My opinion is that the believe in any god is seriously detrimental to anyone's intelligence. Non-theists seek answers; theists believe anything they're told how illogical that may be. Bible-studies are an incredible waste of time. Read a science book!

The first humans on this earth believed that lightning was created by a god; nowadays Creationists (to name just one ignorant religious group) believe all animals in the world fitted on a boat! That is not only preposterous , it's above all an insult to human intelligence.

I do not BELIEVE in Global Warming for in science there is no such thing as a BELIEVE in anything. It is either scientifically sound and proven or not. The AGW science speaks for itself.

As for Creationist Thinking, I believe there are many samples right here. I find it highly ironic that people who believe the world is only 6,000 years old would use 800,000 year old ice core sample to make a point. Or the whole notion of abiotic oil for which there exists no evidence whatsoever, just like their god. It is a perfect example of how theists use pseudo-science to fit a pre-established position, one which supports their religious argument.

In general, it is ironic (and it always makes me laugh) when creationists here claim that 'their science' is so much better when there is absolutely no science involved in the core foundation of their religion.

Is there a God? I hope. Does my salvation require blind faith? Sounds ridiculous to give me the ability to question then condemn me. Is there life after death? I hope. Will God favor me over others if I believe in his existence? I am second, but I think God favors me over others; doesn't sound like someone who believes they are second.

I believe we all know inherently the difference between right and wrong and I try to do right in all that I do, but know I fall short. But I haven't found a religion that I can follow.

Trevor put into words my opinion of man induced climate change. "There are many factors that we know nothing about, these will only become apparent as the science progresses. There are many principles and processes that we are aware of but about which we have very little comprehension. Undoubtedly there are areas about which we are mistaken and these will have to be revisited when such errors come to light."

I haven't found the answers to my religious questions so I am agnostic. Trevors statements shows regardless of many unanswered questions he has chosen one.

What I find baffling is someone like climate realist who believes atheist are prophets sent by his God, and lack of faith in their message is a sin, and his God could stop the effects of AGW and will but only if we switch to solar power and stop disregarding the word from His prophets.

There are great, well thought-out answers here. I've clicked the thumbs up on those I fully agree with- the longer answers. I can't say it any better. So bravo. It's good to see well-reasoned, intelligent answers by thinking people. Sometimes I become a little frightened by so much bullshit that some, many people spew here and at work, on the news, etc. And by some of my relatives! I have born agains in my family, preachers, too. I've "unfriended" more than one of them on FB because of their non-stop brain-damaged exhaust.It's good to know there are others out there/here that see and understand things the way I do.

I'm an atheist and accept the science indicating the human influence on climate.

I think the "AGW is a religion" is modelled on the "atheism is a religion" attempted insult used by theists. I'm vegan so I've also been told that I'm religious because of that. It is all just trolling. Ironic since these same people are (usually) religious, that they would thinking calling someone else religious would be an insult. To me it just highlights the complete misunderstanding of the principles involved.

Young earth creationists are the dumbest people in the history of the world, with the possible exception of suicide cult members. I don't put denialists in the same category as YECs, but it is interesting that there is a lot of crossover between them in this category.

Lutheran

All religions and gods are man made and so is global warming. Only the degree of the latter can be disputed

I was raised Christian, but would probably consider myself an agnostic now. However, I believe everyone should lead their lives by the Golden Rule.

I was an agnostic on global warming until about 10 years ago, but after seeing the vast amount of evidence for it, I'm quite convinced.

… and your view on global warming?

I am often reminded, through my participation here, of conversations I used to have with Young Earth Creationists, who would try to persuade me of problems with the orthodox view of the universe; the Big Bang, evolution etc; also of their view that the observations were consistent with the earth and universe having an age of around 6000 years or so.

Of course, these conversations never went anywhere; it was a stalemate. They were unable to understand or accept my arguments, whilst I was unable to accept as evidence their literal interpretation of the bible. I soon lost interest and moved on, but the impressions of a group who had very poor knowledge or ability when it came to questions of science; those impressions remained with me.

Now fast forward 20 years to this forum. It is clear to me that many of my fellow AGW proponents are also Atheists. I’m sure they would share my view of the Young Earth types and would agree about the similarities with AGW ‘skeptics’. Yet it is often said here, that AGW is like a religion and that it is people such as myself, who are as the Young Earth Creationists in their reasoning! I’m fairly certain, from the way many of these comments are phrased, that those making them are as much Atheist as I am!

How can this be? Atheists who are AGW skeptics? How can anyone smart enough to reject YEC be dumb enough to reject AGW? Something doesn’t quite add up!

I do find this whole subject interesting and have a follow up question which will be more of a poll, but for now, please let me know something of your religion (or lack of), also a sentence or two outlining your position on global warming. Best answer will be chosen randomly, possibly weighted for quality and style.

Finally, bonus points for any example of ‘creationist thinking’ that you’ve seen here in the GW section.

Kano's answer, including "I am a skeptic, as I think science supports my views (CO2 is known to logarithmically diminish as concentrations rise)" seems to support creationist-style thinking. That logarithmic decrease argument comes from the same "science" as bareback dinosaur riding.

Agnostic. I'm definitely not an atheist; I am open to the possibility that there is a greater intelligent being who somehow created the universes and physics. But I do not believe in a magic God who changes physics when he feels the urge.

I'm a complete atheist.

Indeed, I find agnosticism to be bizarre. Saying you are skeptical of a God existing but that you will not rule it out...is like saying that you are skeptical of the Tooth Fairy existing but will not rule it out.

I am a skeptic, as I think science supports my views (CO2 is known to logarithmically diminish as concentrations rise) so how can it cause climate change.

My religious beliefs, I believe the universe began in the big bang, and was caused by the laws of physics and Quantum mechanics.

I believe God created the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

I'm a Christian and a Young Earth Creationist (YEC)

I reject macro-evolution, utterly!

I believe the Earth and all creation, the universe and everything in it was made by God in 6 literal 24-hour days and on the seventh day He rested.

I believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

I regard the Scripture themselves as the ultimate proof and authority that the Earth is young but scientific evidence abounds that verifies the Scriptures.

Here are 14 brief evidences for a young (about 6,000 years old) Earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

Here is a much more exhaustive list of evidences for a young Earth.

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Trevor wants to know: "how it’s possible to measure and observe 13.7 billion years of time when the Earth, as they claim, is 6,000 years old." --- I think this problem is sometimes called the Starlight and Time problem. There are several scientific theories on how this could be, I personally don't put a lot of stock in any of them. But here is an example: http://creation.com/distant-starlight-an...

On this question, I believe the Scriptures provide the answer. Scriptures tell us that God intended for His creation to be seen by man as a testament to His power an glory. Obviously if he could make the universe and everything in it, He wouldn't have a problem with stretching the light forward instantly at creation so they were available to see, no matter how distant.

Trevor wants to know about fossils, oil, the dendro record (I don't know what a dendro record is), the observation and measurement of time and space, paleontological records, sedimentary and depository records, light, tectonics, radioactive decay, carbon dating.

Fossils - it sure doesn't take millions of years for fossils to form, here's a ‘Fossil’ hat: http://creation.com/fossil-hat

Here's some fossil fence-wire: http://creation.com/fascinating-fossil-f...

Oil - Oil sure doesn't prove millions of years, my understanding is the Germans made their own oil when they were running low in WWII, see the Fischer–Tropsch process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%...

On carbon dating, under just the right circumstances, it can be somewhat accurate, but the problem is you really don't know if the objects are contaminated or not, it's always just an educated guess. And carbon dating is only good for maybe 50,000 years MAX. You sure can't prove millions of years with carbon dating. There are many kinds of radiometric dating that are used for deep time, but their reliability is exceedingly poor.

The quick answer for most of the other items is the Worldwide flood, also known as Noah's flood, about 4,500 years ago. Fossils are only created if the animal is buried quickly, otherwise scavengers and weather elements simply rot and destroy the carcass and there is no fossil. The catastrophic event recorded in the Bible would explain fossils and why they are found in layers and why dinosaurs are almost always found in a distressed pose “opisthotonic pose” as if drowning (they were). This is a very interesting site that explores a lot of that: http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...

-----------------------

I looked up what a dendro record was, that's just tree ring data. Seems to me the dendro records support a young Earth, according to the Wiki list "Individual trees with 'verified' ages" there are no trees with 'verified ages' of more than 6,000 years old. The oldest tree on the list is only 5,062 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old...

-----------------------

What doesn't quite add up? Certainly your two experiences add up very easily.

People reject things for all sorts of reasons. Someone might reject "YEC" because he is well-informed about science and about William Jennings Bryan v. Clarence Darrow, or because he once met a Jesus Freak who was such a jerk that it made him dubious of religion in general for ever after, or it might be because he is a real Christian and dislikes half-witted phonies (where in the Bible does Jesus say "blessed are the willfully ignorant dishonest liars and charlatans"?).

Similarly, people might reject science because it is complicated for them to want try to understand, or because some scientists are also outspoken atheists who embarrass simple-minded religious people who took literally some of the most patently made-up fantasies of organized religion, or because they flunked science in school [decades ago, back when REAL scientific skeptics were rightly skeptical of the THEN unproven theory of the greenhouse effect] and still resent the "liberal" teacher who wouldn't tolerate their misbehaving in class, or because they have been too lazy to figure out that twenty years of fossil fuel industry calculated disinformation has tricked them, or are too ashamed to admit how hoodwinked they've been, or because they've been fooled into thinking science=environmental extremism, or you name it.

BEFORE: you encountered dumb fake Christians who disagreed with dumb atheists because the atheists reject faith and belief and the gospel of Jesus. NOW: you're encountering dumb atheists who reject science that they call religion because they are too dumb to understand it, and hate enough it to be laughably inconsistent in their rejection, and who try to make for such patent hypocrisy by being "consistent" in calling both things they reject "religion."

What does NOT add up, is your being a sensible guy, yet falling for the idiotic trap, set by your anti-science "fellow atheists" here, of calling this site a "forum." It is NOT a forum. Read the guidelines. It is a Question and Answer site, albeit a Question and Answer site that has been hijacked, in this category, by a bunch of increasingly dimwitted anti-science crackpots and liars who are browbeating otherwise sensible folks like you into thinking it is a "forum" for "debating" both "sides" of whether the earth is 6000 years old / men ever walked on the moon / deliberate mass murder of millions of civilians occurred under the Nazis / every major science academy and science textbook of the last 20 years is part of a great global warming hoax, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...