Why Global Warming Denialists Exist

Lets forget about the big business reasons to deny Global Warming caused by man for a moment.

One thing that doesn't seem to get a lot of attention is that most Global Warming denialists are also evolution denialists. Yes, the connection has been made, but there hasn't been lots said, and motivations aren't really being looked at.

I'm going to hypothesize about the reasons.

Bible literalists love any sort of perceived ambiguity in science (even if it doesn't really exist). Why? Because they are brainwashed thinking that if anything in their bible is wrong, the whole bible is wrong. So the fact that scientists have not come up with a consensus on Global Warming, and some believe that it is mostly man made, while others believe it is mostly a natural climate change, while others think that it is a mixture of the two, and aren't sure about the magnitude of man made causes regarding the current heating of the climate.

It is the same tactic used by creationists who quote Gould regarding his hypothesis regarding evolution happening abruptly. The fact that there were and still are debates regarding this, makes creationists state that the jury is out on evolution.

Of course, the data shows the earth is heating up and that evolution happened. But because the EXACT mechanisms are figured out yet, gives creationists the ability to say that evolution and Global Warming is not real science.

Another reason could be that creationists don't think that there is such a thing as climate change, well, except when God makes it rain for 40 straight days. 45% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. So using logic, most of them don't believe there have been Ice Ages, since the last one started around 20,000 years ago, at least 10,000 years before God created everything.

Personally, I don't think that these people really think about such things as the real age of the earth. The majority just drool at the mouth when they perceive they have any chance that there is a science conspiracy.

What Does It Take For A Creationist To Accept Evolution?

The world is full of reality denying individuals. People who reject evolution. Who look for holes, even where there aren't any, in the theory of evolution.

What does it take to "convert" these creationists to accept evolution/reality?

Let me first state that there are two type of creationists. Creationists who accept science, but add God and supernatural acts into their reality, and then there are the pathetic creationists who deny realities that do not fit in with their religious world views. The latter of course, are the creationists I am writing about now.

To many creationists, evolution is a story made up by scientists, while the bible is a story inspired or written by God. These creationists choose the story that gives them salvation over the story that doesn't. I really think it is that simple for many.

I do think the young and brainwashed, those under 30, who have never really looked into evolution, but were taught that evolution is nonsense, are probably the easiest to educate. Of course, they need to have the actual desire to learn.

The toughest to educate are the 40 plus know-it-all creationists, who have decided not to try to really understand evolution, to the point that rational thought goes out the window. They rely on frauds like Kent Hovind and Answers In Genesis to do the thinking for them.

But I've often wondered that what if these types were individually put into a room with Dr. Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, or Christopher Hitchens and made to watch Potholer54's Made Easy Series, able to stop and debate any point made in the videos they want. How long, if ever, would it take for the average willfully ignorant Fundy to accept reality?

The Made Easy Series For Schools:



It takes the will to investigate to find the truth, and to find out that what was assumed through religious or cultural indoctrination (like a historical Moses or Jesus) may not be true at all.

I was 40 before I was actually curious enough to investigate the historical Jesus or Moses. And I was actually startled from what I found....or what I didn't find. I think there are many believers who are in the same boat when it comes to evolution.

C'mon Creationists You Need To Watch This

Here is the hairy frogfish stalking a flounder. Just keep an eye on the fish's feet fins:

As Homer Simpson would say "Stupid Flounders."
Any way, I'd love to see Answers In Genesis explain their way out of this one since one of their biggest arguments is that fish are fish and don't have legs, etc.
Yes, the frogfish doesn't have legs, but those fins are darn close, that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a little time, fish can evolve into amphibians if water and food sources started to dry up in a certain ecosystem.

Why would God put such fish on this earth? It only makes creationists look silly and makes evolution look pretty good.

Neil Shuban, author of Your Inner Fish, explains the process of evolving from a water dweller to a land animal:


Creationists are just so fricken sad.

More Atheist Nonsense: The Planting Of Transitional Whale Fossils

It is getting more and more painfully obvious that devious atheists continue to plant fossils all over God's good earth in an attempt to get more converts to religion of atheism.

Regular fossils weren't good enough because intelligent creationists started to notice that there were no missing links or transitional fossils. This fact was causing the atheist recruiting movement to lose steam, so what did the pesky atheists do? They started to plant transitional fossils in places where they predicted they would find them. And then a fantasy story is attached to the finding. Take the recent fossil find that "proved" that early whales gave birth on land.

It is amazing that atheists buy these fairy tales but laugh at the idea of a person rising from the dead and ascending to heaven.

Ok, that is enough of my Edward Current impression for today.

Now that I might have the attention of both creationists and realists, here is an excellent video which asks creationists to think and do some 'splaining:

Apparently the above video was flagged by Youtube creationists.

I always liked the argument that if evolution were false, how come a creationist scientist hasn't come up with a way to interpret the fossil data or even come up with any evidence that contradicts evolution. That scientist would be more famous than Jesus. What is holding back the creationist intelligencia?

Still interested in whale evolution? Check out my post from last year; A Whale of a Tale.

See also, Maiacetus, the good mother whale