i was more offended that the statement seemed to say that they would rather listen to an (implied) atheistic scientist than a god believing politician. politicians should never be trusted on scientific issues but there are scientist that believe in the theistic creation theory rather than the atheistic evolution theory also, not all people that believe God created the world dismiss the idea of an old earth or evolution; to do that would be foolish because it hurt christianity in the late 17th century (or around then) when other scientific debates arose and christians took the side of what the Bible appeared to say about the shape of the earth and whether or not the earth revolved around the sun. People need to realize that a lot of these parts of the Bible are figures of speech. Also many Christians make a good argument for the earth being old and evolution through the involvement of God. So what I meant to say (i'm sure what i said sounded harsher cause i was kinda pissed) was that theistic scientists shouldn't be dismissed as invalid sources and just because someone does not believe that global warming is caused by people being irresponsible doesn't mean that they are just listening to christian men in suits that refer to themselves as republicans (this is not to say that all or even most republicans are like this). Infact much of the opposition to the human responsibility theory comes from atheistic scientists and many christians support the theory that we are the cause of global warming (good luck getting them to vote against the republican party tho, most of them think that God is a republican)
|