Is creationscience a distraction from current environmental realities?

I mean, to me the important question isn't 'where did all this stuff come from...' It's why is it all dying off so fast.



Do you think the anti-environmental right knows this and is using the creation nonsense to keep people from thinking about the real problems in front of us?



http://www.impactpress.com/articles/decj鈥?/a>Is creationscience a distraction from current environmental realities?Humans have the innate ability to think of a myriad of subjects and views at the same time and within a myriad of separate contexts.



So, I believe that we can think both about creationism and the destruction of our environment at the same time.



To me, they are two separate issues and are not contradictory or complimentary. One is based on faith, the other on science.



I personally accept the right of people to embrace creation science. Of course, that thought process is outside the confines of scientific enlightenment. But, still, I accept their fundamental right to hold such views. I just choose to not embrace that concept myself.



To me, we need to each make a commitment to support the preservation of our environment, regardless of our political affiliation or our religious views.Is creationscience a distraction from current environmental realities?I dont want to come off antienviromental because I am not. I like trees and was happy that Sen. Craig had to go.

But there is some serious balogna going on with the biological sciences. Since you are thoughtful and really read things I will explain. Usually I limit post length because the american attention span is about the length of a commercial break.



How do they determine these species losses as stated in the article.

And moreover how do we define a species? I would argue the following and as always am happy to learn from a more educated individual. My BS is in Biology so I can claim to know something from an educational standpoint. What I see is the following. A new species is defined all the time, this process is not given nearly the press but it does happen with some regularity. I will post a few article in support of this notion.



http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Resear鈥?/a>



this is a new bird species in the USA. How these creatures evade detection for decades is interesting to say the least. The beauty of how this works is that it takes the slightest modicum of difference to call it a new species. To quote the above article:

This species is a morphologically and vocally distinct "call type" of red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra complex)



This behavior goes largely unnoticed. Its a great tool for getting areas label endangered lands etc. I am all for more wildlife areas but I also have a devotion to finding the truth. So what you see in this article is done dozens of times over. Many new species all defined by what are actually very minimal differences. In summation when someone says thousands of species are getting destroyed are they saying this bird and the 999 other types just like it are dying?



To answer the question:

No I dont think so they are simply looking to validate the bible in some other form than pure faith.Is creationscience a distraction from current environmental realities?creationscience?? creation, was a theory.. it cannot be proven in any way shape or form.. science is the study of facts aqquired by careful observation.. that is "facts".. your creation thingy is none more than a theory, and extremely passe to those of use that have accepted that is all about the churches desire to keep control of all the little lambys.. how is it that all god ever talks to anymore is kooks like koresh.. what is the difference between jim jones, david koresh, and moses.. they all had god talk to them.. why isnt moses a kook like the others??