New thread: my theory about why the correlation between AGW and evolution deniers

I made a thread about why people who deny evolution are more likely to deny AGW and vice versa, and eventually posed my own theory of it, but I will make a new thread about that theory.

My personal theory of why this correlation exists is slightly complicated. It uses linear reasoning to connect denial of evolution to denial of AGW.

People who deny evolution usually do so because it conflicts with their conviction that God is the ruler of humanity.

People who think that God is the ruler of humanity also would hate government because of this, or at least distrust it, because they think government should not be the ruler of society, and God "should" be in that position.

Because of this distaste for government interference, they tend to be private property capitalists.

And, finally, because of this tendency to be private property capitalists, they think people should have the right to use and extract fossil fuels in order to use them economically. And because of this principle, they don't want people saying "people using fossil fuels does dangerous things to our environment/planet because of said activity", because they believe that if people believe that fossil fuel use causes AGW, that will spring forth attempts to forcefully stop people from freely using fossil fuels.

That is my theory of why this correlation between being a denier of evolution and denier of AGW exists.

Lastly, you're probably getting the idiotic assumption that I'm not a private property capitalists and/or that we should forcefully stop people/slow them down from using fossil fuels, but that's not true at all because I'm a private property capitalist. Even if I am not necessarily an anarcho-capitalist.

In fact, I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate the cold and want AGW to happen because of that.

 

Well I know this was slightly complicated so I doubt most of you dip(*)(*)(*)(*)s even understood it, but oh well

 

Ok, apparently you're the only dip(*)(*)(*)(*) that doesn't grasp the scientific method.

When you speak of evolution and global warming, as if they are 100% certain, you've already lost the the argument. That's why they call them THEORIES.

Good job, dip(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

That wasn't even slightly complicated. Get over yourself.

 

No one claimed they were 100% certain. A theory is a well-supported mechanism behind a phenomena. It isn't even 100% certain that gravity exists. In fact evolution is every bit as supported as gravity.

You sir, are the dip(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Someone's butthurt!!

 

Go jump out a tree then..............

 

seconded

10char

 

Funny, I find it ironic the folks who believe in evolution ... also believe in the welfare state. Evidently, the inability to provide for oneself and ones family is a evolutionary adaption.
Molchan

 

Are you including the corporate welfare state with this, or just the one that helps actual real people?

 

There does indeed seem to be a correlation in people denying these two things. I'd say from my observations, that religion is used to control people, it's been this way since the (*)(*)(*)(*) of blind faith. The powerful people in the US have used religion for a long time to maintain the status quo, so it's no surprise that a groupd of people who deny that power plants should be cleaned up and that alternate energy sources should be found, also profess to believe in creationalism.

 

My theories include the one presented in the OP, as well as the fact that they both tend to be rightists

 

Ah, yes, corportate welfare, AGW, and socialism all go together well.

 

Corporate welfare and socialism go together quite well because well, taxing people and bailing out failed corporations with said tax money, is, as far as I know, socialism.

But AGW is something that ought to be comon sense, even if it's details are much more technical and complicated.

 

Since you chose to immediately lob out pejoratives questioning the intelligence of the readers, I'm going to predict you'll not get very far - and I reported your personal attack, for good measure.

If you are interested in a reasoned debate drawing links between one's principles, and how they extrapolate out through various topics to draw a consistent pattern, perhaps you should not attempt to so hide your clear bias dead out in the open in the process.

You could start by simultaneously proposing discussion of the converse: how those who are predisposed to believe in Evolution as a Natural Construct are also likewise predisposed to accept warnings of AGW, and want to form public policy around averting "catastrophe".

Nevermind that such claims provide incredibly fertile ground for more of Man's Bureaucracy, and yet another powerful tool to allow Government to gain control over Freedom.

But that's just obvious to some of us.

 

Bluespade started it by saying, retardedly, that I claimed that those theories are 100% certain, and also ignorantly confuses (like most rightists) a theory and a wild hypothesis, and then calling me a dip(*)(*)(*)(*), when clearly, he is the actual dip(*)(*)(*)(*).

Since when did I advocate "public policy around averting catastrophy"? I clearly said that I actually like AGW because I hate cold!!