« 3 | Main | More to come »

Thursday, March 08, 2007


pepe guzman

well said (typed)

this rather simply stated summary is clear/concise/ and is a fair representation of the film

good stuff. it is cool to suggest/hope for a global scientific conspiracy....but...scientists (at least in my encounters with them) seem fairly committed to hard facts, evidence, and unending analysis. this is perhaps a better motivation than those companies allied with industry and media corporations. i mean....am i right? it sort of seems obvious.

i am trying to acquire a bicycle because i need to counter-balance the SUV my wife drives. what to do? we've got all these kids! we live in TEXAS with urban sprawl! get off my back!!!


We're thinking we'll buy a Prius and strap some kids to the roof. I'm sure it won't be pleasant for them, but someone has to sacrifice if we're going to save the planet.


There two sides to almost every story.


Mike Eaton

Concerning scientific consensus - I don't think that is a good reason to believe something is true considering the fact that most scientists support the theory of macro-evolution. Scientists say they are only about the facts, but closer inspection usually reveals the opposite. Global warming, while it may in fact be occuring (honestly don't care if it is), has become a new religion for people who have none. It's ironic to see people who don't have a faith relationship with the Creator, conjure up a cause, and then see them wave the banner, all the while feeling like they have finally found something of purpose to live for, and then become righteously indignant when others do not join their cause. It's almost like a role reversal of a joyful and persecuted Christian.

pepe guzman

wait a second. we're not on board with macroevolution? scientific conspiracy to unearth falsified fossil records? surely you jest.

the only element of the genesis account of real/collosal importance in terms of theological understanding of creation relating to Creator is the special creation of man in the image of God. everything else is speculation and relatively unimportant

scientistist on the whole are too uncool to be apart of something like a heinous, materminded global conspiracy. these are test-tube and calculation nerds. they are trying to find answers not posit new religions for humanity. not the ones i know.

has it become terribly cliche, this environmentalism? sure. has it infused many people with more "religious" zeal than they should have --- misplacing it from a focus on God to their god? sure. does that mean wringing all the oil out of the dirt and burning it so as to create toxic gasses isn't doing something really negative to our atmosphere? i don't think so.

people will always seek some means of purpose apart from God, hell, humanity is historically famous for fashioning little wooden idols to worship or that stupid volleyball "wilson" from the Tom Hanks movie where he is stranded on the island. that doesn't mean the polar ice caps are not susceptible to melting.

or maybe i'm wrong. i could be so wrong. i'm probably wrong.


Well done Thad, I like this article.

On the above, isn't there a call to care for the creation in Genesis? In my view, the restoration that was set into motion by Christ pulls us towards a bigger view of what it means to be in relationship with the Creator. So saying "I have a relationship with the Creator" while saying "I don't care if we're ruining the creation", to me, is a very strange comment to make.

The comments to this entry are closed.