Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 460]

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I think you should go back and re-read that blog again. Just saying...

 

That blog is precious few pages. How about you actually put a cogent thought together and provide me an explanation about where I'm wrong? They're attacking Perry Marshall's analogy in an attempt to repudiate the concept of questioning Random Mutation as the progenitor of Evolution.

 

Shapiro himself does that in his research. Are you not swift enough to understand that critical little nuance? While these vapid Darwinists are busy frothing to knock down an analogy from a computer programmer whose only contribution as far as I can see is to analogize the incredible processing power contained in each cell and contrast it with chance being able to accomplish what clear cellular intelligence is actually responsible for, the real issue is that a very highly esteemed scientist has already provided extremely strong evidence that Marshall's analogy is correct.

 

Duh. Do you not understand that Shapiro stands in opposition to Random Mutation as the primary motivator of Evolution while the clueless bastards in that blog are actually attempting to argue the opposite??

[nikki2200 4]

Mensa.... I got to give you a little credit here man. You're still having a serious discussion about this after what just happened. My stomach hurts from laughing so hard and I may have peed myself a lil. I have no composure at the moment.

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

I wuz just gonna say that I'm surprised this thread had so much legs. Science is the pursuit of truth that we can measure. Faith isn't. I personally believe that there is a higher power, but I don't think any of us will find out until the day we die.

 

 

I didn't watch the vid, but that still of someone's rectum hangin open has changed my opinion. Proof positive of ID. We should teach all of our kids ID ... and show them the video

 

We've established scientific evidence that cells are actually intelligent here.

[OldMaid 1,838]

Do the letters on the stuff that you read actually rearrange themselves so you see what you want?

[IMMensaMind 460]

Here is my recommendation for you freak. Evidense this!

 

I think you've told us enough. This is your fanbase, debators. Genius.

[JackARoot 2]

 

Mike, pulease ban the "biotch" already.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Do the letters on the stuff that you read actually rearrange themselves so you see what you want?

 

You and ClammyClam are the same. That is not a compliment.

[nikki2200 4]

I can't take it anymore.............. Dying................

[nikki2200 4]

You and ClammyClam are the same. That is not a compliment.

 

 

Obviously that's not a compliment.... But that's going a little far doncha think?

[OldMaid 1,838]

You and ClammyClam are the same. That is not a compliment.

But I'm flattered all the same...

[ClemmyClem 0]

 

Mike, pulease ban the "biotch" already.

I'm a woman and mother and proud of it. I'm sorry you can't wrap your tiny condom mind around that if you don't like it why don't you damn leave. Sorry but I don't need this trashole woman hating place. Go back under your rock dude.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Obviously that's not a compliment.... But that's going a little far doncha think?

 

In what way?

[IMMensaMind 460]

Tests in Intelligent Design following the Scientific Method

[IMMensaMind 460]

I'm a woman and mother and proud of it. I'm sorry you can't wrap your tiny condom mind around that if you don't like it why don't you damn leave. Sorry but I don't need this trashole woman hating place. Go back under your rock dude.

 

I'm sorry, Clam: but did you just get upset because someone attacked you?

[IMMensaMind 460]

Do the letters on the stuff that you read actually rearrange themselves so you see what you want?

 

With what do you take issue?

[nikki2200 4]

Tests in Intelligent Design following the Scientific Method

 

 

iv. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

 

 

[ClemmyClem 0]

I'm sorry, Clam: but did you just get upset because someone attacked you?

Every post in this place is a mental rape of a woman and you are the worst. Oh I'm sorry you don't like that? Tough ######. I'm going to rape every one single of you and there's not a thing you can do about it. I'mgoing to ###### this place up.

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

Perhaps you were expecting something more earth-shattering?

 

There is nothing wrong with that conclusion, nor the means to arrive upon it, as it is a strict adherence to the Scientific Method. Just as in Evolutionary Theory, one Theory stands until it is repudiated by another. Evolutionary Theory has had myriad revisions when one theory is disproven; its place taken by the next, there is no reason why this conclusion shouldn't stand until something can replace it.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Every post in this place is a mental rape of a woman and you are the worst. Oh I'm sorry you don't like that? Tough ######. I'm going to rape every one single of you and there's not a thing you can do about it. I'mgoing to ###### this place up.

 

Um..how's that again?

 

Oh, and

[nikki2200 4]

Perhaps you were expecting something more earth-shattering?

 

There is nothing wrong with that conclusion, nor the means to arrive upon it, as it is a strict adherence to the Scientific Method. Just as in Evolutionary Theory, one Theory stands until it is repudiated by another. Evolutionary Theory has had myriad revisions when that has taken place in the past, there is no reason why this conclusion shouldn't stand until something can replace it.

 

 

Well by those same means of "experimentation" for that same study I conclude that the magic light in the leprechaun cave that created the Smoke Monster and is the little bit of light that resides in every man is actually responsible for the irreducible complexity. Theory DISPROVEN!

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

Well by those same means of "experimentation" for that same study I conclude that the magic light in the leprechaun cave that created the Smoke Monster and is the little bit of light that resides in every man is actually responsible for the irreducible complexity. Theory DISPROVEN!

 

 

 

What?

[nikki2200 4]

I can't post in this thread until those videos are gone sorry.

 

My eyes.

[OldMaid 1,838]

I can't post in this thread until those videos are gone sorry.

 

My eyes.

 

Agreed.

[MedStudent 56]

Every post in this place is a mental rape of a woman and you are the worst. Oh I'm sorry you don't like that? Tough ######. I'm going to rape every one single of you and there's not a thing you can do about it. I'mgoing to ###### this place up.

 

Saying that "Every post in this place is a mental rape of a woman" is trivializing the word rape and is a huge insult to any woman who has actually been raped. Go to bed and post something sober in the morning.

[penultimatestraw 473]

You clearly support the concept. That's funny - because of just how they determine if they've discovered an unknown Intelligence.

 

You support the notion that intelligent life can make itself known to us through verifiable patterns via radio signals, but not verified patterns right there at the cellular level? Isn't that the testable model for ID about which you hand-wring doesn't supposedly exist?

 

Consider:

 

 

 

William Dembski

 

 

 

 

Double Standard. Blatant. It is unbelievable that you'd stoop to such a ridiculously indefensible level to say that you'd support one form of propagandizing, but not another (in your view).

 

I said I know little about SETI, but I do think there is a chance of life elsewhere that exceeds the probability of a creator. Not advocating this proof is based on radio waves, but rather the vastness of the universe and the existence of life's building blocks elsewhere.

 

Again, I suspect you are clinging to a view of climate change that is different from the majority of the field's respected scientists. I admitted the anthropogenic aspect of it may be too controversial to teach in public school, but it is hard to argue the average temperature of the planet has risen since the industrial age and we have had quite dramatic weather shifts in recent history.

[nikki2200 4]

Saying that "Every post in this place is a mental rape of a woman" is trivializing the word rape and is a huge insult to any woman who has actually been raped. Go to bed and post something sober in the morning.

 

 

For some reason I don't think we should be lending a lot of credence to those statements.

[JackARoot 2]

For some reason I don't think we should be lending a lot of credence to those statements.

 

Yeah, like Clemy is an obvious alias who someone decided to self destruct by posting zoo porn in another thread and this surgery vids in this thread.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I can't post in this thread until those videos are gone sorry.

 

My eyes.

I find some of the posts in this thread equally appalling. At least the doctors can put that a$$hole in its place.

[nikki2200 4]

I find some of the posts in this thread equally appalling. At least the doctors can put that a$$hole in its place.

 

 

OK I just finally recovered from laughing now I'm having a full blown giggle fit again.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I said I know little about SETI, but I do think there is a chance of life elsewhere that exceeds the probability of a creator. Not advocating this proof is based on radio waves, but rather the vastness of the universe and the existence of life's building blocks elsewhere.

 

That isn't the point. The point is how you'd recognize Intelligence; how SETI is attempting to recognize Intelligence.

 

SETI is supposed to be a scientific endeavor. SETI's charter is to look for patterns in signals which emanate from off-world. SETI is the ID of alien hunting.

 

I ask: if patterns and signals are recognized as having been created by an Intelligence off-world, why exactly are these same signals and patterns when discovered at the cellular level not equally indicative of being created by an Intelligence?

 

I posted a link which demonstrates this same question as being the base theorem of ID. They are both equally legitimate.

 

Again, I suspect you are clinging to a view of climate change that is different from the majority of the field's respected scientists.

 

I am clinging to nothing. I easily recognize that the field of "climate change" is rife with volatility, and that there are respected scientists on both sides. What is the point of teaching children in classrooms that our climate is changing when there is nothing we can do about it?

 

Because the political message inherent in this agenda is that there is something we can do about it.

 

Unless you're trying to cling to the notion that there is nothing political about this effort? Or about Earth Day?

 

There most certainly is. The "science" isn't supposed to be about consensus. If you reduce "science" to that level, you've not reduced a thing; you've destroyed the integrity of the science.

 

The reason that there is massive debate about climate change is precisely because the "science" isn't settled; the theories are not strong enough; the models aren't good enough and the data isn't conclusive enough.

 

But that doesn't stop those with a political agenda to harness the opportunity to institute an ideology which runs counter to the notions of freedom and liberty, which is exactly what's going on. There is a very strong case to be made that that form of Environmentalism is a religion.

 

Do you think such things are immunized from reproach merely by claiming that they're not a religion?

 

I admitted the anthropogenic aspect of it may be too controversial to teach in public school, but it is hard to argue the average temperature of the planet has risen since the industrial age and we have had quite dramatic weather shifts in recent history.

 

As have the temperatures on Mars. I don't think there's a lot of manufacturing going on there.

 

The anthropogenic aspect isn't controversial - that's a bleached way of attempting to put it. The anthropogenic aspect is utter and total bullsh!t. Any simpleton can understand that something as simple as a volcanic eruption can do more environmental damage than all the automobiles in the US. That termites emit more pollutants than people. That cows emit more methane than all the factories in the US. This is Socialism disguised as a pseudo-science, and plenty of people see through it.

 

Unless they don't want to.

[GettnHuge 1]

 

 

 

I am clinging to nothing.

 

EXACTLORY!

[IMMensaMind 460]

I do not have the intellectual capacity to hold anyone's jock in this conversation.

 

Aside from that, I still haven't figured out just what the fock you're objecting to in this thread, because you've added nothing of substance to it.

[FeelingMN 273]

Determining that matter is the work of a Designer, and then determining the nature of said Designer are two different exercises. There is no point in discussing the second until the former is determined. Shapiro is a Scientist, so he automatically must reject any possible consideration of a Supernatural influence.

 

Dude....what is a Designer? Is a Designer supernatural? This is the theory you're pimping man...I'd think you'd be able to answer a few simple questions about it. Enlighten us.

 

To me, that is a flaw of Science, but it those rules under which the discipline operates. Apparently, the phrase "anything is possible" doesn't apply here. While he can personally muse about such things, he cannot and will not with his white smock on.

 

Or.....he just doesn't have the same take on his research as you do and doesn't believe in ID. Anything is possible, right? Funny how this possibility ain't in the cards with you. Hypocrite.

 

And I'll anticipate you're weak comeback. Yes. If ID had facts....not interpretations....facts....to support its hypothesis, then I'd have to agree that ID has some validity. But we're a long, long way from that Mensa. You cannot even tell me what the fock a Designer is....and considering the name of the theory, I'm gonna have to assume "Design" or "Designer" are gonna have to be mentioned somewhere in the hypothesis.

 

 

No it isn't: he said so himself: as a Scientist, he cannot entertain notions of a Supernatural source.

 

So, as a conservative, you cannot entertain the idea of Big Government. Right? Is that to say, under certain conditions, you'd be alright with Big Government...depending on how it was defined? This seems to be your take on Shapiro's statement. That as a Man, he has allusions to what his research means. But as a Scientist, he has to play the part...so he has to dismiss supernatural phenomena.

 

Regardless, as a scientist he cannot entertain supernatural phenomena. Therefore his science is devoid of supernatural phenomena. Everything in his investigations has root in the natural world. I don't think he has ever said

I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!"

 

So what you're saying is your interpretations are right, and his are wrong.

 

 

 

How can you legitimately say that, when I've repeatedly explained that I'm merely speculating on his thoughts or intentions when discussing why he walks that middle line? I've only gone so far as to explain that it is my belief that the information we now have due to his research strengthens the case for ID; not weakens. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what he believes.

 

Interesting. Two days ago you're trying to convince me Shapiro was bridging the gap between Christian and Darwinist. Now you don't care what he believes.

 

Look, if you wanna believe in ID, go for it. You seem really piqued by that theory. That's cool. But you seem bent that the rest of us don't feel the same way. Sorry....but you've failed to make a compelling argument as to why we should.

 

Why is it so important that everyone think like you? Share your beliefs?

 

He's limited; I'm not. It means that regardless what he does with his research, others with a broader disciplines will ask these questions.

 

You're just gonna keep hijacking people's work and impose your interpretations onto it. Hey....that's cool. Just don't get too upset when non-believers don't take your sh!t too seriously. With a lack of actual evidence supporting your claims, all you're doing is proselytizing.

 

Again....if this idea provides meaning to your and other like minded individuals' lives. That's great. Just don't try and convince me you've got The Truth.....because you don't. Not for me....and not for a lot of people.

 

 

I really wonder why no one (that I saw) answered my question about SETI. Do you have any problem with SETI; do you consider it scientific/etc? Do you support what SETI does?

 

And do you know why I'm asking?

 

If there are Martians, the Scientologists are gonna feel their beliefs have been legitamized. Will you assimilate to their way of thinking?

 

The reason you ask? Probably because it's the only evidence....at least the only stuff you've presented....for ID:

 

What about the positive evidence for intelligent design?

 

Consider the movie _Contact_ that appeared summer of 1997, based on the novel by Carl Sagan.

 

 

A focking movie is considered evidence. Holy fock! But considering the dearth of anything tangible from you or your camp....I'll allow it.

[FeelingMN 273]

Intelligent Design is disguised as a pseudo-science, and plenty of people see through it.

Unless they don't want to.

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

Dude....what is a Designer? Is a Designer supernatural? This is the theory you're pimping man...I'd think you'd be able to answer a few simple questions about it. Enlighten us.

 

No, I don't have to answer questions about it. The exercise to delve into the nature of a Designer is a completely separate exercise from determining if there is such a Designer. Your question is as off-base as a cop asking a burglary victim about the characteristics of a burglar that they didn't see - and threatening to claim that there was no burglary if the victim cannot produce the answer.

 

Or.....he just doesn't have the same take on his research as you do and doesn't believe in ID. Anything is possible, right? Funny how this possibility ain't in the cards with you. Hypocrite.

 

Hypocrite? While you just sat there and made your own presumptions on his thoughts in order to deride my presumptions?

 

I told you I was speculating on why a guy's evidence wouldn't result in him getting into consideration of a God. What did you just do? Speculate, while being a hypocrite? Yes.

 

And I'll anticipate you're weak comeback. Yes. If ID had facts....not interpretations....facts....to support its hypothesis, then I'd have to agree that ID has some validity. But we're a long, long way from that Mensa. You cannot even tell me what the fock a Designer is....and considering the name of the theory, I'm gonna have to assume "Design" or "Designer" are gonna have to be mentioned somewhere in the hypothesis.

 

If it had facts already, it would already be proven. You're doing the same damned thing here that you did with demanding some information on the nature of a Designer before consideration of the validity of researching where there even is a Designer.

 

See link. Pure science, and very simple to understand. You underestimated my "comeback", since it was so extremely easy to point out how similar what you did was to what you claim I did.

 

So, as a conservative, you cannot entertain the idea of Big Government. Right? Is that to say, under certain conditions, you'd be alright with Big Government...depending on how it was defined? This seems to be your take on Shapiro's statement. That as a Man, he has allusions to what his research means. But as a Scientist, he has to play the part...so he has to dismiss supernatural phenomena.

 

Regardless, as a scientist he cannot entertain supernatural phenomena. Therefore his science is devoid of supernatural phenomena. Everything in his investigations has root in the natural world. I don't think he has ever said

 

So what you're saying is your interpretations are right, and his are wrong.

 

Your analogy is awful. Where has he said that "this means that there is no God"? Saying "he cannot entertain notions of a Supernatural" {a} doesn't mean that he hasn't speculated on that personally; {b} isn't the same thing as denying that they're related.

 

Regardless, my speculations are my own. I offered my opinion: I believe it is completely rational to look upon such evidence as supportive of the notion of a Designer. You did too, in fact, when you admitted that you would have rejected such a claim as cellular intelligence as being from an IDer.

 

Interesting. Two days ago you're trying to convince me Shapiro was bridging the gap between Christian and Darwinist. Now you don't care what he believes.

 

Now you're just trying to twist words. There is a clear differentiation between what Shapiro believes personally, and what his data illuminates. There are different ways to address his findings: his primary (and seemingly only) focus is to refute Darwinian Random Mutation theory.

 

Ontologically, it has much to say about the criticisms that Darwinism has endured from Creationists - and Shapiro addresses this himself. It is Shapiro who mentions Creationists. I wonder why such mention would matter if the core of his study had nothing whatever to do with Creationism.

 

Can you answer that for me?

 

Look, if you wanna believe in ID, go for it. You seem really piqued by that theory. That's cool. But you seem bent that the rest of us don't feel the same way. Sorry....but you've failed to make a compelling argument as to why we should.

 

No - mostly this thread has been a fusillade of people misinterpreting what I say and trying to put me in boxes in which I do not belong.

 

Why is it so important that everyone think like you? Share your beliefs?

 

Oh, it isn't. I argue to be intellectually stimulated and learn. I know when an argument is strong, and when it is weak - and when an opponent is being dishonest or obtuse.

[IMMensaMind 460]

You're just gonna keep hijacking people's work and impose your interpretations onto it. Hey....that's cool. Just don't get too upset when non-believers don't take your sh!t too seriously. With a lack of actual evidence supporting your claims, all you're doing is proselytizing.

 

The most ground I will cover with you you covered yourself. You admitted if you had heard that someone claimed Random Mutation theory is shot full of holes vis a vis cellular intelligence, you'd have dismissed it as the ramblings of an ID nut.

 

Now you're trying to claim that there cannot be an association. You really need to meditate on the juxtaposition of what your past position would have been, and what your present position reveals.

 

Again....if this idea provides meaning to your and other like minded individuals' lives. That's great. Just don't try and convince me you've got The Truth.....because you don't. Not for me....and not for a lot of people.

 

More additions to the fusillade. I never claimed this as truth. I claimed it as compelling evidence, and continue to do. Your insistence in warping my positions may be a subconscious yearning on your part to participate in this conversation honestly.

 

If there are Martians, the Scientologists are gonna feel their beliefs have been legitamized. Will you assimilate to their way of thinking?

 

huh? You've dodged the question.

 

The reason you ask? Probably because it's the only evidence....at least the only stuff you've presented....for ID:

 

I'll wait to answer this until you've read the follow up post where I address just how SETI pursues the discovery of Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life.

 

A focking movie is considered evidence. Holy fock! But considering the dearth of anything tangible from you or your camp....I'll allow it.

 

This is more nonsense from you. The movie Contact was used as an analogy. The truly important conversation wrt SETI followed it.

 

Your subconscious must be howling - and your conscious and subconscious aren't speaking to one another.

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

Following the Scientific Method

[nikki2200 4]

 

Now you're just trying to twist words. There is a clear differentiation between what Shapiro believes personally, and what his data illuminates. There are different ways to address his findings: his primary (and seemingly only) focus is to refute Darwinian Random Mutation theory.

 

Ontologically, it has much to say about the criticisms that Darwinism has endured from Creationists - and Shapiro addresses this himself. It is Shapiro who mentions Creationists. I wonder why such mention would matter if the core of his study had nothing whatever to do with Creationism.

 

Can you answer that for me?

 

 

 

Are you still trying to say that Dr. Shapiro believes in Intelligent Design?

[nikki2200 4]

Following the Scientific Method

 

 

I already disproved that theory and we have a new and improved theory. The magic light cave did it.

[penultimatestraw 473]

That isn't the point. The point is how you'd recognize Intelligence; how SETI is attempting to recognize Intelligence.

 

SETI is supposed to be a scientific endeavor. SETI's charter is to look for patterns in signals which emanate from off-world. SETI is the ID of alien hunting.

 

I ask: if patterns and signals are recognized as having been created by an Intelligence off-world, why exactly are these same signals and patterns when discovered at the cellular level not equally indicative of being created by an Intelligence?

 

I posted a link which demonstrates this same question as being the base theorem of ID. They are both equally legitimate.

 

 

 

I am clinging to nothing. I easily recognize that the field of "climate change" is rife with volatility, and that there are respected scientists on both sides. What is the point of teaching children in classrooms that our climate is changing when there is nothing we can do about it?

 

Because the political message inherent in this agenda is that there is something we can do about it.

 

Unless you're trying to cling to the notion that there is nothing political about this effort? Or about Earth Day?

 

There most certainly is. The "science" isn't supposed to be about consensus. If you reduce "science" to that level, you've not reduced a thing; you've destroyed the integrity of the science.

 

The reason that there is massive debate about climate change is precisely because the "science" isn't settled; the theories are not strong enough; the models aren't good enough and the data isn't conclusive enough.

 

But that doesn't stop those with a political agenda to harness the opportunity to institute an ideology which runs counter to the notions of freedom and liberty, which is exactly what's going on. There is a very strong case to be made that that form of Environmentalism is a religion.

 

Do you think such things are immunized from reproach merely by claiming that they're not a religion?

 

 

 

As have the temperatures on Mars. I don't think there's a lot of manufacturing going on there.

 

The anthropogenic aspect isn't controversial - that's a bleached way of attempting to put it. The anthropogenic aspect is utter and total bullsh!t. Any simpleton can understand that something as simple as a volcanic eruption can do more environmental damage than all the automobiles in the US. That termites emit more pollutants than people. That cows emit more methane than all the factories in the US. This is Socialism disguised as a pseudo-science, and plenty of people see through it.

 

Unless they don't want to.

I told you I don't know much about SETI, twice. I think there is a chance for life outside this planet. No government funds. That's it. I don't believe in ID because it has a thinly hidden agenda and is ultimately a reflection of irreducible complexity, which is just an admission of ignorance IMO. Not proof of a creator. And evolution is one of the most elegant, intuitive and scientifically supported theories in the history of biology/genetics. Additional complexity does not detract from random mutation as central to the theory. Oh yea, the thread is about teaching ID in schools, which I think is inappropriate because it is not scientifically validated and based on Christian theology.

 

As far as climate change, I agree with the majority of reputable climatology scientists: My link

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

 

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

 

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organisations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[5]

 

The New York Times reported that “the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950”.[6]

 

A retired journalist for The New York Times, William K. Stevens wrote: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel’s parlance, this level of certainty is labeled 'very likely'. Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression.”.[7]

 

That's a lot of misinformed scientists or a massive conspiracy, I guess. Truthfully I don't know enough about the underlying science to really scrutize it to the level I can with evolution; you claim to know better. Then again, you claim to know what scientists think about their own experiments even when they say something which contradicts your assumptions.

 

I know it isn't perfect science, but I also think you have to really scrutinize dissenting opinions that feed on personal convenience and save individuals $ - like just ignoring the possibility because it is a nuisance to cut down on driving or seeking alternative fuels. And yes, we need to reduce dependence of fossil fuels for political reasons, too. Forgive me if I don't base my science on people who complain how cold it is where they live or that Al Gore is a hypocrite.