Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

Status
Not open for further replies.

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
You know what I hear when someone says "I am not convinced by evolution?" "I don't really understand what evolution is"
 

atp1916

[H]ard|DCoTM x1
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
4,825
Says the one who has to stop and look into his book for a quotation to take completely out of context in a desperate attempt to come across as witty.

Blind as a bat!

I forget it's entirely unprofitable to deal with folks like you. Sorry for offending. ;)
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
3,744
Is evolution proven, or a theory? If you say it is a theory, then what do we have to argue about? If you say it is proven, then you are taking it on faith, again, what do we have to argue about?

Theory and faith are very different things. Theory is an attempt at truth with the acceptance of the potential for error, no faith is involved. I feel secure in the knowledge that there will be air on this planet for me to breathe for the foreseeable future, that is not faith in the context of religion. That is experience and examination determining that it is nearly certain that the planet will have an atmosphere for the rest of my living days. To establish the likelihood that something will continue to happen is nearly %100 is not faith. To determine that something is nearly %100 likely to have happened in the past through exhaustive study is not faith, it's the opposite of faith.

Faith and belief are not the same thing. Faith is absolute and unquestioning, if it is questioned, if proof is sought, it stops being faith.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Oh boy there sure is a lot of stupid in this thread. Good thing today is Sunday, right guys? God sure needed to rest after 6 long days of hard work creating all existence.

One thing some of you have to consider is the target audience you are attempting to debate with. You see none of them have an actual understanding of evolution or what it really is. The amount of knowledge they are forming their opinion on is based on what their parents/preacher told them about it which amounts to "Hur Dur man evolved from monkeys and there are still monkeys". Not a single damn one of them have actually studied evolution as a whole. As such you can't argue with them because they flatly don't have any comprehension of what you are talking about. You may as well be trying to convince someone in the 17th century that man will walk on the moon. You are never going to convince them because they refuse to educate themselves and instead choose to blindly defend their ignorance.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
Blind as a bat!

I forget it's entirely unprofitable to deal with folks like you. Sorry for offending. ;)

What does the Good Book say about whether "dealing" with someone is "profitable" or not?


Seems like you could use some more study time of your own superstition.
 

aShrubbery!

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,029
Actually the largest massacres in history were perpetuated in the name of religion. For that matter the worst human tragedies modern day remain perpetuated in the name of religion. Learn your history.

Stalin and the great purge, and the banishing of dissidents to the Gulags in Siberia.
Pol Pot and the killing fields in Cambodia.
The current starving of millions in North Korea.

And don't quote Hitler. Hitler was anything but religious.

So, while I don't disagree with most of your post, you too still need to learn YOUR History.

You need to remember, while some of the greatest tragedies were lead by religious zealots, it is also true that those people were in clear contradiction of the principles they were meant to represent.
And while all of us agree that Mengele was a monster, none of us would say that horrible things were don in the name of medicine and refuse to see a doctor.
 

aShrubbery!

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,029
Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later, but in the case of the scientific reboot of Cosmos, it just happened sooner. Creationists are now demanding equal time to debunk the evolutionary theme of Cosmos so the creationists can share their beliefs. Now we all get to see how ‘fair and balanced’ Fox actually is. :D

Pay for the program and then pay for it to be aired. Simple!
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
Stalin and the great purge, and the banishing of dissidents to the Gulags in Siberia.
Pol Pot and the killing fields in Cambodia.
The current starving of millions in North Korea.

And don't quote Hitler. Hitler was anything but religious.

So, while I don't disagree with most of your post, you too still need to learn YOUR History.

You need to remember, while some of the greatest tragedies were lead by religious zealots, it is also true that those people were in clear contradiction of the principles they were meant to represent.
And while all of us agree that Mengele was a monster, none of us would say that horrible things were don in the name of medicine and refuse to see a doctor.

The point isn't whether or not they are in contradiction of the religious principles, the point is they used the guise of religion to justify their actions or bolster their cache to facilitate what they did.
 

Kueller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
5,982
On to other topics for the more educated among us. I am surprised this particular little gem didn't manage to hit the front page. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974 Lots of confirming to be done still, but most likely this will be yet another step to shattering the dome of ignorance people have tried to hide in.
Way less ad-views from hard science than soapbox content. Who cares if it's new information on the formation of the universe, or that you can link to articles with mind-inflating quotes like this from Alan Guth!

Alan Guth said:
Modern particle theories strongly suggest that at very high energies, there should exist forms of matter that create repulsive gravity. Inflation, in turn, proposes that at least a very small patch of the early universe was filled with this repulsive-gravity material. The initial patch could have been incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10-24 centimeter, about 100 billion times smaller than a single proton. The small patch would then start to exponentially expand under the influence of the repulsive gravity, doubling in size approximately every 10-37 second. To successfully describe our visible universe, the region would need to undergo at least 80 doublings, increasing its size to about 1 centimeter. It could have undergone significantly more doublings, but at least this number is needed.

During the period of exponential expansion, any ordinary material would thin out, with the density diminishing to almost nothing. The behavior in this case, however, is very different: The repulsive-gravity material actually maintains a constant density as it expands, no matter how much it expands! While this appears to be a blatant violation of the principle of the conservation of energy, it is actually perfectly consistent.

This loophole hinges on a peculiar feature of gravity: The energy of a gravitational field is negative. As the patch expands at constant density, more and more energy, in the form of matter, is created. But at the same time, more and more negative energy appears in the form of the gravitational field that is filling the region. The total energy remains constant, as it must, and therefore remains very small.

It is possible that the total energy of the entire universe is exactly zero, with the positive energy of matter completely canceled by the negative energy of gravity. I often say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch, since it actually requires no energy to produce a universe.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-alan-guth-insights-big.html#jCp
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,413
Looks in thread...

oigI1M4.gif
 

BBA

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
5,382
This science, for example, allowed NASA to propel a satellite out of our solar system.

Old news bud...It's the same science I learned before I became a nuclear reactor operator for the Navy for 9 years.

There were no guesses or faith in planning the Voyager flight path, just pure, hard science.

If you think there wasn't a lot of praying involved, you are dead wrong.
 

BBA

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
5,382
Actually the largest massacres in history were perpetuated in the name of religion. For that matter the worst human tragedies modern day remain perpetuated in the name of religion. Learn your history.

You seem to miss the point...the largest massacres and tragedies were done by evil men. Some used religion as a front and some were just mentally deranged. The biggest massacre was done in the name of a 'perfect race' of Aryan alien descendants (Nazi's). The total of human violence of the German's in comparison to violence by other evil men and governments is miniscule though.

For example: Death by communist oppression: 60,000,000. Makes Hitler seem like a common thug.

My whole point is believing in an entity bigger than nature is not the same as believing in any so established 'religion' and does not necessarily negate science. Besides, science has yet to explain spiritual existence, actions, phoneme, etc...other than to ignore it as 'not physical science'. In effect, most scientists are ignorant to the whole picture of nature, most of them are pigeon holed into their one little corner of reality.

When mainstream science take a view of the entire scope of nature, including inter-dimensional existence, then we will see some cool stuff. For now, most scientists are like little kids playing in a sandbox...granted, some pretty awesome sand castles can be made.
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
Old news bud...It's the same science I learned before I became a nuclear reactor operator for the Navy for 9 years.



If you think there wasn't a lot of praying involved, you are dead wrong.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what made it work too. :rolleyes:
 

BBA

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
5,382
One thing some of you have to consider is the target audience you are attempting to debate with. You see none of them have an actual understanding of evolution or what it really is.

You are another fine example of the stupidity of the posters in this thread. Do you honestly believe that 'none' of the people here understand evolution? I'm pretty sure many of us here understand science and evolution far better than you can comprehend.

But I digress, I am tired of replying in futile argumentation. Since you're a self aggrandized expert, please feel free to go right ahead and stay in your little fantasy world of ignorance and insecurity.
 

motomonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
1,490
Blind as a bat!

I forget it's entirely unprofitable to deal with folks like you. Sorry for offending. ;)

No, you forgot that when you try to apply logic to religion, the religious typically "fall in the ditch"

"Folks like you" evidently includes anyone that doesn't believe in your incredibly narrow interpretation of the Bible, which evidently is anyone that's not a, let me guess here, some sort of Southern Baptist or a sect much like them.

There is an old Joke about a fellow getting to heaven and being told not to disturb the Baptists, "Shhhh! they think they are the only ones here" :p
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
One thing some of you have to consider is the target audience you are attempting to debate with. You see none of them have an actual understanding of evolution or what it really is. The amount of knowledge they are forming their opinion on is based on what their parents/preacher told them about it which amounts to "Hur Dur man evolved from monkeys and there are still monkeys". Not a single damn one of them have actually studied evolution as a whole. As such you can't argue with them because they flatly don't have any comprehension of what you are talking about. You may as well be trying to convince someone in the 17th century that man will walk on the moon. You are never going to convince them because they refuse to educate themselves and instead choose to blindly defend their ignorance.

The same applies to the vast majority of people in regards to religion. I have seen extreme amounts of ignorance in this thread alone perpetrated by both sides.

Just because one is religious does not mean one is ignorant of science and just because one is a scientist does not mean they can not believe in a religion where a higher being is responsible for creation.

For example no Christian who professes to believe the Bible should blindly accept it. No where in the Bible does it say that, in fact it is the exact opposite as it plainly says to search these things out whether or not they be true. Any professing Christian should study and examine their beliefs and while there will be those who want to argue over exact specifics, I.e. The fruit in the garden was an apple or a grape none of that matters. Does the age of the earth disprove Christian belife? No. No where in the Bible does it give an age to the earth. You can "force" it to the way many people have attempted to "force" their explanation of the bible onto others and gone to war over it but that is not what the Bible or Christian theology is about.
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,665
Matthew 15:14:
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Go on, evolutionists - lead!

Says the one who has to stop and look into his book for a quotation to take completely out of context in a desperate attempt to come across as witty.

Blind as a bat!

I forget it's entirely unprofitable to deal with folks like you. Sorry for offending. ;)

In context Mathew 15:14 teaches a different lesson.

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” (NIV)
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,724
You seem to miss the point...the largest massacres and tragedies were done by evil men. Some used religion as a front and some were just mentally deranged. The biggest massacre was done in the name of a 'perfect race' of Aryan alien descendants (Nazi's). The total of human violence of the German's in comparison to violence by other evil men and governments is miniscule though.

One of the main reasons that the Holocaust was as detrimental as it was against Jewish people was because of religion. Many denominations of Christianity used to view the Jewish people as rejects from Christianity.

Antisemitism wasn't just a Hitler thing. The Jewish people weren't just fleeing Germany. They were fleeing Europe. Generally the US got involved in WW II because of larger economical and imperialistic reasons not necessarily to save the Jewish people. Even then the US found it easier to create the boundaries for a Jewish state then to let all of the Jewish flee here.

In some way shape or from, religion has almost always been intertwined (if not the catalyst) in most of the military conflicts.
 

FLECOM

Modder(ator) & [H]ardest Folder Evar
Staff member
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Messages
15,740
anywho, hitler aside, the catholic churce (and popes) even agree with evolution (as long as you accept that god played a role of course, but meh, details)

http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholics-accept-evolution-guided-by-god-7632/

ignore all the bs by ken ham...

even Benedict was ok with evolution (ctrl+f creationism)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b.../hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html

the whole creationism vs evolution thing is just here in america folks... idiots like ken ham making us look like idiots EVEN TO THE CHURCH ITSELF

sigh
 

crusty_juggler

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
1,241
A creationist makes a blog post about Cosmos, it's picked up by "Right Wing Watch" - [H] goes nuts.

Oh Internet.
 

Martrox

n00b
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
18
Damn....ran out of popcorn.

Thank god......YIKES!

Way too much stupid going on everywhere........Think I'll go play Black and White.....
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,688
Never hard to goad a religious subgroup to make all the religious look foolish.

But this situation gave me an idea. List of similarities between [anthropomorphic] global warming theory with creationist theory would generate much angst an hilarity.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
Never hard to goad a religious subgroup to make all the religious look foolish.

But this situation gave me an idea. List of similarities between [anthropomorphic] global warming theory with creationist theory would generate much angst an hilarity.

If you want to argue that humans have no effect on the climate, please proceed:

Biejing%20Smog%20before%20and%20after.jpg
 

BassDX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
189
Never hard to goad a religious subgroup to make all the religious look foolish.

But this situation gave me an idea. List of similarities between [anthropomorphic] global warming theory with creationist theory would generate much angst an hilarity.
Funny, another misuse of the term "theory". Let us recap:

  • Global warming is an observable and testable phenomenon. So is evolution. Creationism is not.

  • There is an established consensus among scientists about Evolution and AGW, but not creationism.

  • Denialists dismiss AGW as as "just a theory", just as creationists dismiss evolution as "just a theory"
Conclusion? AGW is indeed a "theory", but creationism is not. The comparison is just the opposite, global warming denial has many similarities to evolution denial from creationists.

Regardless though, people will continue to argue about this, because as past threads on climate change and evolution on [H] have shown, the life of this thread will likely be extended by another 10 pages.
 

Disposed

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
5,200
What does the Good Book say about whether "dealing" with someone is "profitable" or not?


Seems like you could use some more study time of your own superstition.

For that you need the special republican version of the bible. You know the one where it becomes ok to tell everyone how to live and all of a sudden rich people are good even though Christ clearly despised the wealthy.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,688
Funny, another misuse of the term "theory". Let us recap:

  • Global warming is an observable and testable phenomenon. So is evolution. Creationism is not.

  • GW is not AGW and not proof of AGW. Nor is the theory testable (or do you have a spare Earth in you labratory?). Did I mention Evolution? Since when does Evolution prove AGW? There is no proof of significant AGW. There are only theories and models which predictions from said models are failing to correlate well with observation.

    • There is an established consensus among scientists about Evolution and AGW, but not creationism.
    There's a consensus among people paid to study and prove AGW that AGW is real. Shocker. There's a consensus among the Theistic that God created the Universe. Shocker.

    • Denialists dismiss AGW as as "just a theory", just as creationists dismiss evolution as "just a theory"
    Here come the insults with the 'Denialist' term. You must really be a good believer to become that pasionate about your view or you don't really have anything solid to offer. Or both. And y ou have to twist the analogy to try to make the statement. The correct comparison is that people often doubt things that aren't proven and sometime get incensed to be expected to accommodate someone else belief as fact. This fits both AGW and Creationism.
    Conclusion? AGW is indeed a "theory", but creationism is not. The comparison is just the opposite, global warming denial has many similarities to evolution denial from creationists.
    I guess when you have a closed mind, you would believe that Evolution would disprove Creationism. For some it may but for far more it does not. Sorry but 'believers' in AGW have nothing solid to prove AGW but they want the rest of us to accommodate them is a far more profound way than what the Creationists are asking for.
    Regardless though, people will continue to argue about this, because as past threads on climate change and evolution on [H] have shown, the life of this thread will likely be extended by another 10 pages.
    :D
 

Hulahoops

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
355
Nothing in Cosmos shows there's no God. It simply shows that religion has typically be wrong on science. This week we got a major new finding on the first fraction of a second after the big bang. We have nothing before that (and may never know more). Maybe some supernatural entity caused it. Who knows? One thing I'm certain of is there's no scientific evidence that indicates there was a divine creator. Doesn't mean there isn't, but science is more than just an idea or an opinion.

There was a good Horizon TV program on the issue of big bang a few years ago, a cover of what was in it - http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2010/oct/12/television-documentary
 

Tawnos

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
3,808
SO is it a valid theory to say "Aliens from other planets are visiting the Earth" because UFO's have been observed repeatedly throughout history? That's not a serious question, I used it simply to illustrate the slippery slope of speaking in absolutes of observed evidence, of shich can still be flawed.
A serious answer to your question. It might be a valid theory, if you establish it such that it's falsifiable and the bulk of tries to falsify it fail to do so. That's not the case, so no, it's not a valid theory. The comparison fails to link and doesn't hold. When did I speak in absolutes of observed evidence? It's a fact we've seen evolution occur, it's a fact that we've seen shared DNA among all life on this planet, etc. The theory part is the combined set of predictions from observing that evidence which have not been falsified after repeated testing.


That sentence shows one thing: You have not learned how to have an open mind yet you feel accomplished enough to belittle others without knowing the details of the experiences and accomplishments of those 'others'. Now, I realize I can be wrong, but on the surface, it sounds to me like you went from one extreme to another without finding any commonality in both theories.
What commonalities? Most creationists I talk to can't even get beyond conflating abiogensis with evolution. It's not the sign of a closed mind to entertain a hypothesis about origins they suggest and recognize its points of failure or untestability. And certainly, I can belittle such creation myths the same way mine were, because that belittling led me to try and explain my beliefs without making special pleadings, while establishing testability, etc. Being unable to do so despite a large amount of philosophical research led me to question if my beliefs were correct. I then examined other religions and found that if I assumed their view, my beliefs would look as silly to them as theirs to me. After that, I started to learn about the actual evidence and what the theory of evolution entails. In doing so, I found it sound. More than that, I found that in places where it was challenged and found incorrect, it was altered to incorporate new information.

That, alone, set it fundamentally apart from the beliefs I'd held. Extreme? Perhaps, but I don't think so, because evidence can convince me to again change my views. If anything, my extremism is favoring testable predictions and evidence over stated claims without backing.
 

jwcalla

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,628
One of the main reasons that the Holocaust was as detrimental as it was against Jewish people was because of religion. Many denominations of Christianity used to view the Jewish people as rejects from Christianity.

It's somewhat ironic in this thread to see religion taking it on the chin for the Holocaust, when Darwinism was a necessary tenet of Nazism.

Nevertheless, the 20th century marked one of the largest stains in human history and coincidentally (?) it was also one of demonstrable decline in religious faith.

anywho, hitler aside, the catholic churce (and popes) even agree with evolution (as long as you accept that god played a role of course, but meh, details)

It's not so much a question of what the Church accepts, because it is true to say that Darwinian theory does not permit the Church's position. All change is through a random process of mutation and then nature selecting the changes that are good and rejecting the changes that are bad. So, the entire thing is necessarily dependent on chance with no interference from any sort of intelligence permitted.

Now yes, obviously the Darwinian mechanisms are hilariously idiotic and a form or mechanism of evolution proposed by Churchmen is far more sophisticated, well-thought out, intelligent and non-absurd, but you're probably not going to see that kind of honesty expressed by many scientists today -- at least not publicly.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,411
Like I said, let them get their equal time, but they can't use religious references to make their case. It has to be presented in a manner that is consistent with observations, research, and logic.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,724
It's somewhat ironic in this thread to see religion taking it on the chin for the Holocaust, when Darwinism was a necessary tenet of Nazism.

Nevertheless, the 20th century marked one of the largest stains in human history and coincidentally (?) it was also one of demonstrable decline in religious faith.

How is it ironic? Religion causes more crap than a little bit. Having said that the two (Darwinism and Religion) aren't mutually exclusive. When it comes to killing or hating people any excuse will do.

As was said before, most non fundamental sects don't try and pit science against religion. Instead they say God created science, therefore there isn't a problem. Both can be taught without conflict. However, for fundamentalists this isn't acceptable. Quite literally they feel the Bible or texts like it are a how-to guide for all things real, imaginary, or in-between. If it was just Darwinism they had a problem with they might have an escape. But that's not their only gripe. For them the world is 6000 years old, for other others it's actually 4 billion.
 

jwcalla

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,628
How is it ironic? Religion causes more crap than a little bit. Having said that the two (Darwinism and Religion) aren't mutually exclusive. When it comes to killing or hating people any excuse will do.

As was said before, most non fundamental sects don't try and pit science against religion. Instead they say God created science, therefore there isn't a problem. Both can be taught without conflict. However, for fundamentalists this isn't acceptable. Quite literally they feel the Bible or texts like it are a how-to guide for all things real, imaginary, or in-between. If it was just Darwinism they had a problem with they might have an escape. But that's not their only gripe. For them the world is 6000 years old, for other others it's actually 4 billion.

There is no doubt that there is a serious (and deep) multi-faceted crisis in modern religion, esp. in the West. But I think modern science is in no better shape, frankly. Some of the same pitfalls in modern religion I find in modern science as well.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,822
How is it ironic? Religion causes more crap than a little bit. Having said that the two (Darwinism and Religion) aren't mutually exclusive. When it comes to killing or hating people any excuse will do.

As was said before, most non fundamental sects don't try and pit science against religion. Instead they say God created science, therefore there isn't a problem. Both can be taught without conflict. However, for fundamentalists this isn't acceptable. Quite literally they feel the Bible or texts like it are a how-to guide for all things real, imaginary, or in-between. If it was just Darwinism they had a problem with they might have an escape. But that's not their only gripe. For them the world is 6000 years old, for other others it's actually 4 billion.

I'm not sure about the 6000 years, but I have a friend, who's well read, very smart and has STEM background, but there's no way to convince him that evolution is real. He believes it had to be divine intervention and no amount of science will convince him. Same thing with Global Warming. Oh when cornered he'll say it's not caused by man, even if it's real, but most of the time he doesn't accept that it's real.

On the plus side, I'll be dead before Manhattan is underwater, so I've got that.
 

jwcalla

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,628
Same thing with Global Warming. Oh when cornered he'll say it's not caused by man, even if it's real, but most of the time he doesn't accept that it's real.

On the plus side, I'll be dead before Manhattan is underwater, so I've got that.

The truth is, nobody really knows. Most of us have to trust that the science is error-free, the models aren't in error, the measurements aren't in error and that all of the people involved in this from top to bottom are honest, squeaky-clean people who never lie, never make mistakes, and never have any impure motivations like diverting a piece of the cash pie into their bank accounts.

Maybe the difference between your friend and you is that he's less naive? It's a possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top