Search results

Dog nabbit, you're a goon. I should have pegged it from the start :D Is this for an upcoming "Weekend Web" article? Edit: "Goon" in this case refers to what the users of the SA forums call themselves. It's not meant as an insult.

Dad is often trolling, but he's mostly just posting in ignorance.

No, that would be a lie. Another clear violation of the ninth.

Hespera, evolution is observation. It's a fact. The theory of evolution isn't a fact, but a model explaining the observation. I think you're simply misunderstanding each other.

There's the fact of evolution and then there's the theory of evolution. Two different things. Fact of evolution: Organisms evolve. Theory of evolution: A model showing why and how organisms evolve.

I look forward to the day - sometime after Copenhagen - when the denialists get their day in court. As defendants in a libel suit.

The thing about these emails is that there is no evidence for any fudging of data. There is no evidence for any wrong-doings. There is no evidence for AGW being a fraud. What there is is a bunch of cherry-picked, out of context snippets of personal communication between scientists apparently...

"Climategate" is a load of nonsense - the last desperate straw for the denialists to clutch on to. It has had one major impact, though. It has finally shown just what kind of people constitute the denialist community - criminals.

Maybe you should read the actual science instead of denialist blogs?

So, you come to a science board, spew a bunch of easily refuted crap and then try to twist the burden of evidence? Nice. YOU made the argument. It's YOUR words. Especially since you have still failed to evidence your claim. Jebus, it's like talking to a wall. YOU made the assertion, then...

Is AP a science organization now? Also, it's not my job to provide evidence for your assertions. I added nothing to your insinuation that CO2 had prevented an ice-age. That's just idiocy, and it's a variation of the argument that global warming is good. Cite your sources, please. Assertions...

Please cite these "studies". If you're talking about the CRU hack, you're wrong. Don't believe everything you read on denialist blogs. What you claim here never happened. Say what? So, because you can plot ice-ages on a time-graph and you think an ice-age should show up just about now...

Exactly my point ;)

And everyone knows Mars is exactly the same as Earth. BTW, you might want to ask some actual scientists before just swallowing whatever denialist blogs are telling you. But then again, you are a creationist and EU proponent, so I suppose your critical thinking skills aren't really up for it.

This needs saying again, especially after Doveaman's latest.

Didn't you read the link I gave you? It's right there. Which latest journal? Where did you get this information? /Edited: Fair enough. You raise a lot of creationist talking-points, though. And I gave it to you in the link in my previous post. That's not evidence. That's hearsay. So...

But it did happen. Those saying that it didn't are lying creationists. It already has. It happened more than 50 years ago, and it has happened again and again in repeated experiments. Evidence please. Not as much as you seem to believe. Why? What makes him special? If you try to argue...

These people are obviously wrong. Can you give any sources? The Greatest Show on Earth

That is called "gravitational lensing". It occurs because the gravitational force of the object is so massive that it bends light. This is exactly what falsified Arp's original hypothesis. Thanks for bringing it to light.

I doubt it, but I suppose you misunderstood me. One cannot make a credible argument where claiming that artificial selection requires intelligent input, therefore natural selection requires the same.