What's new
By:

WOW!!!! Upcoming Cover of Newsweek!

SiroMar said:
No. Have you ever "refuted" a number of thoughtful posts with a bunch of quotes from a pop sci-fi book and a series of "you can't be serious"? Have you responded to 20+ links to research with a photoshopped image mocking vaccinations? Then no.
Click to expand...

Way to proudly display your ignorance as you claim others are beneath you.

The quote I provided was not from a science fiction book. It was from a lecture Dr. Crichton gave at Caltech, entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming.
 
PearlWatson said:
Way to proudly display your ignorance as you claim others are beneath you.

The quote I provided was not from a science fiction book. It was from a lecture Dr. Crichton gave at Caltech, entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming.
Click to expand...

If it is Michael Crichton then it very well could have neded up in one of his books.
 
PearlWatson said:
Way to proudly display your ignorance as you claim others are beneath you.

The quote I provided was not from a science fiction book. It was from a lecture Dr. Crichton gave at Caltech, entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming.
Click to expand...

Ah, so even the most dogmatic soldiers of ignorance appeal to authority when it suits them. But like one stupid guy often says, you can't be serious!
 
PearlWatson said:
I laughed at the "science fiction and thrillers that believe in" part.

The respected opinion comes from a man who "graduated summa *** laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT." So, it is either disingenuous or willfully ignorant to bill him as just a science fiction writer.
Click to expand...

Well let's be clear. He WAS a science fiction writer primarily and he DID believe in astral projection and all that other nonsense.

Of course, you didn't respond to the meat of my argument, in which I acknowledged that he had a point re: heterodox scientific views but that it was misapplied when it comes to evolution or global warming. Of course responding to that argument would require something other than copying and pasting a short bio of a science fiction writer so I can understand why it was above your capacity. ;)

Empirical testing my ***. More like comical frauds (like gluing moths to trees) in the case of Darwinism, and fraudulent numbers in the case of global warming.
Click to expand...

If you honestly believe evolution has never been empirically tested then you're just not coming to the table with enough knowledge to have the discussion. My personal favorite example is this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The "climategate" thing is, at this point, in the domain of the cranks. Not shocked you're into it. There have been repeated investigations of the incident and they unanimously conclude that there is no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
 
Last edited:
PearlWatson said:
The magazine covers look to be harsh on Clinton when he was impeached, and nice to Bush after 9-11. Is that supposed to prove some kind of point.
Click to expand...

It was a response to:

Newsweek has a long history of publishing these sorts of critical covers with reference to conservative politicians. To my knowledge, this is the first time they've done it to a liberal.
Click to expand...

I would say that multiple covers demonstrating that this is not "the first time they've done it to a liberal" proves some kind of point about that statement.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Well let's be clear. He WAS a science fiction writer primarily and he DID believe in astral projection and all that other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure it is important that we make clear that he is dead rather than admit to your ignorance. Stay consistent. It is the "science fiction and thrillers that believe in" that other nonsense.

Of course, you didn't respond to the meat of my argument, in which I acknowledged that he had a point re: heterodox scientific views but that it was misapplied when it comes to evolution or global warming. Of course responding to that argument would require something other than copying and pasting a short bio of a science fiction writer so I can understand why it was above your capacity. ;)
Click to expand...

It was applied correctly.

If you honestly believe evolution has never been empirically tested then you're just not coming to the table with enough knowledge to have the discussion. My personal favorite example is this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Click to expand...

If rapidly mutating bacteria is somehow empirical proof of "evolution" then after billions of years of nonstop evolution, the only life forms would be really sturdy bacteria. There is a little detail in the crackpot theory about getting new species.

The "climategate" thing is, at this point, in the domain of the cranks. Not shocked you're into it. There have been repeated investigations of the incident and they unanimously conclude that there is no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Click to expand...

Interesting title at factcheck.org:

"Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming."

The science in climate science just ain't strong enough, if not fraudulent.
 
Sirkickyass said:
The "climategate" thing is, at this point, in the domain of the cranks. Not shocked you're into it. There have been repeated investigations of the incident and "they" unanimously conclude that there is no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Click to expand...

Who is this mysterious "they"??
 
PearlWatson said:
If rapidly mutating bacteria is somehow empirical proof of "evolution" then after billions of years of nonstop evolution, the only life forms would be really sturdy bacteria. There is a little detail in the crackpot theory about getting new species.
Click to expand...

Uh...no?

At the most basic level, the bacteria would be a different species, or more likely, split into several different species.

You can read about speciation in asexual organisms here.

https://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010609
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top