Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Aug 2010 22:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 438767
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-06-19
Christ, there's always one.
"Just so you know, there is no 100% proof of evolution or climate change"
There's just no reasonable objections and few reasonable objections, respectively.
"both have a lot of holes in them"
Bullshit.
"that is why they are currently classified as theories and not laws (no matter what Carl Sagan said - LOL)."
Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Theory > law. People really shouldn't pretend to knowledge.
"Creationists and those that argue that there is no climate change (or at least, induced by humans) have a lot of holes in their arguments too."
Understatement. Even mentioning the latter in the same breath as Anthropogenic climate change and evolution, is to afford these kooks more credibility than they're worth. Creationists and (largely) AGW deniers belong to the same clade as astrologists and NWO conspiracy theorists. Placing them on the same pedestal as biologists and climatologists, is to denigrate them and their body of work rather abhorrently.
(Sorry for the OT rant but I can't abide by this kind of vapid nonsense.)