I guess I missed that proofI think it has been well established in this thread and previous ones that it's government-tainted science that is rightly distrusted, not the straw man pushed by the left.
I guess I missed that proofI think it has been well established in this thread and previous ones that it's government-tainted science that is rightly distrusted, not the straw man pushed by the left.
Define evolution.Isn't this about evolution?
I find this amusing - in light of the fact the Bible never really tells us the HOW. "On the first day.." etc. - such does not necessarily lend itself to the notion God (assuming His existence at this point) could not have used science.When dozens of scientific fields (genetics, biology, archaeology, etc.) are producing evidence that the world was not created the way the Bible says it was,
And that is just as wrong as making scientific pronouncements ex cathedra statements from the pope.the shortcut is to distrust science altogether.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of baby to throw out with that bath water.
I keep forgetting how much you know about me.Heh. The guy who doesn't understand the private sector sees only solutions in government activity. What a surprise. Whatever non sequitur floats your boat, dude. Care to venture a guess at how many people with PhDs I know who work at NIH and tell me it's just like every other government bureaucracy with the way it wastes money?
Activists like any other solitary issue group.I don't care for the Christian fundamentalist influence in politics at all.
The purpose they have is to control. What's funny to me is how many greens make fun of fundamentalist Christians and are themselves every bit as fundamentalist and irrational - only in reverse. I've long said the only thing worse than a fundamentalist is a backward fundamentalist.But, I consider their influence less offensive than the green activists who want to cripple this country with regulations that serve no purpose.
Government can't balance a checkbook (rim shot!)Government cannot solve climate change.
We agree.In my experience government can't even order copier toner efficiently. (Our solution was to order all new copiers once we ran out of toner. No joke.) This is not the crowd I want "solving" anything.
Yep, you totally did. You may want to read what has been written. And then perhaps comprehend.I guess I missed that proof
Big government, social engineering, the Constitution-is-very-malleable kind of guy, right?I keep forgetting how much you know about me.
Nope.In terms of NIH folks, I'm guessing you will claim to know everybody there
Nope. But, they do recognize that, in spite of their best efforts, government is monumentally inefficient. This is true in DoD and NIH and everything else the government does, including the many bureaucracies who influence health care. Your problem is that you refuse to see the obvious.and that they've all privately confessed to you how terrible the federal gov't is, how they are just wastes of space, and how their entire existence is just a leech on society.
Heh. Really? Not even close.Did I get that right?
You're criticizing yourself, right?I guess I just have a problem when someone cherry picks which science they choose to believe because it conflicts with their ideology.
Man, I laughed out loud at that one. Multiple times. :biggrin: Of course, I find the humor in irony to be some of the funniest there is, especially when the irony is unintended. :biggrin2:I guess I just have a problem when someone cherry picks which science they choose to believe because it conflicts with their ideology.
Is this what you really believe? That scientists haven't definitively proven the Earth is more than a few thousand years old?I don't know how old the earth is. Guess what? Neither does anybody else. The only real question is whether you think it was thousands, millions, or billions.
I don't know - and to tell you the truth I don't care.
I guess you proving me right on 1 out of 2 isn't bad.Nope. But, they do recognize that, in spite of their best efforts, government is monumentally inefficient. This is true in DoD and NIH and everything else the government does, including the many bureaucracies who influence health care. Your problem is that you refuse to see the obvious.
Heh. Really? Not even close.
LOL. please apply that statement to dems and economics. or dems and gun control. or dems and crime.I guess I just have a problem when someone cherry picks which science they choose to believe because it conflicts with their ideology.
Heh. Dude, you're an 0-fer. If you translate that into 1 for 2, no wonder you love government "solutions".I guess you proving me right on 1 out of 2 isn't bad.
You're very easily amazed. I've lived in/around DC for almost 20 years. There are hundreds thousands of government employees here. You realize that, right? You think it's hard to run into to government workers? You should have paid more attention to your surroundings when you were here. Four neighbors on my same street work for different government agencies. Reality, dude.I am still amazed that you have friends in every organization that comes up around these topics
And I can't imagine being friends with one so clueless about the government they worship. Government is inefficiency. When I meet up with friends/colleagues, talk of our jobs come up. (Does that amaze you too?) And it is natural to laugh at the way government does things (like, as I mentioned earlier, buying an office-full of new printers instead of just buying toner). That you seem to think government works well is a testament to how little perspective you have. I deal in how things are, not in magic pony land where the social engineers know better than everyone else.even after you've somehow forced the inefficiency of their employer and all manner of other political topics into your conversations with them. I can't imagine being friends with someone like that.
Sadly (or whatever), meeting you for a beer was never a priority, and I just could never work it into my schedule.Maybe I dodged a bullet on you never taking me up on a single invitation to grab a beer.
What is the science that democrats cherry pick regarding gun control and crime? I'm honestly curious.LOL. please apply that statement to dems and economics. or dems and gun control. or dems and crime.
Ah yes of course, well you found something else that has amazed me, which is that you have 10 hours a day to spend on the internet but not an hour for a beer.You're very easily amazed. . . . Reality, dude.
Sadly (or whatever), meeting you for a beer was never a priority, and I just could never work it into my schedule.
haha. Pathetic straw man, dude.Ah yes of course, well you found something else that has amazed me, which is that you have 10 hours a day to spend on the internet but not an hour for a beer.
Heh. The irony is awesome! If only you had such concerns about the government violating the Constitution, costing taxpayers trillions of dollars, instead of focusing on a few thousand dollars of printers. Eh, I'll express your concerns to the branch chief in my office that made that call.BTW: Your toner example would be a violation of govt procurement law.
Have they proven it is 4.6 billion and 300 days?Is this what you really believe? That scientists haven't definitively proven the Earth is more than a few thousand years old?
The notion that gun control REDUCES crime?What is the science that democrats cherry pick regarding gun control and crime? I'm honestly curious.
Don't forget those 'gun free' zones.The notion that gun control REDUCES crime?
Washington DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the land. It also has violence out the wazzuu.
I think there are VERY few people that have actually read a single primary source article on this issue. So to think most of you have already dismissed something based on a dailymail.co.uk article is quite sad...Ironically, as these attacks have grown, the scientific facts have become ever clearer. Climate scientists know the world is warming and human activity -- particularly burning coal and oil -- is the primary driver. The idea of addressing climate change threatens some people in the fossil fuel industry. And a vocal minority of corporate interests and their ideological allies are spending a lot of money to hijack the public debate about climate change.
I call all this the "scientization" of politics. Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers. The tobacco industry did it when scientists linked cigarettes to cancer. The lead industry tried to discredit a scientist who found that lead exposure hurt children's cognitive abilities.
In the most infamous episode, somebody stole thousands of e-mails and documents from leading climate researchers, including me. They cherry picked key phrases from the e-mails and published them out of context, like a black-and-white political attack ad with ominous music. Fossil fuel industry-funded groups gleefully spread the e-mails online and badgered the mainstream media into covering the "controversy" they had manufactured.