I'll give you one concrete example of how you are similar to creationists.
IIRC, you were one of the nitwits jumping up and down with glee here when McIntyre's correction to the temp record nudged 1934(?) to the hottest year (well, neglecting error bars anyway, LOL!).
The response of the AGW basher crowd to that development was identical to the response of creationists to the recent (good) scientific work on soft tissue preservation in Dinosaurs. You should google and see how the goobers danced with glee after first "blood cells" and then some actual sequence data (although of a statistical nature) where obtained from 70 mya fossils.
Please note that it has been almost dogma with the vast majority of scientists that such samples could not survive for that length of time. So... what does this mean? Here is proof positive, by the scientist’s own prior admission, that the dinos must be young! What do you think? That was one example I had in mind when asking Tim why he is so sure the earth is very old.
What the scientists did show was NOT that dinos are young, but that under very special fossilization, and using very clever detection methods, we can in fact say a little about DNA/proteans of very ancient creatures. This is not how the goobers will see it, needless to say. An interesting aside, is that the statistical protean data did in fact help buttress the connection between birds and dinos. The creationists didn’t hype that part LOL!
Evolution is full of many such surprises, and with each one, the goober press rushes out notices for the faithful, exhorting them that science is finally showing the bible to be true. With each little anomaly that McIntyre uncovers (or in more cases, outright nonsense that one of them publishes) the rightwing AGW basher crowd fills the blogsphere with claims of the impending collapse of AGW theory. Birds of a feather! |
