Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (17902)	12/4/2007 11:33:05 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Do you think that EVERY statement made by creationist sceptics of evolution is without merit? I don't. They certainly find holes and can function as useful critics. On rare occasions, they have even done some good science on their own which gets accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Which is a good example of why you should deal with the issues and arguments rather than the person making them (accept if someone is trying to make an argument from authority, if someone says X is likely right because Y says it is, than you should either dismiss the argument up front as no matter who Y is he may be wrong, or if your going to give it any weight at all, you should check out who Y is). Now, do you think ANY of that casts legitimate doubt on evolution as an historical fact and as the foundational theory for biology?... ...On the other hand, if you don't think so, then could you kindly explain why the AGW debate is different for you? Evolution, natural selection, etc. are foundations of biology and pretty solidly established. "The Earth is warming, solely or primarily because of human emission of CO2", is less so. "The Earth is warming, solely or primarily because of human emission of CO2, and if we don't drastically cut the CO2 emissions in X time frame, it will result in a massive world wide calamity, while if we do make these major cuts we will be ok, or at least in a much better situation than if we don't", isn't established at all. Critics are good, they are the "accountants" of science. However, top honors go to those how do the "science", not the "accounting". We aren't handing out honors here. If you want to, than fine, honor who you want, but it doesn't change the fact that - " The issue is the arguments and statement by Lindzen than Brumar quoted. Whatever Lindzen is or is not, does not make those statements true or false." or refute that idea that you should "Deal with the issue not with the people talking about the issue."