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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (17907)	12/1/2007 10:56:27 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

There is no evidence to prove darwinism or man produced CO2 is or will be driving global warming. Well, at least you apply the same logic in both cases. I happen to be pretty sure you are wrong in both cases, but I at least respect the fact that you don't operate with two contradictory views on what science is. However, another poster here chided me for seeing any link at all between how people view evolution/creation vs the AGW debate. He bashes AGW, but accepts evolution and thinks anyone who denies it is a goober(SP??). What I see is essentially the same mindset and tactics at work in both, and the same general views on science. You appear to as well. So we agree on something. My guess is that about half the AGW bashers on this board would also bash evolution, but the other half know better. Yet the reasons and arguments they offer for bashing AGW are much the same as people like you use to claim that "there is no evicence to prove darwinism". I might agree myself with that statement BTW, because I don't really think there is anything called "Darwinism", that is a religious right straw man. But I'm pretty sure you are using it to mean evolution. In which case you are wrong.