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: TimF who wrote (18676)	12/19/2007 3:46:25 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

The point had nothing to do with common clothes styles. The point was that two groups having one or several similarities, does not mean the groups are similar as a whole. Why'ed you bother to point that out given my discussion of logic vs. induction when you agreed here: Very few of our complex system level theories in science are watertight when viewed from a rigid logic standpoint Very true. The point is you made a very stupid comparison of wearing pants as a strawman argument that my claims about creationists & AGW deniers were not valid. My arguments that creationists & AGW deniers are similar is based on the very strong facts that they use identical methods and tactics wrt to science. I don't give a rats ass what they wear, if they go to church, what they eat, which party they vote for. Now, if you want to substitute A, B, C, D, for the details, yes, from a logical perspective your strawman and my details are no different. That is a world apart form a more valid analysis, which, per the above comment "Very true" you seem to understand. Put it to some constructive use. I see holes the size of the grand canyon easier than I see holes small enough for me to have dug myself. Which gets me back to my earlier interest. Why don't you see the holes in evolution? They are much bigger.