Why do people deny evolution?

@hawkeye10,

No you're not, you just "think" you are,

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You are a buffoon who says stupid things like this.

Quote:
Zimmerman seems to have a knack for getting into bazaar situations.
http://able2know.org/topic/239161-15#post-5764333

Lots of people make typos. It's no big deal. Can you point out anyplace where he is wrong on the facts?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Only an idiot would describe typing bazaar instead of bizarre as a typo. That's not how typos work, it's how semi literate minds work.

You've got a kindred spirit in chicken little, like you his intelligence is in inverse proportion to how much he boasts about being intelligent.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Only an idiot would describe typing bazaar instead of bizarre as a typo. That's not how typos work, it's how semi literate minds work.

So in other words, you can't point out any errors in his facts or his logic.

izzythepush wrote:

like you his intelligence is in inverse proportion to how much he boasts about being intelligent.

Truthfully setting the record straight after someone has lied about me is in no way boasting.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I have much better things to do with my time than trawl through an idiot's posts at the request of another idiot who doesn't understand what typos are.

It's called having a life, you should try it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Your failure to point out any errors in Hawkeye's facts and logic is duly noted.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your inability to understand what a typo is makes you look really silly. As you are in a constant state of denial you ignored the facts and made up a load of nonsense like most dim witted people do.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

As you are in a constant state of denial you ignored the facts and made up a load of nonsense

Your inability to point out anything that I am wrong about speaks for itself.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And we're back to the mantras.

It's not the same as conversation.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

And we're back to the mantras.

Back??

As if you had ever stopped?

izzythepush wrote:

It's not the same as conversation.

Correct. Your false accusations of imaginary untruths are not a conversation.

0 Replies

I don't understand why anyone would discuss climate change with Oralloy. Not only does he have no clue about the data which make up the evidence, he is entirely motivated by a politically polemic position. Do not waste your time.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would discuss climate change with Oralloy.

It's because they want to advance their leftist ideology.

Setanta wrote:

Not only does he have no clue about the data which make up the evidence,

Your inability to point out any untrue statements in my posts speaks for itself.

Setanta wrote:

he is entirely motivated by a politically polemic position.

Just like the scientists who suppress data whenever it is inconvenient to leftist ideology.

Setanta wrote:

Do not waste your time.

That would mean giving up on their attempts to advance their leftist ideology.

I agree that people should not bother trying to advance leftist ideology. The best course of action for the left to take when I post facts is to just accept reality without comment.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So far, the only "evidence" you've presented that I can recall is a dispute about the extent of snow pack melt in one portion of the California mountains in one year.

There was no dispute over extent of the snow pack melt. The problem was that the data was being suppressed because it was inconvenient to leftist ideology.

MontereyJack wrote:

As farmer points out, much of the data is digital from scientific instruments and doesn't involve a human scientist at all in the gathering.

That doesn't change the reality that suppressing inconvenient data leads to bias that makes accurate conclusions impossible.

MontereyJack wrote:

You're making allegations with no proof for a widespread pattern and ignoring the wideslpread evidence from many different viewpoints with no interaction between tem which show it's real.

We know that at least one scientific journal suppresses data that is inconvenient to the left.

We also know that this suppression is seen as acceptable and has not been corrected.

MontereyJack wrote:

You seem to have a lpattern of takng one example of something you think proves your point and generalizing it with no evidence as discrediting the whole enterprise.

That's because it does prove my point, and does discredit the entire enterprise.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Total lack of evidence that your alleged skewing exists.

That is incorrect. At least one scientific journal have been busted for suppressing data that is inconvenient for leftist ideology. And this suppression is seen as acceptable. No one has stepped in to prevent it.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You've been long on innuendo and short on proof. As usual.

It is noteworthy that the only way that the left can argue against my facts is by mischaracterizing my posts.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

That's wrong. If we are talking about the same articles, and I thin we are, the original one was a summary of research in snow pack melting in the California sierra in a number did not match the summary. f areas. The researcher in one particular area responded that his/her particular area the melt . This is a disagreement about one specific data point, which far from being suppressed was in fact pointed out and published, This was seven or eight years ago as I recall, and there has been no noticeable disagreement since of which I am aware. Disagreement about a data point does not constitute suppression. The whole superstructure you've built on that is therefore pure baseless speculation. The only reson you're even aware of it was that it was not suppressed.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

What happened is the scientist submitted an article to be published, and the journal refused to publish his article because his data conflicted with leftist ideology.

The area of disagreement was that the scientist felt that his data should not be blocked from publication merely because it is inconvenient to leftist ideology.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I might alsopoint out that this is not leftist ideology. The climate change we are experiencing is accepted science, accepted by every major scientific body and every American governmental science-concerened agency like NASA and NOAA. The opposition to it is however ideologically-driven rightist. It's political wholly, not scientific.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. Leftist ideology insists that human-caused climate change is true.

The claim that science backs up leftist ideology is of little value when we know that scientists are biasing the data to reflect leftist ideology.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You know no such thing. You are merely espousing the latest conspiracy theory and one of the silliest. Literally thousands of scientists, scientific bodies, and research, of every discipline and probably every possible political stripe agree climate change is real and it's happening. The evidence is real, the alleged suppression is not.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know