>This is how it's done! You keep asking a Creatard over and over to state their case. You can't do this on Usenet because feedback is delayed and cherry picked. You have to corner these dumb fuckers in real time and hammer away at their dogma.

>Watch how Mike Pence never quite admits he's a Creationist but so obviously is. He says the science on global warming causation is "mixed" but how can you trust someone who takes what a bunch of desert dwellers wrote 2,000 years ago (and had to force on the populace with missionaries) as absolute truth? You can't!

>Furthermore, the term "believe" is a misnomer in a scientific context. It's like Creationists' constant misuse of the word "theory" which means something entirely different to scientists than an educated guess. Equating "belief" of evolution vs. creation erroneously puts them on the same level like a coin toss. Real science goes with the best evidence, which may change over time, but in the case of evolution the change is incremental.

>If a scientist suddenly CHOOSES to believe in something because it makes him feel good (e.g. the Bible) he should forfeit his credentials and become a Creatard.

>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chris+Matthews+Mike+Pence

> This is how it's done! You keep asking a Creatard over and over to state their case. You can't do this on Usenet because feedback is delayed and cherry picked. You have to corner these dumb fuckers in real time and hammer away at their dogma.

> Watch how Mike Pence never quite admits he's a Creationist but so obviously is. He says the science on global warming causation is "mixed" but how can you trust someone who takes what a bunch of desert dwellers wrote 2,000 years ago (and had to force on the populace with missionaries) as absolute truth? You can't!

> Furthermore, the term "believe" is a misnomer in a scientific context. It's like Creationists' constant misuse of the word "theory" which means something entirely different to scientists than an educated guess. Equating "belief" of evolution vs. creation erroneously puts them on the same level like a coin toss. Real science goes with the best evidence, which may change over time, but in the case of evolution the change is incremental.

> If a scientist suddenly CHOOSES to believe in something because it makes him feel good (e.g. the Bible) he should forfeit his credentials and become a Creatard.

> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chris+Matthews+Mike+Pence

> >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chris+Matthews+Mike+Pence

> > This is how it's done! You keep asking a Creatard over and over to state their case. You can't do this on Usenet because feedback is delayed and cherry picked. You have to corner these dumb fuckers in real time and hammer away at their dogma.

> > Watch how Mike Pence never quite admits he's a Creationist but so obviously is. He says the science on global warming causation is "mixed" but how can you trust someone who takes what a bunch of desert dwellers wrote 2,000 years ago (and had to force on the populace with missionaries) as absolute truth? You can't!

> > Furthermore, the term "believe" is a misnomer in a scientific context. It's like Creationists' constant misuse of the word "theory" which means something entirely different to scientists than an educated guess. Equating "belief" of evolution vs. creation erroneously puts them on the same level like a coin toss. Real science goes with the best evidence, which may change over time, but in the case of evolution the change is incremental.

> > If a scientist suddenly CHOOSES to believe in something because it makes him feel good (e.g. the Bible) he should forfeit his credentials and become a Creatard.

> >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Chris+Matthews+Mike+Pence

> Guess what? There still is no credible science behind agw.