Sorry, the bullshit is pushed by Horowitz, you don’t like it? Don’t rely on bullshit artists like him. What is clear here is the contradiction of someone like you that claims to be not far apart on the issue defending a group that clearly is off the deep end on the same.
Besides it is not only that item, as mentioned before, intelligent designers also are relying on the retarded efforts of the “academic freedom fighters” to make “teaching the controversy” a reality that does not promote freedom but promotes unsupported dogmas to be applied in science clases.
:roll eyes: NO one is discussion global warming. Evidently that eludes you. And when you discuss an issue and support Obama’s point of view, do you rant that he still hasn’t closed Guantanamo like he claimed he would do time after time? I suspect not.
One would think there’s be a board rule against you constantly turning every discussion into one about global warming, but since Marley showed himself to scold me (rightfully, as I did go slightly over the GD line) and was mum on your actions, I guess not. ::shrug::
And as Horowitz and his students for academic freedom were mentioned it is important to see what is what they claim the bias is in academia, global warming is one of the items mentioned by them as an item that “clearly” shows a bias in favor of the left, needless to say that is really a retarded point and when they fail on identifying proper bias in academia it is pertinent and necessary to show this clear example on why one should not trust their claimed “expertise” on identifying bias.
As a scientist mentioned once, the problem is that nature’s thermometers flip the finger to the so called bias people like Horowitz sees in academia, and so it goes for biological evidence for Intelligent Designers. The fact that you ignored a whole post that just dealt with the evidence that shows that people like Horowitz are also clueless regarding Intelligent Design is telling also. It is then silly to raise the strawman that this is just me turning this into a global warming discussion, we are indeed discussing several lines of evidence that shows that there is bias here all right, and it is clearly coming from people like Horowitz, a bias so big that it puts into doubt other conclusions that they have regarding the so called bias in academia that they claim is there.
:rolleyes: Unbelievable. You glom on to the one thing you’re addicted to and ignore all the others…those WAY more relevant to the discussion. You seek to discount everything because of an unrelated issue. That’s fallacious thinking. I steer you to Post #146. Now if you have problems with the methodology, by all means, let’s here it. I know this is a colossal waste of typing, but what the hell: the evidence is not supported nor made moot by anything having to do with global warming. Really and truly. But I guess you’re afraid to attack the results of the studies themselves. Unsurprising.
So there is the reality that you are willing to toss aside facts that are not to your liking.
Even if those facts do contradict what you claim to understand about the science you will insist on defending them.
You bet yours was a colossal waste of typing as before or later me and others pointed out how silly that evidence is when the results do not reflect what the left or others do report on what the corporate press does in the end.
And lets not forget that this part of your post # 146 is how we got here:
Paradoxically the explanation you seek was in the last point you made, there is indeed a strong component of anti-intellectualism in America nowadays.
Why it should be surprising that outfits like FOX would get a good number of eyeballs?
Yes, there is a great liberal bias in the media. What your question ignores is there is also a great conservative bias in the media as well.
The problem as I see it is, the tool that was supposed to keep the Politician’s honest, is now being used to cover up, twist, misinform.
I get the feeling that the discussion in the Press rooms goes like this
Yeah, lets report it. We can always apologize later on the back page if we’re wrong.
Example of how media reports information to lead your opinions
Example 1
Major Political Person was pulled over this morning for driving erratically. Drugs were found in the back seat of his car.
Example 2
Major Political Person was pulled over this morning for driving erratically after being up all night ill. Antihistamines were found in the back seat of his car.
Both are accurate, but example #1 gives you a far different picture then example 2.
You crack me up. Whenever someone lists a general opinion, you want “cite”
As if without it, is nullifies the opinion. So let me ask you, if you dont read it, it doesnt exists?
How about the Trayvon case? The first images posted. Trayvon at 14 and Zim weighing a lot more then he does today.
