You're certainly no Kreskin. You have no idea what I thought. Since I know who Scotty is feuding with, I kinda have a clue who HE was pointing it to. I took it in the direction of the worst offender of the action of what his post said. You don't like it, too bad. You shouldn't give up your day job, if you have one, and go into the mentalist field. You'll starve, although you are a charleton like most of them are.
Only a complete simpleton would quote a politician when it comes to science.
Of course, when you have not one utter clue what science is or does, you quote politicians.
Anyway,
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.
---McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society.
Lmao, you can try to backtrack all you want. Not a single person would consider Behe an evolutionists. You can put the "Theistic" in front of it to try to make it seem real, but it stills theories about ID which is completely contradictory to Darwinian evolution. Nice try, lol. "Behe an evolutionist"... now I've heard it all, lol.
Behe is an evolutionist, that is a fact. Anyone who knows anything about the field, knows this to be true.
Nice incoherent reply though idiot:
"but it stills theories about ID which is completely contradictory to Darwinian evolution."
I'll repeat myself, have you ever been right about anything in here?
Of course he is. He accepts every tenet of evolution, except that he believes that *random* mutations are not random, but guided by an intelligent designer.
"Behe appears to accept almost all of evolutionary theory, barring random mutation, which is replaced with guided mutation at the hand of an unnamed designer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Only you would try to back-peddle and claim that one has to agree with Darwin on every facet of evolution to be an evolutionist, by the way - which NO ONE DOES ANYMORE, which
is why modern Darwinists are called neo-Darwinists.
Have you ever been right about anything in here?
The name Behe rung a bell...I looked up his books and remembered having read one for an undergrad class way back in the day. It was his Black Box book. I had to take a Theology course as an elective, and I was more interested in trying to hook up with a ridiculously hot girl in the class instead of examining the nitty gritty subject matter details at the time.
Having said that, I still remember the overriding theme: evolution was guided by someone or something else. That's the entire premise of the book. You couldn't have missed it. alkiefadelt claiming to have read Behe without knowing that is like someone telling you they've read Moby Dick, but had no idea a whale was part of the story.
