6M Ranch":2c4e9dsy said:
I mite bee a be nice bumken, butt it apears thot ever wun dont agree. step offun that pedastul, an aknolledge that the jery iz stil out
I do know that you wrote this:
From a scientific perspective, evolution is nutty. Anyone who thinks everything has happened by random chance is delusional.
The foundation of modern biology is based on the theory of evolution. If you don't want to believe in evolution because of a faith issue, that's your choice.
But from a
scientific perspective that's the best explanation out there. That's why you won't find any creationism classes at universities. I would also be surprised if you could find more that a handful of PhD biologists out of the thousands of practicing ones that don't support the theory.
Your stance on evolution as "nutty" and your disregard of the importance of peer- reviewed articles simply means that you either don't understand (or have rejected) huge swaths of modern science and its practice.
That's up to you.
I don't believe that makes you stupid. I just think that we're operating under two separate and distinct ways of viewing the world.
Let me ask you, what in your research or experience makes you qualified to reject the current consensus on the human causes of global warming?
Call me crazy, but I'll stick with the overwhelming consensus, because I am not qualified or capable of doing my own climate research.