re: #127 southernfriedchickenhawk

You mean like Global Warming?

I’m no christian, but that is some fine company you guys are pandering to.

[This was regarding the claim that “Science is ruled by empirical data”.]

It’s perhaps important to make a distinction between “science”, and the aforementioned “scientific establishment”. It is a part of the latter that has ignored the empirical evidence regarding Global Warming - opting to to promote the results of unvalidated (or invalidated) computer models instead. When the empirical data takes a back seat, you’re not doing science any more.

The legitimate point here is that scientific argument need focus on facts and reason - appeal to authority should not be used. Hopefully we already have more of the former than the latter in here.

Arguing against Creationism is pretty easy - there is no science to be had. Arguing for evolution is more involved. Personally, I would expect to see the evolution theory see a few refinements in my lifetime - something that makes ol’ Darwin seem like a bit of an oversimplification.