Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What isn't?
Yes. And some sources are published in peer reviewed, recommended, scientific journals and others are ..., well, not that.
Yes. And the major question is, who do you trust? And who can we agree upon to trust?
You didn't cite any papers yet so we don't really disagree on any. You also haven't rejected any specific paper or article, so we don't know if you are rejecting any of the named sources. All you did was through shade on the general idea.
I always find it amazing when science deniers refuse to even learn the basics of a topic so that they will have a better understanding of it. They seem to just want to hang on to their biased sources. I can understand how a personal bias can drive someone to an errant position since that happened to me. My personal dislike of Al Gore led me to denying global warming. I used to debate against it, this was quite a few years ago when there was still at least some doubt. I found that my sources were often lacking. They rarely if ever dealt with the problem on a global basis. I had to admit that more reliable sources refuted my own. It was Lord Monckton that finally convinced me that I was wrong. His dishonest debating technique was almost identical to that of creationists. If the facts are on one's side why would anyone feel the necessity to make false claims and lie in one's debates?
--and I'll take that to mean there's not hope for discussion & we're done.
People are willing to have a discussion. The problem is that you would need to find reliable sources and you do not appear to understand how to vet the sources that you rely on.
So we can assume that your refusal to consider the existence of any boring subject to mean that you're set on disagreeing w/ me every step of the way.
Do you have a problem with peer review?
The only thing I have disagreed on with you is your general negativity without putting out any real arguments.
I don't see a beginning, yet.
Seems we're changing the subject. Ordinarily I'd say that was a smart move but ur probably unaware that it's what ur doing.
No, you appear to be running away from any discussion at all. That is a wise move on your part.
You may have missed the part where I said--
If ur interested now, pse tell me what u'd like to discuss --major extinctions, climate change, or global warming. For the one u pick, pse tell me what ur assertion is & we can discuss it.
There you go again changing the subject, this time from you to me. Look, let's talk topic: major extinction caused by climate change/global warming. We can do it, if not I'm outa here.
What about the OP? It's an article published in a respected magazine.
Not changing the subject at all. Please try to follow along.
