The evolution of science.
Created on: September 26th, 2007
The evolution of science.

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(1.5) 8 0 8

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 0 0 0 934

Inbound links:

views url
No one has linked to this site. ( ._.)

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
September 26th, 2007
(0)
If you're not skeptical, then you're not a scientist but, rather, a dogmatist. Even someone who believes that random mutation and natural selection are the best explanations given the evidence should be skeptical. Thus, everyone except for the ignorant people who don't know how empirical science is done are not skeptical, and they probably only believe in evolution because they heard that it was true, not because they have any knowledge of the empirical evidence. And your music is propoganda bullsh*t music.
September 26th, 2007
(0)
Thus, everyone except for the ignorant people who don't know how empirical science is done are skeptical*
September 26th, 2007
(0)
Also to propose that because some professors are "skeptical", even to propose that a large majority of scientists believe that a claim is false, is evidence that a theory is not reasonable and well supported is a fallacy of appeal to authority.
September 26th, 2007
(-1)
Korf's pretty smart.
September 26th, 2007
(-1)
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
September 26th, 2007
(0)
And guess what? This is Korf's alternate account. I posted this so I could stroke my e-peen.
September 26th, 2007
(0)
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if one is making an appeal. Allow me to refute myself.
September 26th, 2007
(0)
Yeah, this was just a statement that some people feel skeptical about some stuff. You weren't trying to troll or set up another round of ytmnd evangelism. I'll believe that when theists start being rational (get it? they can't, it's against their religion).