|
Article Publishing
|
~ eugenie scott a bit of an idiot |
Eugenie Scott, whom I sort of respect, is a tad demented.
She claims that there is "no controversy" with regards to evolution or global warming, and no need for there to be any controversy.
Oh really.
How does science proceed? Science has to have a controversy in order to progress, otherwise there would not be any competing theories.
Take for example the intelligent design debate. If Michael Behe would not have brought up the whole outboard motor issue, would scientists have even bothered studying this area of biology much, and found an evolutionary reason for the outboard motor, found in some species?
In order for science to study something deeply, someone has to start a controversy. If there is an outboard motor found in some living species and a biologist says "oh it just evolved" and closes the door, what good is that? Now if someone makes a claim that "it must have been designed", then it is scientists job to find an evolutionary reason for it, which will trigger all sorts of papers to be written on the subject. Indeed one doesn't have to claim it was intelligently designed, they could simply say "this is not making sense from an evolution perspective at this moment, let's study it more". Regardless, it's still a controversy, and that's how great science is done.
If someone, for example, wants to say "is fusion and cold temperatures possible?" there is indeed going to be a controversy.
Then there is the whole global warming carbon tax bull shit. Eugenie Scott feels that the simple solution to all problems is just to throw the government on it. Got global warming issues? Simple, just add a carbon tax and all our problems go away. Rather than say, oh I don't know, Eugenie Scott and her inferior biologist friends becoming physicists and actually addressing the root of the problem instead of just treating the symptom. Adding carbon tax and charging people money for polluting, I guarantee with 100 percent absolute certainty, will not solve the global warming problem. What will solve the problem is someone developing a physical solution to the root of the problem, not treating the disease with add on hacks after the fact (same problem exists in medicine: throwing a bunch of drugs on the problem instead of preventing it).
Then there is the whole global warming name change bull shit. First they call it Global Warming, then they start paddling back and calling it climate change, because apparently it's not actually global warming, but rather drastic changes in climate (weather) patterns. Indeed climate change does occur, and cow farts likely being one cause of some of it.
Then there is the whole simulation argument issue. All these atheist evolution following biologists don't seem to give absolutely any possibility to the fact that they could be living inside a designed universe, because that would be Intelligent Design. Okay, well tell me this then: what the hell is a video game with evolution built in to it? Imagine a video game that evolves over time, but still had a lead programmer who initially set it up. So the characters in the video game start doing some tests and find out "There is no God! This system evolves naturally!" Until the lead programmer of the project unplugs the computer that the game characters are living in who were evolving and doing tests on evolution. Now, make no mistake, I'm not claiming with certainty, like a religious person would, that this is the system we live in now. I'm saying that these absurd atheist simpletons, who have no imagination whatsoever (as opposed to science fiction like in the movie The Thirteenth Floor) are unable to contemplate any intelligent design whatsoever - because they start off with a premise, which is wrong: all things must be naturally evolved including the system itself. Well, I'm afraid video games and computers prove that is a false premise, that one can even develop an intelligently designed program which evolves over time, and creates even stupid incidents like holocausts and world wars within that computer program. I stress once again that I'm not claiming that is the system we are living in, but the idiocy of atheist biologist simpletons (i.e. fucktards) to assume it's not even a highly improbable possibility: now that is absurd.
Indeed I respect the work of Eugenie Scott, at least some of it or most of it. But in other cases she and her buffoon atheist biology friends, are just: idiots. Unable to have any imagination whatsoever, and unable to figure out the basic little fact of science, that all science is based on some controversy.
You want to start a safe nuclear power system, like National Ignition Facility which stops climate change from fucking up the planet? Start a controversy. Controversies are extremely useful.
There is a controversy, Eugenie Scott, and let me say that throwing your pathetic carbon taxes on everything as a "solution" to global warming, is pretty fucktarded. It's basically like throwing a bunch of radiation treatment on cancer and then having the cancer patient die shortly after. How about letting a business man, or scientist, who is competent (unlike idiot atheist simpleton biologists) come up with a physical solution to cure global warming or climate change directly, at the source, instead of throwing pathetic afterhack taxes on the problem? Break a law in physics, make cold fusion work, get star power on earth - but don't sit on your pathetic biology laid back ass and say "let's just throw some taxes on it! And use solar panels!" Solar panels? What the fuck? Wind mills and solar panels: green technology for idiots.
So who really are the IDiots?
Certainly not people who start controversies (Galileo Galilei, anyone?), and especially not those who are involved in the controversy and actually doing something about problems, in stead of sitting back as armchair atheist biologist lefty morons saying "THROW SOME MORE CARBON TAXES ON IT! THAT'LL FIX THINGS UP BITCHES!". The solution will probably come from some creative person who funds the project himself, or just comes up with a brilliant idea - without the help of the lame socialist government that armchair Atheist lefty biologists or so hot for. Indeed teaching that the earth is 10,000 years old in school is absurd; but what is equally as absurd as that... Going on video and telling people that carbon taxes will solve our issues, or saying that there is no controversy (which, will prevent research from being done on the sun temperature fluctuations, because, well we know there is no controversy so no need to do any research or further lookings). Duh, retard.
Indeed if the government actually had a brain or competent people on board, one could use some of those carbon taxes to invest in things other than idiot solar panels and wind turbines. Let's see, solar panels and wind turbines: does that even qualify as 1970`s technology. If aliens came down and saw this pathetic attempt at curing global warming (solar panels and wind turbines, what a joke) they'd probably nuke our planet because "this planet is full of retards, not worth saving... NEXT"
Important note: I`m not religious, nor am I an evolution denier or climate change denier. Anyone who criticizes evolution or climate change, is immediately written of a christian nutcase. In this case, that is, not the case. One can still criticize climate change and evolution science even if one is a full supporter of evolution and climate change. I`m just saying: you are going about the solution the wrong way, fucktard
|
|