Previous 21 - 30 Next
Indeed, the logic is so bad, comically so, that it shows just how partisan some people are that they will buy any argument, no matter how bad, if they think it supports their political position. One could substitute "infertile heterosexual couple" in the place of "same sex couple" and the article would read the same. If Jeffrey objects to surrogate mothers, he ought to just write an article on that. I might even agree with him. But to suggest allowing homosexuals to marry is going to strip children away from their loving parents is ignorant paranoia of the highest order.
Oh yes, "anyone who disagrees with me isn't being scientific" , the mantra of unscientific partisans everywhere.
It's really comical to hear people with clear unscientific agendas criticize science for not giving them the answers they want (I'm looking at you, evolution and global warming deniers). Science doesn't care about your partisan politics, that's one of its most redeeming qualities. In the long run, the evidence wins.
"Think for example of evolution--the entire idea is based on historical pattern matching without a single experiment showing life from random events..." Evolution is a theory about how life changes, not how life begins. I can explain how one domino topples another in the line without being able to explain how the first domino fell. "... or for that matter a single experiment showing a virus, bird, moth, flower, mutating into anything but a virus, bird, moth or flower or dead." You are merely playing a semantic game. You've essentially said "no matter how much that virus changes, I can still call it a virus". Yes, yes you can, and you can call it "George" too, but that doesn't change the fact that the thing you are calling "George" or a "virus" is sufficiently different from the other George virus that it warrants being called another species (not able to successfully interbreed any longer). Many many experiments have been done, both in the lab and observed in nature, that demonstrate this.
Yawn. Another baseless bit of conspiracy mongering which would strike anyone familiar with science, and scientists, as absolutely preposterous. It also neglects to note that the retracted papers were identified by scientists working in the modern scientific enterprise, and NOT by scientifically partisan hacks (ie every author on this site). In other words, the system worked, and it does work, far better than any other fact-seeking enterprise, as evidenced by practically every product we use to enjoy our record high quality of living. Creationists, flat earthers, germ theory denialists, global warming denialists, anti-vaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, all birds of a closed-minded feather.
The phoniest of all the phony scandals. If Obama signed an executive order forcing Christians to be gay, THAT would violate your freedom of religion. There's nothing against your religion about NOT discriminating against gays. It's just a straw you grasp at to justify bigotry, or personal affront, and it won't work for long, if at all. Signed, A happily married heterosexual whose marriage has miraculously not been affected by gay marriage one whit.
It's not a bias when its reality. The global warming debate is just one more issue you guys are losing more every day as the evidence continues to accumulate. Of course, you lost the evolution debate a long time ago as well, and yet many of you keep fighting the good fight against science. Every politician who spouts this nonsense needs to be pointed at and laughed at, not elected to high office where their ignorance might actually do real damage. Anti-science is too elevated a term...
In response to:

Cultivating a Curious Mind

Science Avenger Wrote: Jul 16, 2014 4:28 PM
"Many people were shocked when I relayed the facts about the deleterious effects of Obamacare on employment, skyrocketing insurance premiums and the displacement of health care providers." They were probably shocked because all of that is right-wing fiction, and they aren't deluded by Faux news like so many Americans are. "Furthermore, they had little knowledge about Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service scandal, the Veterans Affairs debacle or the depth of our financial woes." Again, because the first two are virtual scandals, real only in rightwingers fantasies, the third gets lost in the babble on the first two, and the 3rd situation is improving, which again, as anyone knows who deals with data and doesn't swallow Faux News propaganda as fact. There's a reason most of these subjects are hardly dealt with on any news on any network in any country aside from Murdock holdings. Carry on sheep.
"If liberals really believe women can protect themselves, then why do they oppose a woman’s right to carry a handgun for self defense?" Because they believe it does more harm than good. You might as well ask "If liberals think women should be free, why do they put some of them in jail", its about the same level of intellect. "If Hillary Clinton is the ultimate female role model, then why has she built her political career on her husband’s philandering while silencing his many female whistleblowers?" Well she isn't, and she hasn't, and they don't have anything to do with one another anyway. "IIf Barack Obama is the most pro-woman president in history, then why does he seek to make women completely dependent on the government?" He isn't and he doesn't. Is this straw man day? "If the right to an abortion gives women personal autonomy and sexual freedom, then why are its debilitating aftereffects overlooked?" They aren't, but most intelligent people understand that the debilitating aftereffects of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are worse. "And finally, if Republicans are so insensitive to women, then why is the sexual lechery of politicians from Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton defended, justified, covered up, or ignored?" So because some Democratic politicans were lecherous that means the GOP isn't insensitive to women? Logic Fail ^2. And if you have to go back 20+ years to make your political point, you usually don't have one. Take a basic logic course Katie, you are sorely in need.
I don't really think you want to go down the road of the changes in weapons over the years while mentioning the founding fathers, since the arms they had in mind (front loading flint locks) hardly qualify in our world.
This progressive would only laugh at your macho innumeracy and suggest you get some viagra for your little problem.
Previous 21 - 30 Next