Rick Perry on Evolution

[Guest]

Whatever global warming might or might not have done to polar bears, it has put Rick Perry's presidential candidacy at risk. The Texas governor clings to an ice floe of diminishing credibility, emerging in just about a week's time as intellectually unqualified to be President. He engaged in a brief dialogue with a child about evolution and came out the loser. Perry said there are some gaps in the theory. If so, he is one.

Maybe more important, Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that "a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data" to make it appear that mankind - our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China's belching steel mills - is the culprit. He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them - whoever they might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy's skeleton rattled a bit.

[Guest]

Whatever global warming might or might not have done to polar bears, it has put Rick Perry's presidential candidacy at risk. The Texas governor clings to an ice floe of diminishing credibility, emerging in just about a week's time as intellectually unqualified to be President. He engaged in a brief dialogue with a child about evolution and came out the loser. Perry said there are some gaps in the theory. If so, he is one.

Maybe more important, Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that "a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data" to make it appear that mankind - our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China's belching steel mills - is the culprit. He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them - whoever they might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy's skeleton rattled a bit.

Perry is right. Man is not the cause of global warming or any other kind of warming. We have a sun, right? Look up and you will surely see it.

[Guest]

Whatever global warming might or might not have done to polar bears, it has put Rick Perry's presidential candidacy at risk. The Texas governor clings to an ice floe of diminishing credibility, emerging in just about a week's time as intellectually unqualified to be President. He engaged in a brief dialogue with a child about evolution and came out the loser. Perry said there are some gaps in the theory. If so, he is one.

Maybe more important, Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that "a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data" to make it appear that mankind - our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China's belching steel mills - is the culprit. He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them - whoever they might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy's skeleton rattled a bit.
Evolution? Read Anne Coulter's article today in the Daily Sun.

[Guest]

Perry is right. Man is not the cause of global warming or any other kind of warming. We have a sun, right? Look up and you will surely see it.

Way too simplistic. :yuck:

[Guest]

There has been one investigation and another pending investigation into the Climatic Research Unit at the East Anglia (widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions in the study of climate change) that proves Professor Phil Jones, director of CRU, and other researchers withheld and changed data that discredits man-made global warming.

The proof came in 2009 when hackers accessed a server used by the CRU and posted over 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 documents showing evidence that the scientists has conspired and manipulated data showing man-made climate change isn't happening.

As to Rick Perry's "conversation" with the child, I was very proud of Perry's manner and demeanor while addressing the child. He got down eye-to-eye with the child and was polite and answered him. I can't say as much for a mother who would set up her child and stage this sort of thing, prompting the child to ask questions about evolution versus creationism.

[Guest]

Ann Coulter on evolution is a joke. Please read the attached link. I actually enjoy reading her column in the Daily Sun. What a wonderful way to get an early morning laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Raccoon's_Flatulence_theory

As far as global warming being partially influenced by human interaction, just look at reality. Your "proof" is totally bogus, I am sorry to report to you. The hackers did not actually post what you stated. It was made up by the hackers. Look it up for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

[Guest]

Well whatever you think of Rick Perry you must think of me too, because I also completely reject the worldwide scam that is called "man made global warming" or "man made climate change".

I also applaud Rick Perry's panache in his engaging the child and not treating him like the rehearsed plant that he was. This is a man with class, and a man who scares liberals to tears. It's easy to see why.

Also, as an afterthought, please find more reputable links than wiki. I can change the data on wiki, and I'm not a climate change disciple.

[Guest]

The hackers didn't make anything up. They posted what they found. Jones resigned his post. The review of the incident said, in part, "...Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

"In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided...."

No one in the field is denying that the emails are true. Only that they didn't have to release them because of the protocol for scientific data to be released.

There is nothing in your wiki link that says the hackers made up the information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38703.htm

[Guest]

Here is just one man speaking out and explaining why the myth of global warming continues http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine

"Examiner.com: If your theory stands up to scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some instances, dismissal and derision?
Dr. Miskolczi: I can only guess. First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon trade and energy taxes.

Examiner.com: A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled?
Dr. Miskolczi: Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally."

[Guest]

Way too simplistic. :yuck:

it really is that simple.:icon_wink:

[Guest]

Rick Perry is a product of evolution that stopped for a few generations. He sounds Neanderthal every time he opens his mouth.

[Guest]

Evolution? Read Anne Coulter's article today in the Daily Sun.

Anything Anne Coulter writes winds up wrapping fish.....

[Guest]

The forum is starting to very much look and "sound" like the pre election year 2008!!!

btk

[Guest]

The forum is starting to very much look and "sound" like the pre election year 2008!!!

btk

I think it's hilarious. That's it? Childish insults? I'm much happier when that's all they have to say.

[Guest]

I think it's hilarious. That's it? Childish insults? I'm much happier when that's all they have to say.

Hey Richie, when we get over 2000 posts maybe we will get better at insults in a more sophisticated way like you do. LOL

[Guest]

Hey Richie, when we get over 2000 posts maybe we will get better at insults in a more sophisticated way like you do. LOL

Maybe; I got time to wait and see:)

[Guest]

Anything Anne Coulter writes winds up wrapping fish.....

Anne Coulter is one very smart lady and I am glad she is "right-thinking"

Besides, anybody who lines their birdcages with The New York Times, can't be all that bad.:)

[Guest]

Here is just one man speaking out and explaining why the myth of global warming continues http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/former-nasa-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine

"Examiner.com: If your theory stands up to scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some instances, dismissal and derision?
Dr. Miskolczi: I can only guess. First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon trade and energy taxes.

Examiner.com: A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled?
Dr. Miskolczi: Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally."

Katz, thanks for the link. Of course there are cognizant arguments and theories that support both sides of the debate on global warming. And since we're not scientists, all we can do is believe the information provided by experts. which supports both sides of the argument. We see pictures of bewildered polar bears and experience violent climate changes, and we want to place blame. I believe a lot of points made by Dr. Miskolczi.

[Guest]

The forum is starting to very much look and "sound" like the pre election year 2008!!!

btk

I am probably going to spend very little time here once the election crap starts. I hate watching the talking heads on tv talking over each other so you can'g hear either one of them. I only watch the debates...the rest is pure rhetoric to me. They will say what each particular audience wants to hear. I wonder if anyone will wear the kind of backpack Bush did during the debates?

[Guest]

I really think that Perry is just stupid,Coulture on the other hand is smart,dangerous but smart.

[Guest]

I am probably going to spend very little time here once the election crap starts. I hate watching the talking heads on tv talking over each other so you can'g hear either one of them. I only watch the debates...the rest is pure rhetoric to me. They will say what each particular audience wants to hear. I wonder if anyone will wear the kind of backpack Bush did during the debates?

Could you please tell me what this means? I do not understand.

[Guest]

I really think that Perry is just stupid,Coulture on the other hand is smart,dangerous but smart.
Could you expand on why and who she is dangerous towards.

[Guest]

I really think that Perry is just stupid,Coulture on the other hand is smart,dangerous but smart.

Very right on both counts. :agree:

[Guest]

Forget evolution..
Perry supported Hillarycare and wanted it to include texans..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/10/us-usa-campaign-perry-idUSTRE7775S720110810

http://forums.hannity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=218031&d=1314640658

Go away rino.

[Guest]

Could you expand on why and who she is dangerous towards.

She's dangerous because she exposes the hypocrisy of, and the agenda of the leftists in a concise and humorous way. She's dangerous to the leftists domination of the discussion.

[Guest]

Forget evolution..
Perry supported Hillarycare and wanted it to include texans..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/10/us-usa-campaign-perry-idUSTRE7775S720110810

http://forums.hannity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=218031&d=1314640658

Go away rino.

Reagan was an Democrat and a union member in his past. Was he a RINO?

People's views change with new realities. Keep an open mind and you're going to be surprised by what you see and hear in the coming months.

[Guest]

I still say Forrest Gump would make a much better President then Barry Seotoro. (Barack Hussein Obama)

[Guest]

I was not talking about his political affiliations..
I was talking about his core beliefs..
Hillarycare.. big government healthcare mandate.
Gardasil; Big government making healthcare decisions for children
etc..
He has many examples of being a big government supporter..
Did he have the guts to turn down any stimulus spending like others did?

Reagan was an Democrat and a union member in his past. Was he a RINO?

People's views change with new realities. Keep an open mind and you're going to be surprised by what you see and hear in the coming months.

[Guest]

I mean if you disagree with Rick Perry's point of view then a cogent rebuttal is in order instead of calling him names.

Ann Coulter is bright, well researched and and one heck of a wordsmith leaving her liberal opponents tongue tied.

I don't agree that in made man global waming as one poster aptly pointed out the sun trumps it all.

I also agree with coulter premise concerning Darwin and his reaction to today's discoveries. I mean look what it took just to convince people that the earth was flat. More importantly to me there are aprrox 1.5 to 2million species of identified so far on earth but scientist know that between 5-7 million more have not been discovered. What do you think this fact does to the theory of evolution? Finally of evolution is the process then why do we have monkeys and humans and nothing in between or after?

[Guest]

I mean if you disagree with Rick Perry's point of view then a cogent rebuttal is in order instead of calling him names.

Ann Coulter is bright, well researched and and one heck of a wordsmith leaving her liberal opponents tongue tied.

I don't agree that in made man global waming as one poster aptly pointed out the sun trumps it all.

I also agree with coulter premise concerning Darwin and his reaction to today's discoveries. I mean look what it took just to convince people that the earth was flat. More importantly to me there are aprrox 1.5 to 2million species of identified so far on earth but scientist know that between 5-7 million more have not been discovered. What do you think this fact does to the theory of evolution? Finally of evolution is the process then why do we have monkeys and humans and nothing in between or after?

Man did not evolve from directly from monkeys. There was a common ancestor...but they are two branches of the tree. There is a close relationship though. Man and chimps share about 97% of chromosomes. If you really want to learn about this, read a book on evolution. Even if you disagree...educate yourself on the science.

[Guest]

I have no idea of what Rubicon meant by saying "More importantly to me there are aprrox 1.5 to 2million species of identified so far on earth but scientist know that between 5-7 million more have not been discovered. What do you think this fact does to the theory of evolution?"

Species of what? 5-7 million more what have not been discovered? What does that have to do with evolution?

May I give a couple of quick examples of evolution? The pupfish in Death Valley had evolved over tens of thousands of years so it can survive and thrive in 120 degree alkali waters. The cavefish has evolved without eyes and skin pigmentation through countless generations of living in pitch black caves.

What about all the fossils of 400 million years ago and even further back? Doesn't that prove the Earth is more than 6,500 years old? What about fossils of Neanderthal man, Zinjanthropos man, and other "cavemen"? We have evolved from them - some more than others.

At least, you can believe in evolution of a species, can't you? That would be a start in the right direction.

[Guest]

Man did not evolve from directly from monkeys. There was a common ancestor...but they are two branches of the tree. There is a close relationship though. Man and chimps share about 97% of chromosomes. If you really want to learn about this, read a book on evolution. Even if you disagree...educate yourself on the science.

What tree would that be? If there were two branches and evolution is fact then again where are the in betweens? Did we just stop evolving. This is unsettled science. It is as believable to claim that aliens came down and bred the close to human branch you claim then in evolution, along with other species which by the way bodes well for intelligent design and not [I]ntelligent [D] esign least someone think me speaking against Creation, etc
Again this is very much unsettled science and each and every day is accompanied with retractions because of new findings such as referenced by Ann Coulter. So how do we separate fact from speculation when in fact scientist may never be able to uncover the so called missing link.
Again we still have some 5 milion plus species, some in our own back yards that have been uncovered yet. I'm just saying............

[Guest]

I'm just curious what you think of this:

"Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf


Or this:

"Does our mitochondrial DNA show that all humans came from the same mother? If so, did this mitochondrial Eve live 200,000 years ago or did she live at the calculated value of 6500 years ago? Portions of Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected yet there has been a lot of opposition to this possibility because it goes against the calculated speed of the molecular clock that is based on having chimpanzees and humans diverge 5 million years ago."




http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm

[Guest]

BKCunningham-

If you had researched a little further, you would have found the author of the first article, Ann Gibbons, did more writing than the one article. I am pasting a synopsis of another of her articles. It states in it that prehistoric Neantherdal bones found in Croatia were over 38,000 years old. This article was written a few years after the one you posted a link to.

"Paleogenetics
Paleogenetics
Close Encounters of the Prehistoric Kind
Ann Gibbons
Summary
On page 710 of this week's issue of Science, an international team of researchers presents their first detailed analysis of the draft sequence of the Neandertal genome, which now includes more than 3 billion nucleotides collected from the bones of three female Neandertals who lived in Croatia more than 38,000 years ago. By comparing this composite Neandertal genome with the complete genomes of five living humans from different parts of the world, the researchers found that both Europeans and Asians share 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neandertals. But Africans do not. This suggests that early modern humans interbred with Neandertals after moderns left Africa, but before they spread into Asia and Europe. In a separate paper (p. 723), the team describes and successfully tests a new method for filling in gaps in the rough draft of the genome."

That kind of blows the 6,500 years out of the water, doesn't it?

[Guest]

buggyone, thank you for the post. You know and I know, polite people don't discuss religion. It can go on and on and result in people not being friends and nothing being proven except emotions run deep. So before I conclude my discussion of evolution with you, I'd like to ask you something else.

By your comments, you are telling me that it has recently been decided that things aren't as scientists have previously thought and believed they were with Mitochondrial DNA and dating? The prior dating methods were flawed? Is that what you are saying? They are correct this time, for certain? And the previous theory is wrong and has been disproven? Hmmm

[Guest]

This is something that troubles me about the evolution 'debate'.

This past weekend, I took my mom on vacation to Montreal. While driving she said "If evolution is true, how come we still have monkeys?"

She bought into a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution's record is. It doesn't say we descended from chips or gorillas - it says (as one other poster pointed out) that we and other primates have a common ancestor.

And that's what gets to me - all the misinformation. 30 years ago it was claiming "Ronald Reagan wants to classify ketchup as a vegetable!". People just making (stuff) up! And what's worse, others believing and repeating it!

[Guest]

This is something that troubles me about the evolution 'debate'.

This past weekend, I took my mom on vacation to Montreal. While driving she said "If evolution is true, how come we still have monkeys?"

She bought into a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution's record is. It doesn't say we descended from chips or gorillas - it says (as one other poster pointed out) that we and other primates have a common ancestor.

And that's what gets to me - all the misinformation. 30 years ago it was claiming "Ronald Reagan wants to classify ketchup as a vegetable!". People just making (stuff) up! And what's worse, others believing and repeating it!

"Popular rumors will turn into historical fact." That is just the nature of our,(note I said our), limited Grey Matter.
ThevillagerII

[Guest]

BKCunningham,

"By your comments, you are telling me that it has recently been decided that things aren't as scientists have previously thought and believed they were with Mitochondrial DNA and dating? The prior dating methods were flawed? Is that what you are saying? They are correct this time, for certain? And the previous theory is wrong and has been disproven? Hmmm"

No, I did not say anything nor post anything about prior dating methods being flawed. The article I posted had nothing in it about dating methods or previus theory being wrong and disproven. Please go back and re-read what in in my posting - the summary of the article by Ann Gibbons.

Anyhow, at your request, I will not belabor this anymore. I hope to remain on good terms with you.

[Guest]

This is something that troubles me about the evolution 'debate'.

This past weekend, I took my mom on vacation to Montreal. While driving she said "If evolution is true, how come we still have monkeys?"

She bought into a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution's record is. It doesn't say we descended from chips or gorillas - it says (as one other poster pointed out) that we and other primates have a common ancestor.

And that's what gets to me - all the misinformation. 30 years ago it was claiming "Ronald Reagan wants to classify ketchup as a vegetable!". People just making (stuff) up! And what's worse, others believing and repeating it!

Yea, like Al Gore and his dramatics about man-made Global Warming. Of course, with most of his "facts" disputed, most people do not pay him much attention anymore.

[Guest]

Yea, like Al Gore and his dramatics about man-made Global Warming. Of course, with most of his "facts" disputed, most people do not pay him much attention anymore.

Hey, take it easy on Al Gore. Without Al, we wouldn't be posting on this wonderful forum. Remember, Al invented the internet . . . :laugh:

[Guest]

Hey, take it easy on Al Gore. Without Al, we wouldn't be posting on this wonderful forum. Remember, Al invented the internet . . . :laugh:

Your right of course, and don't forget that the movie Love Story was actually based on him and his wife.:laugh:

[Guest]

BKCunningham,

"By your comments, you are telling me that it has recently been decided that things aren't as scientists have previously thought and believed they were with Mitochondrial DNA and dating? The prior dating methods were flawed? Is that what you are saying? They are correct this time, for certain? And the previous theory is wrong and has been disproven? Hmmm"

No, I did not say anything nor post anything about prior dating methods being flawed. The article I posted had nothing in it about dating methods or previus theory being wrong and disproven. Please go back and re-read what in in my posting - the summary of the article by Ann Gibbons.

Anyhow, at your request, I will not belabor this anymore. I hope to remain on good terms with you.

We are on good terms, buggyone.

I was commenting on the demise of Mitochondrial Eve. Your post made no sense to me in that regard, but I assumed you knew what you were talking about. I honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to say about the dating methods with your summary of Gibbons' article. I couldn't get access to the article you gave a summary to since it is by subscription only. I assumed you were responding to my two links showing that the methods of dating human beginnings have been proven wrong.

"Philip Awadalla and his coworkers noted in Science: 'Many inferences about the pattern and tempo of human evolution and mtDNA evolution have been based on the assumption of clonal inheritance. There inferences will now have to be reconsidered' (1999, 286:2525). However, rather than merely 'reconsidering' their theory and attempting to revamp it accordingly, evolutionists need to admit, honestly and forthrightly, that 'mitochondrial Eve,' as it turns out, has existed only in their minds, not in the facts of the real world. Science works by analyzing the data and forming hypotheses based on those data. Science is not supposed to massage the data until they fit a certain preconceived hypothesis. All of the conclusions that have been drawn from research on mitochondrial Eve via the molecular clock must now be discarded as unreliable. A funeral and interment are in order for mitochondrial Eve."

Anyway, all is well. Enjoy your golf game if you play today.

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

[Guest]

We are on good terms, buggyone.

I was commenting on the demise of Mitochondrial Eve. Your post made no sense to me in that regard, but I assumed you knew what you were talking about. I honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to say about the dating methods with your summary of Gibbons' article. I couldn't get access to the article you gave a summary to since it is by subscription only. I assumed you were responding to my two links showing that the methods of dating human beginnings have been proven wrong.

"Philip Awadalla and his coworkers noted in Science: 'Many inferences about the pattern and tempo of human evolution and mtDNA evolution have been based on the assumption of clonal inheritance. There inferences will now have to be reconsidered' (1999, 286:2525). However, rather than merely 'reconsidering' their theory and attempting to revamp it accordingly, evolutionists need to admit, honestly and forthrightly, that 'mitochondrial Eve,' as it turns out, has existed only in their minds, not in the facts of the real world. Science works by analyzing the data and forming hypotheses based on those data. Science is not supposed to massage the data until they fit a certain preconceived hypothesis. All of the conclusions that have been drawn from research on mitochondrial Eve via the molecular clock must now be discarded as unreliable. A funeral and interment are in order for mitochondrial Eve."

Anyway, all is well. Enjoy your golf game if you play today.

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

You articulate well. I posted about 5 million undiscovered species only to delinate that there is so much we do not understand about our earth and species living above or below it (wide gaps) that the best scientist can do is guess. Evolution is still theory and scientist posit based on speculation. the Theory of evolution is unsettled science and will continue to be unsettled, certainly for my lifetime

So from a practical standpoint my belief in evolution is unsettled. Bottom line it makes for interesting reading and has been a great source of some fun loving science fiction movies

[Guest]

Science works by analyzing the data and forming hypotheses based on those data. Science is not supposed to massage the data until they fit a certain preconceived hypothesis.

AMEN!!!! Pretty sure we learned that in 7th grade. True scientists never forget the foundations of their trade... it's those that can be bought that disregard it.

[Guest]

AMEN!!!! Pretty sure we learned that in 7th grade. True scientists never forget the foundations of their trade... it's those that can be bought that disregard it.

Amen. Reminds me of the so-called scientists that sold their soul for government funds to investigate "global warming." Of course they fudged the numbers so they would get more government grants (read money) allocated for the next year. They sound more like whores then people of science.
But, hey you got to earn a living.:laugh:

[Guest]

Does all this mean we should disregard science and go back to the caves and again worship the Sun God, Rain God, Thunder God etc etc. Or perhaps we should only go back far enough to worship Buddha, Mohammad, Satin or Jesus Christ. We are making progress, so don't go primitive on me now. Even religion is evolving. Wake up children, without science, almost everyone living in The Villages today would be dead and gone. GGGGEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!

[Guest]

Does all this mean we should disregard science and go back to the caves and again worship the Sun God, Rain God, Thunder God etc etc. Or perhaps we should only go back far enough to worship Buddha, Mohammad, Satin or Jesus Christ. We are making progress, so don't go primitive on me now. Even religion is evolving. Wake up children, without science, almost everyone living in The Villages today would be dead and gone. GGGGEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!

:agree: My only point all along is that scientist are human and error for many reasons including having too big ego's or making unfounded claims to gain attention..............Again we can't find 5-7 million species some in our own back yard but scientist make claims that stretch the imagination. Having said all of that I fully support continuation in exploration of earth and the solar system and was disappointed that the NASA program was cancelled. Finally I do believe scientist have a solid foundation in evolution but believe other possibilities ought to be explored. Its like any investigation where you focus on only one possibility at the exclusions of others. Soon you find yourself so invested that you lose objectivity

[Guest]

:agree: My only point all along is that scientist are human and error for many reasons including having too big ego's or making unfounded claims to gain attention..............Again we can't find 5-7 million species some in our own back yard but scientist make claims that stretch the imagination. Having said all of that I fully support continuation in exploration of earth and the solar system and was disappointed that the NASA program was cancelled. Finally I do believe scientist have a solid foundation in evolution but believe other possibilities ought to be explored. Its like any investigation where you focus on only one possibility at the exclusions of others. Soon you find yourself so invested that you lose objectivity

Agree. Thanks for your fair and well you know. I like anything that has been properly thought out and you explain that well.