Not exact matches
I did not pull anything from a flier.you seam to be an educated and
knowledgeable person.maybe the law of entropy in thermodynamics is now outdated.most likely changed to try to make some
scientists reasoning work.honestly what are the chances of the earth and man to come out of nothing.it takes
more faith or blind fanaticism to believe that.
So, for someone who isn't familiar with those disciplines, I would suggest the person ask himself or herself, «who is most likely
more knowledgeable in these areas and who can most credibly assess the evidence in these sciences, kermit4jc and other creationists like him or the world's
scientists working in those fields.»
The Oregon Petition, signed by
more than 30,000
scientists and other professionals
knowledgeable in sciences, is just one example.
This sounds a bit like the old joke about
scientists — they get
more and
more knowledgeable about a smaller and smaller field until they know everything about nothing.
More scientifically
knowledgeable people will know that most climate
scientists say that most of the warming of the last century was human caused.
Most
scientists in the learned institutions haven't studied the matters in detail and, in my opinion, are no
more knowledgeable than brokers about individual stocks.
Scientist, who is not a specialist or particularly
knowledgeable about the subject, wants
more evidence than the opinion of multiple specialists who have studied the matter.
Formal academic credentials aren't the only measure of a
scientists credibility but, since you want to play that game, who do you think should be
more knowledgeable about climate - a guy with a PhD in meteorology or an oceanographer and computer programmer (Andy Weaver) who identifies himself as a «climatologist».