Plenty of scientists are creationists (especialist biologists). It doesn't inform his climate work.
No, they’re not.
Plenty of scientists are creationists (especialist biologists). It doesn't inform his climate work.
im not sure it is worth debating with someone who doesnt think NewsCorp is right wing.Murdoch and News Corp don't like Morrison. Dutton was their man and they're annoyed he didn't get in.
It's also the reason I want Morrison to stay PM until hir term ends, the current batch of would be challengers are significantly more hard right than #Smoko.
No, they’re not.
Hey KR I found this article from a reputable source that has all human CO2 emissions at 32.3 Gt/yr(including agricultural - your ruminants). Natural emissions are at 770Gt/yr. This makes human emissions at almost exactly 4%.
Redirect Notice
www.google.com.au
According to the article nature absorbs 782Gt/yr hence CO2 emissions are going up.
Ahhh. Roger. Fair call.Murdoch and News Corp don't like Morrison. Dutton was their man and they're annoyed he didn't get in.
It's also the reason I want Morrison to stay PM until hir term ends, the current batch of would be challengers are significantly more hard right than #Smoko.
Sometimes, like now, I just need to remind myself that i am on a site whose patrons are probably close to 100% Victorian.im not sure it is worth debating with someone who doesnt think NewsCorp is right wing.
The study below puts the figure at 8%. Not a big ratio, but it equates to a substantial number of people.
Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States
Speaking as a Biologist, you simply can't be a biologist and a creationist. Nothing in biology makes sense unless viewed through the lens of evolution.
Unless your perspective on creationism is that a 'creator' kick started life on Earth using early replicating, information carrying molecules. There's room for that, because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life itself (and doesn't attempt to). It's still a terrible hypothesis, because it's entirely untestable, but it doesn't directly contradict what is known to be true in Biology.
But the idea that creationism is an equally valid theory to evolution by natural selection (or that it's even a theory at all), or that it could be used in place of evolution by natural selection, is incompatible with any non superficial understanding of biology.
The results of the first national survey of teachers about evolution in their classrooms are in. Darwin would quiver in his boots to learn that in this day and age, one in eight American biology teachers teach creationism and intelligent design as a sound alternative to his theory. In fact, 13 percent of the country's teachers think they can run an excellent biology class without even mentioning Darwin or evolution.
Hmmm. Here's another one.
One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism
I'd agree that creationism doesn't belong in the classroom (beyond mention that the school of thought exists and students are free to pursue it in their own time, but it won't be taught here).
Plenty of scientists are creationists (especialist biologists). It doesn't inform his climate work.
You know, it really does.
That too, my favourite non appearance your worship, Science, Math n most other things educational. Cook the crap out of 2 billion ton of really heavy coal n wind up with 7 billion ton of gas floating around in the sky, sneaky bastards is that something like inflation? Musta been some fancy sack n scales they had way back then to catch n weigh all that fluffy gas.Can't speak to your maths TM but your chemistry needs work.
That too, my favourite non appearance your worship, Science, Math n most other things educational. Cook the crap out of 2 billion ton of really heavy coal n wind up with 7 billion ton of gas floating around in the sky, sneaky bastards is that something like inflation? Musta been some fancy sack n scales they had way back then to catch n weigh all that fluffy gas.
Who me? Wouldn't dare such a thing. Was just enquiring in my own humble way as to how they got there.Correct me if I am wrong but are you implying you are no good at maths but still casting shade on those that know the maths?
That's like saying "Rance can't be any good at footy, he's a ******* Jehovah's Witness!".
I noticed the maximum daily temperature recorded for Melbourne on Sunday 29/12/19 is shown by the BoM as 33.2 degrees. Having monitored the Melbourne temperature on that day while watching the cricket and keeping tabs on the bushfires and not seen it exceed 27.0 degrees, I emailed the BoM to suggest that their daily maximum for 29/12 may be in error.
so have you noticed the climate change on your couch at all?