Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#693 Apr 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
CO2 is vital to life, all LHMF's rhettoric doesn't change the fact carbon dioxide isn't toxic or poisonous in the atmosphere.
You ignorant putz.

Yes. CO2 *IS* vital to life. But in too much concentration, we HUMANS would suffocate. Likewise if we were to inhale pure oxygen for an extended time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Increased CO2 also contributes to climate change (DUH).

The key is to maintain a balance....which we are currently losing due to our buring of fossil fuels.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotope...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#694 Apr 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Sorry, the consensus of scientists including those at NASA and the NOAA make it plain that this current round of climate change is amplified by human intervention. I have shown you the relevant links to these proofs previously and you seem to have ignored them because they don’t jell with you childish ideas of ignore it and it will all go away.
So the fact the people are dying because man made climate change is causing extreme weather conditions does not bother you? It’s all a joke to you? Grow up you ignoramus
So money is you gripe, you are not prepared to pay extra taxes to offset your contribution to climate change? This is expected, you are not only an emotionless ignorant moron but a tight wad too.
Grow up? You are then one exaggerating (everyone???). You are the one with the childishly facetious attitude. You are the one claiming that people dying is of no consequence, childish attitude don’t you think?
So please tell us what is this agenda hyped by certain politicians? Or is it yet another deniers tag line that you don’t really understand and are unable to elaborate on?
There's been no experimental test that demonstrates any of Christine's paranoid theories Why is that? Could it be, we don't have the ability to mitigate climate change?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#695 Apr 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
This is not true, in fact it’s just another of your lies to add the mounting pile of lies you spout. FYI, a cause does not thrive on lies.
Please advise how is it that medicine has description of “carbon dioxide poisoning” and even a name “Hypercapnia”? I am certain that those with a qualification in medicine know somewhat more than a denier with an axe to grind.
CO2 is harmful to oxygen breathing life, it increases the concentration of carbonic acid and reduces homeostasis, leading to heightened blood pressure, arrhythmia, disorientation, panic, hyperventilation, convulsions, unconsciousness, and eventually death. And if all that does not kill you then you will suffocate because it’s an asphyxiant.
Try breathing a room full of it for 10 minutes and tell me how vital to your life it is? Go on, I dare you? Oh I think I have challenged to this before and for some strange or obscure reason you have ignored it.
I'm talking about atmospheric levels, or up to five times atmospheric levels, not people who are ill and unable to rid their body of CO2, which it naturally creates and emits. Mammals evolved when CO2 levels were as much as ten times what they are today.

CO2 at atmospheric levels aren't toxic. The entire man made catastrophic global warming theory is built around irrational alarmism.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#696 Apr 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
You ignorant putz.
^^^I don't use ad hominem arguments because I prefer rational arguments.

.
Kong_ wrote:
Yes. CO2 *IS* vital to life. But in too much concentration, we HUMANS would suffocate. Likewise if we were to inhale pure oxygen for an extended time.[URL deleted]
Too much of anything is bad. Do you have any evidence that five times current atmospheric CO2 levels are harmful?

.
Kong_ wrote:
Increased CO2 also contributes to climate change (DUH). The key is to maintain a balance....which we are currently losing due to our buring of fossil fuels.[URL deleted]
Do you know of any experimental tests on burning fossil fuel and this climate balance? Have you ever seen any compelling experimental tests that show emitting x tons of CO2 changing the atmosphere's CO2 content even the smallest measurable fraction?

If so, please cite.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#697 Apr 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's been no experimental test that demonstrates any of Christine's paranoid theories Why is that? Could it be, we don't have the ability to mitigate climate change?
Ehmmmm, NASA, NOAA demonstrates that my concerns are not paranoid but FACT

There is no need for you to lie and to attempt childish mockery, it just makes you look pathetic. There is no need for your facetious ridicule that simply shows you lack of understanding and insight to be nothing more than deliberate ignorance. There is no need to minimise the effects that climate change is having in life because that effect is KILLING people. Live with those FACTS, you cause has been disproven by minds much better than your own, now it’s time to accept those FACTS.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#698 Apr 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm talking about atmospheric levels, or up to five times atmospheric levels, not people who are ill and unable to rid their body of CO2, which it naturally creates and emits. Mammals evolved when CO2 levels were as much as ten times what they are today.
CO2 at atmospheric levels aren't toxic. The entire man made catastrophic global warming theory is built around irrational alarmism.
What you are talking about makes no difference to FACT

Your claim was “all LHMF's rhettoric doesn't change the fact carbon dioxide isn't toxic or poisonous in the atmosphere”

FACT CO2 is poisonous to oxygen breathing creatures. The concentration makes no difference to the FACT that it is a poisonous gas.

FYI, cyanide in small enough doses has little effect, which does not mean it’s not poisonous it just means that small quantities have little effect.

Your total lack of understanding is simply down to your own ignorance, there is no other excuse for such stupidity.

The entire man made “catastrophic global warming theory” is FACT, it is the consensus of science and climatologists. The FACTS have been shown you often enough and juts as often you ignore those FACTS.

Why do you ignore FACTS? Because you are ignorant? Seems so…

Here is a pretty interesting animation
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/hist...
It starts off with the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last 30 years, when it peaks it jumps back for about 800,000 years. And ends with a list of world bodies that approve the data.

I see that you are not listed in that list.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#699 Apr 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Ehmmmm, NASA, NOAA demonstrates ...
Do they have a history of mitigating climate change? Have they ever done an experiment where they changed the climate? If so, please cite.

Else, this is an argument from authority, an irrational fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_au...

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#700 Apr 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do they have a history of mitigating climate change? Have they ever done an experiment where they changed the climate? If so, please cite.
Else, this is an argument from authority, an irrational fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_au...
Nope, just because they upset your sensibilities does not mean that NASA and NOAA are citing irrational fallacies. It just means they upset your sensibilities.

Tell me, who should I trust to give me valid information? NASA who happen to have sent men into space or you with nothing but irrational denial in the face of FACT.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#701 Apr 2, 2013
No Chis, citing NOAA and NASA to justify climate change mitigation is the irrational fallacy, not the work done at NOAA and NASA. They've done an excellent job exploring, but have they ever done an experiment that changed the climate?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#702 Apr 2, 2013
Just another right-wing anti-science nut demanding to dumb down our schools by teaching "both sides" of a subject which has only one.

C'mon, doofus, let's require "both sides" of the spherical-earth theory, or "both sides" of the law of gravity. Gotta be permitted to teach "both sides" of the slavery debate in History, too, and geology will have to feature "both sides" of the question of Earth's age...

And people wonder why our educational system is regressing??

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#703 Apr 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^I don't use ad hominem arguments because I prefer rational arguments.
So, according to you, we should not even ATTEMPT to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses (including CO2), because a planet-wide experiment proving the obvious has not been shown. Meanwhile, we have shown the correlation of the increase of CO2 (notably from the burning of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere to the global rise in temperature, and the environmental changes it has -- and WILL produce.

....and that -- to you -- is "rational"?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Too much of anything is bad. Do you have any evidence that five times current atmospheric CO2 levels are harmful?
Not at my fingertips.

Hey. Perhaps it's GOOD for you! YEAH! THAT'S IT! Lets all go suck on a tailpipe!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know of any experimental tests on burning fossil fuel and this climate balance? Have you ever seen any compelling experimental tests that show emitting x tons of CO2 changing the atmosphere's CO2 content even the smallest measurable fraction?
If so, please cite.
Talk to the EPA.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#704 Apr 2, 2013

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#705 Apr 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No Chis, citing NOAA and NASA to justify climate change mitigation is the irrational fallacy, not the work done at NOAA and NASA. They've done an excellent job exploring, but have they ever done an experiment that changed the climate?
For the last time you piece of festering dung, I am not discussing mitigation, that’s your lukewarm excuse for a hot potato, not mine.

I am discussing FACT as it happens, extreme weather caused by man made climate change that is leading to devastation of land and property, vast insurance claims, millions of lost work hours and DEATH.

I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on you’re a$$ and watching people die. That’s up to your conscience to reconcile

You have been shown links to hundreds (possibly thousands) of the experiments you claim don’t exists but you choose to ignore them because you are ignorant.

NASA and NOAA have both shown the effects of climate change, they have both shown that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is man made.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#706 Apr 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
So, according to you, we should not even ATTEMPT to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses (including CO2),
You may attempt to do whatever you like, I'm not stopping you from reducing your greenhouse gas emissions. If you want to farm and forest, to sequester CO2 from the air to make foodstuffs, textiles and other goods; go for it. I encourage you to do whatever you please with your land and resources. You have the right to take as much CO2 as you like from the air, and put in all you please as well.

.
Kong_ wrote:
because a planet-wide experiment proving the obvious has not been shown.
If it's so obvious, why no experiment demonstrating releasing x amount of CO2 can raise the atmosphere's CO2 content even the smallest measurable degree? If its obvious, why no experiment that shows a man made effect on global climate? Why has climate change mitigation never been demonstrated or tested?

.
Kong_ wrote:
Meanwhile, we have shown the correlation of the increase of CO2 (notably from the burning of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere to the global rise in temperature, and the environmental changes it has -- and WILL produce.
Correlation isn't causality. Also, there's no evidence burning fossil fuel caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2, there's no controls for natural CO2 emissions from the warming oceans or from geological sources.

Only an experiment can separate correlation from causality, to show the effect of man made greenhouse gas on the global climate. If you can't cite an experiment, maybe natural climate variation is far more significant than man's gaseous offerings?

.
Kong_ wrote:
....and that -- to you -- is "rational"?
It's not rational to buy a pig in a poke. If you can experimentally demonstrate man made greenhouse gas emissions causing a change in global climate, that would be a first.

.
Kong_ wrote:
Not at my fingertips. Hey. Perhaps it's GOOD for you! YEAH! THAT'S IT! Lets all go suck on a tailpipe!
Kong can't cite anyone who claims increasing the atmosphere's CO2 content five times would be toxic, because its not. Indoor CO2 levels often exceed five times outside levels, and that's within OSHA's safety tolerance.

As for his invitation to suck on vehicle exhaust, I'd advise against it. It contains carbon monoxide, I'm surprised Kong doesn't know that.

.
Kong_ wrote:
Talk to the EPA.[URL deleted]
The EPA's charter expressly stops them from regulating CO2. They've never done an experiment that shows man made CO2 emissions changing climate either.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#707 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
For the last time you piece of festering dung, I am not discussing mitigation, that’s your lukewarm excuse for a hot potato, not mine.
I'm glad ChristineM doesn't advocate climate change mitigation; that's the heart of the issue. We've always adapted to climate change, our technology allows us to live in almost every climate on Earth.

.
ChristineM wrote:
I am discussing FACT as it happens, extreme weather caused by man made climate change that is leading to devastation of land and property, vast insurance claims, millions of lost work hours and DEATH.
Chris can't know if extreme weather is caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions because that's never been experimentally tested. We can't control storms, start or stop them, or mitigate climate change.

.
ChristineM wrote:
I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on you’re a$$ and watching people die. That’s up to your conscience to reconcile
^^^This is the ad hominem fallacy alarmists find so appealing when rationality fails them.

.
ChristineM wrote:
You have been shown links to hundreds (possibly thousands) of the experiments you claim don’t exists but you choose to ignore them because you are ignorant. NASA and NOAA have both shown the effects of climate change, they have both shown that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is man made.
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found, that either shows man made global climate change or climate change mitigation. We've seen the results of atmospheric nuclear blasts, that raised tons of man made particulates into the atmosphere; they showed a brief local cooling effect but no change in global climate.

If you can cite even one compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, I'll change my position. What would it take for you to change your position?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#708 Apr 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad ChristineM doesn't advocate climate change mitigation; that's the heart of the issue. We've always adapted to climate change, our technology allows us to live in almost every climate on Earth.
.
<quoted text>Chris can't know if extreme weather is caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions because that's never been experimentally tested. We can't control storms, start or stop them, or mitigate climate change.
.
<quoted text>^^^This is the ad hominem fallacy alarmists find so appealing when rationality fails them.
.
<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found, that either shows man made global climate change or climate change mitigation. We've seen the results of atmospheric nuclear blasts, that raised tons of man made particulates into the atmosphere; they showed a brief local cooling effect but no change in global climate.
If you can cite even one compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, I'll change my position. What would it take for you to change your position?
Don’t talk utter bollocks? Mitigation is not the heart of the issue, the issue is that climate change exists it is proven to exist and it is agreed by scientific consensus to be aggravated and amplified by mans intervention.

Why do you ignore the consensus of scientists and climatologists?

Say what??? Why do you contradict yourself so often, is it because you are ignorant or simply stupid, let me quote you –“Our technology allows us to live in almost every climate on Earth” followed in the very next paragraph by –“We can't control storms, start or stop them,…” You prove your ignorance of our technology with every post you make.

Why is it ad hom because I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on you’re a$$ and watching people die. Nope that’s just simple fact based on your own defective personality as shown in your posts. I am not the one with the facetious attitude to death, that me dear is you. True that you thought you were being clever, such a shame you are so clueless about the consequences of what you preach.

You have repeatedly been offered links, I am not hear to pander you your ignorance, so I will simply repeat one of the links I have shown you before,
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/hist...
Or go back a few pages and click the links provided by several posters.

No you won’t change anything because you are just a lying moron, you have been offered links to thousands of pages of evidence, there is one in the previous paragraph and we can pretty much guarantee you will either ignore it or attempt to discredit with irrelevant BS. You have been shown links to charts and documents published by the worlds leading scientific bodes and climatologists and you have ignored them. So what is going to change now?

What would it take for me to change my position, there are a couple of things, one absolute evidence that the majority of scientist are wrong, and lets face facts here, that is not going to happen. Or perhaps that the current bout of climate change will be beneficial to my children, considering how it is now and the forecast is that it will only get worse then I very much doubt that also is going to happen.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#709 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Don’t talk utter bollocks? Mitigation is not the heart of the issue,
Do you advocate climate change mitigation or not? That's all I care about, if we can't change climate: Why worry?

.
ChristineM wrote:
the issue is that climate change exists it is proven to exist and it is agreed by scientific consensus to be aggravated and amplified by mans intervention. Why do you ignore the consensus of scientists and climatologists?
Climate always changes, the issue is how much is man made and how much is natural climate variation. If man's part is insignificant, we're back to: Why worry?

.
ChristineM wrote:
Say what??? Why do you contradict yourself so often, is it because you are ignorant or simply stupid, let me quote you –“Our technology allows us to live in almost every climate on Earth” followed in the very next paragraph by –“We can't control storms, start or stop them,…” You prove your ignorance of our technology with every post you make.
Improving construction and architecture technology isn't mitigating climate change, that's adaptation. We know adaptation works, it's climate change mitigation that's never been done.

Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?

I advocate adapting to climate change, not mitigating climate change especially with new taxes, government regulation and spending taxpayer's money on crony green energy schemes.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Why is it ad hom because I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on you’re a$$ and watching people die. Nope that’s just simple fact based on your own defective personality as shown in your posts. I am not the one with the facetious attitude to death, that me dear is you. True that you thought you were being clever, such a shame you are so clueless about the consequences of what you preach.
Look up ad hominem, it doesn't matter what you say about me. People won't go along with climate change mitigation until it's been tested.

.
ChristineM wrote:
You have repeatedly been offered links, I am not hear to pander you your ignorance, so I will simply repeat one of the links I have shown you before,[URL deleted] Or go back a few pages and click the links provided by several posters.
I see the problem, a link isn't an experiment. Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found that either demonstrates man made climate change or climate change mitigation.

.
ChristineM wrote:
No you won’t change anything because you are just a lying moron, you have been offered links to thousands of pages of evidence, there is one in the previous paragraph and we can pretty much guarantee you will either ignore it or attempt to discredit with irrelevant BS. You have been shown links to charts and documents published by the worlds leading scientific bodes and climatologists and you have ignored them. So what is going to change now?
Show me a compelling experiment that shows a man made change in global climate and I'll cahnge my views.

.
ChristineM wrote:
What would it take for me to change my position, there are a couple of things, one absolute evidence that the majority of scientist are wrong, and lets face facts here, that is not going to happen. Or perhaps that the current bout of climate change will be beneficial to my children, considering how it is now and the forecast is that it will only get worse then I very much doubt that also is going to happen.
Thank's for finally answering this question I've asked over the past couple months. Didn't the climategate emails convince you most of the 'scientists' with a vested interest in funding man made climate change mitigation are frauds?

I wish you and your children well. I recommend adapting to climate; don't buy a pig in a poke.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#710 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
For the last time you piece of festering dung, I am not discussing mitigation, that’s your lukewarm excuse for a hot potato, not mine.
I am discussing FACT as it happens, extreme weather caused by man made climate change that is leading to devastation of land and property, vast insurance claims, millions of lost work hours and DEATH.
I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on you’re a$$ and watching people die. That’s up to your conscience to reconcile
You have been shown links to hundreds (possibly thousands) of the experiments you claim don’t exists but you choose to ignore them because you are ignorant.
NASA and NOAA have both shown the effects of climate change, they have both shown that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is man made.
A troll wants to cause a commotion and get people ranting and raving because they want their presence on a forum or comments thread to be the main focus. They want the spotlight and attention on them.

To do this they will disrupt the flow of conversation, provoke fellow commenters and/or post abusive statements to inflame a response.

Often they will play devils advocate, vigorously defending statements or positions they know to be illogical or untrue in an attempt to get people riled up.

When they get a response they cite that as a victory so don’t show any emotion in your responses – this is the only thing they have to feed off.

Sometimes it can be hard to determine whether someone is playing at being a troll or if, in actual fact, they’re just an idiot.
http://www.insidersedge.co.uk/lifestyletips/h...

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#711 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you advocate climate change mitigation or not? That's all I care about, if we can't change climate: Why worry?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, the issue is how much is man made and how much is natural climate variation. If man's part is insignificant, we're back to: Why worry?
.
<quoted text>Improving construction and architecture technology isn't mitigating climate change, that's adaptation. We know adaptation works, it's climate change mitigation that's never been done.
Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?
I advocate adapting to climate change, not mitigating climate change especially with new taxes, government regulation and spending taxpayer's money on crony green energy schemes.
.
<quoted text>Look up ad hominem, it doesn't matter what you say about me. People won't go along with climate change mitigation until it's been tested.
.
<quoted text>I see the problem, a link isn't an experiment. Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found that either demonstrates man made climate change or climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>Show me a compelling experiment that shows a man made change in global climate and I'll cahnge my views.
.
<quoted text>Thank's for finally answering this question I've asked over the past couple months. Didn't the climategate emails convince you most of the 'scientists' with a vested interest in funding man made climate change mitigation are frauds?
I wish you and your children well. I recommend adapting to climate; don't buy a pig in a poke.
Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are an ignorant T\/\/AT

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are an ignorant T\/\/AT

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are a stupid moron with no clue of what technology actually is

WTF has putting up an umbrella got to do with controlling storms? Not only ignorant and stupid but facetious too.

I don’t give a damn what you advocate.

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are an ignorant T\/\/AT

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are a stupid moron

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are a lying fool who believes everyone is as stupid as you.

More lies, you have NEVER asked me that question. One set of emails from one group discussing ways to alleviate the harm prats like you do are not a vested interest.

More facetious clap trap. Your recommendations are not worth sh|t

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#712 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Mammals evolved when CO2 levels were as much as ten times what they are today.
Yes, quite. 1750ppm or four and a half times the current level.

Not to mention, average surface temperatures 3 degrees above current as well.

BUT, Brian G screams, THAT'S ONLY CORRELATION!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Subduction Zone 66,844
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Subduction Zone 221,204
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 8 min Subduction Zone 194
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 19 min pshun2404 51
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 41 min Subduction Zone 28,528
What does the theory of evolution state? 3 hr Dogen 153
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 4 hr Dogen 101
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Genesis Enigma 160,901
More from around the web