Nirvana_Nut85 said:
headshot91 said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
headshot91 said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Well considering that scientific data is about as manipulated by the Elite as religions today I dont see how any of you can justify your answers when both are propagated. Look what they did with man made global warming for example. It came out in the media last year that the University that the U.N had hired had been manipulating the data they were providing to make it appear as if the Earth was getting warmer when in fact temperatures had been cooling in the past 10 years. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ (There's alot more sites to look into if you google "climate Gate")
|
Lol, you do realise that article is over 6months old? Heres the follow up "investigation" released in april this year:
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods.
Also while admitedly scientific data can be manipulated, in the vast majority it is unbiased fact.
|
Lmao and you do understand that the head of the so called propagated "independant research" was headed by Lord Oxburgh who has direct ties with carbon trading companies as well as being the chairman for alternative energy companies, who would benefit from having the review state there was no evidence. Thats why no one took the review seriously :)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece
This is why we can't always trust scientific data because it can be manipulated instead of being non-biased
|
lmao. Apart from this having NOTHING to do with creationism, you do realise even if it was true and lord oxburgh had a conflict of interests that directly affected his judgement, there are 6 other people in the review panel?
Ive know idea why this was brought up, the topic ws creationism, unless youre saying evolution facts can be "manipulated"? LOL
|
Actually it was true, there was quite the controversy over it because the review lacked "credibility" also you do realise that it was not an independant organization that did the review, the U.N hand picked the scientists to be on the panel so what kind of outcome do you think was going to happen,lol. The public is starting to wake up and not buy everything that the media or the elite spoon feed them.
Secondly, evolution, though widely believed to be fact is still a theory because it is not 100% proven, though that was not what my argument, my argument was that scientific data can be manipulated, as the elite fund most of the scientific research. So it's rather ridiculous for a bunch of people in the forum to call people who believe in god, creationism,ect brainwashed, or believing in fairytales, when"a good majority of them" blindly follow literally anything
they are fed through the upper echelon of the scientific community.
|
UN hand picked the scientists. Yes you are right. And if you look at their credentionals, you'll see they were picked for their outstanding contributions to thei field...
And OT, its funny that you introduce "rather ridiculous for a bunch of people in the forum to call people who believe in creationism.. brainwashed", well that's because they are. If you believe in God, it's fine. But if you believe in creationism, and reject evolution then you are an idiot, no question.
