I'm pretty embarrassed about articles like that.I have read them and they did make me look more critically at evolution but still there arguments are largely straw man misunderstandings. As someone said before ,I know it's cool to promote alternative ideas and all but I try to distance myself from pseudoscience like aids denialism,anti-evolutionism,food faddism,paleo diets etc.
Now I know because we're libertarians there is a tendency to embrace unorthodox views but that does not mean we should knee jerkedly accept any or assume the mainstream is wrong.I like Lew Rockwell.com for it's politics/economics articles but not when it goes into science especially global warming,food or when I see survivalist articles about the coming collapse of civilization.That's why I prefer Mises.org more.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Scott F:As someone said before ,I know it's cool to promote alternative ideas and all but I try to distance myself from pseudoscience like aids denialism,anti-evolutionism,food faddism,paleo diets etc.
You guys who question aids denialism, are you even familiar with the scientific opinions and testing regimens defining what AIDs is? If you're serious about making claims about denialism, then you should listen to the recent podcast Lew did with a documentary maker who took on the AIDs question and went straight to authoritative sources.
Scott F:Now I know because we're libertarians there is a tendency to embrace unorthodox views but that does not mean we should knee jerkedly accept any or assume the mainstream is wrong.
Right. We should knee jerkedly accept and assume the mainstream is right! Up with statism! Down with freedom! Comrade, the proletariat has spoken!
Quite a few of us have been on paleo diets, and they are awesome. That you would consider them (or naturopathy) pseudoscience is ridiculous. What qualifies as science in Scott's world?
You're supposed to be a lifestyle libertarian. Why would you reject alternative lifestyles information?
Lew's magazine is meant to bring a lot of disparate groups together. It's not designed to cater to one particular ideology or zealots in general. If people can't be tolerant of evolutionary theory or aids denialism, then we don't have a shot at creating a free society.
StrangeLoop and Prateek Sanjay, sorry I missed your posts.
StrangeLoop:All testable hypotheses, no matter how heterodox, have scientific merit. Of course, endorsing disproven hypotheses even while thousands die is inexcusable. Dissent can be productive, hence one should always apply skepticism to one's own views, as well; the HIV-AIDS denialists have shirked this scientific responsibility.
Has Peter Duesberg's non-HIV AIDS hypothesis been disproven? If so, can you provide some links to literature in that regard?
I point him out specifically because I've read some of his articles, and the evidence appears compelling. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate or true.
StrangeLoop:Since we libertarians (and especially we anarcho-capitalists) harbor radically nonconformist beliefs, I'm not sure we're the audience that would suppress dissent; but, fairly, if articles from David Icke or other world-is-run-by-reptiles conspiracy theorists appeared on LRC, then I think we would be right to question the judgment of its editors. Furthermore, if LRC hosted articles by promiment Darwinists (e.g., evolutionary psychologists), then I think we would all be much more tolerant of the psuedoscientific fringers. Fundamentally, I believe the problem to be that such fallacious arguments (e.g., humans have "minds" thus we are distinct from the animal world) throws large doubt on what else LRC hosts, so we don't want libertarianism to be weakened by ties to poor philosophy.
That's a good and fair point. I don't agree with being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. Nor am I a "movementarian" (though I understand that Mr. Rockwell is). So, needless to say, my own interest in LRC would decline were I to see reptilian-conspiracy articles on it. :P
My granddad used to ask me whether I believed everything I read. It took me years to figure out what he really meant -- that one must use logic and science to evaluate others' claims.
StrangeLoop:P.S. LvMI seems to have a large amount of Christian (particularly Catholic) believers, so don't expect them to care about our scientific criticisms. (And that's not necessarily a problem--I was raised Catholic and plan to raise my own children in that same tradition.)
I always find it tragic when people forsake the scientific method.
Prateek Sanjay:I agree that we should challenge dogma, but we should also bring strong argumentation and investigation from that end. Otherwise, we are just internet contrarians.
Otherwise, we are just internet contrarians.
Agreed. Logic and science should be employed as our "measuring rods".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
If HIV doesn't cause AIDS then why do the vast majority of people with HIV end up getting AIDS? Why does antiretroviral medication work? Why does HIV live up to koch's postulates? If AIDS denialists are so right why don't they inject themselves with HIV to prove to the world that they won't get AIDS?
This Darwin piece is one example. Because many strands of human thought rely on the idea of man being responsible for his actions, some feel we must reject even the scientific notions that possibly make man deterministic and natural. Hence, if a theory of evolution contradicts human action in any way, it must be rejected! But there is the other extreme: you have seen the disastrous effect of the pseudo-science used by the local Marxist, Robheusdens, who tried to use physics to validate labour theory of value; yet, if his point, "There is no free will", were true, then it is true. But that simply does zero, and only zero, for economic analysis, because we know what Black, Scholes, and Merton did to economics through mathematics.
But there is the other extreme: you have seen the disastrous effect of the pseudo-science used by the local Marxist, Robheusdens, who tried to use physics to validate labour theory of value; yet, if his point, "There is no free will", were true, then it is true. But that simply does zero, and only zero, for economic analysis, because we know what Black, Scholes, and Merton did to economics through mathematics.
Determinism is required for free will.
If people can't be tolerant of evolutionary theory or aids denialism, then we don't have a shot at creating a free society.
Heh. And that's just two topics. That's the nice thing about not being on "the left". We agree on politics and economics, but can be free to disagree on all else, and with all else, have it our own ways.
justinx0r:If HIV doesn't cause AIDS then why do the vast majority of people with HIV end up getting AIDS?
Correlation does not imply causation.
justinx0r:Why does antiretroviral medication work?
Before I can answer that question, I need to know what you mean by "work". Do you mean "successfully fight off the HIV virus", or do you mean "successfully eliminate the symptoms of AIDS", or do you mean something else entirely?
justinx0r:Why does HIV live up to koch's postulates?
It's not clear to me that HIV does live up to Koch's postulates, particularly his second and third postulates.
justinx0r:If AIDS denialists are so right why don't they inject themselves with HIV to prove to the world that they won't get AIDS?
This is a good point. Of course, if they consider other evidence to be strong enough to falsify the HIV theory of AIDS, they won't see the point in injecting themselves with HIV. On the other hand, they could just as well inject SIV into healthy monkeys and see if they develop the simian version of AIDS.
But why do you lump all "AIDS denialists" together? Surely they're not a monolithic group. Also, why do you even call them "AIDS denialists", since (at least in Peter Duesberg's case) they're not denying the existence of AIDS, but rather denying the HIV theory of AIDS?
Quite a few of us have been on paleo diets, and they are awesome.
Holy crap, what a coincidence.
Although for me, it was also a matter of enjoying one's food. Few and far apart meals of meat like lamb or duck everyday is much better than eating rice and lentils, which overload your stomach, give you too little energy, and make you feel hungry again in a short time.
Once you stop grazing like a herbivore, you start enjoying your food.
And once you enjoy your food, you don't need dessert or anything else.
Even if it is not all that helpful, I like the psychological effect. With sugary things or spicy things or bread and rice or most foods, you can't escape the feeling that you have dumped garbage inside your body, even if enjoyed it while eating.
But of course, I have to go by eating standards of everyone else in the house, so I still eat what they eat, but I have already made a strong and radical shift towards eliminating all non-paleo foods. Currently, I have been off, but sensing my lack of inner strength coming back, I am going to start it again.
Prateek,
I find that getting people to shift more towards free markets and anarchism is a lot easier than trying to get them to even just tolerate my choice in food when I stick to paleo.
I've actually been looking for friends in the area who eat the same way as I want to eat. I find that everyone is an enabler of eating non-paleo, and most people are pushers of things that are unfriendly to the goals of the diet. :( I need a local support network that I can meet up with once in a while if I want to continue pursuing it.
liberty student: Scott F:As someone said before ,I know it's cool to promote alternative ideas and all but I try to distance myself from pseudoscience like aids denialism,anti-evolutionism,food faddism,paleo diets etc. "You guys who question aids denialism, are you even familiar with the scientific opinions and testing regimens defining what AIDs is? If you're serious about making claims about denialism, then you should listen to the recent podcast Lew did with a documentary maker who took on the AIDs question and went straight to authoritative sources." I've read about it and considered it and I see the opponents as straw manning the mainstream. Scott F:Now I know because we're libertarians there is a tendency to embrace unorthodox views but that does not mean we should knee jerkedly accept any or assume the mainstream is wrong. "Right. We should knee jerkedly accept and assume the mainstream is right! Up with statism! Down with freedom! Comrade, the proletariat has spoken!" See this is embarrassing. Opposition to pseudoscience apparently = being pro statism.Such a disconnect. "Quite a few of us have been on paleo diets, and they are awesome." Fair enough ,enjoy them but don't claim them as some scientifically proven ideal diet.All of these diet plans are fads based on false science. "What qualifies as science in Scott's world?" Actually reasoned and/or empirically proven claims. "You're supposed to be a lifestyle libertarian." What does that even mean? and Since when? Because I'm said I'm left lib? " Why would you reject alternative lifestyles information?" Even if I accept your claim I'm a 'lifestyle libertarian'(whatever that is- I assume you mean thick libertarian) then it does not follow I favour all lifestyles.I'm culturally liberal(and always have been I'll note even when I wasn't left-lib) but I'm not libertine.Morality exists and some things are just plain wrong or weird.I'm culturally liberal not culturally leftist(in comparison to other left-libs) it's not culturally leftist vs culturally conservative.I reject the false dichtomy. "Lew's magazine is meant to bring a lot of disparate groups together." I know.That's all for the good. " It's not designed to cater to one particular ideology or zealots in general." Somewhat debatable.There is a tendency to favour anti-evolution cultural conservatism. " If people can't be tolerant of evolutionary theory or aids denialism, then we don't have a shot at creating a free society." It's not intolerant to say you disagree or think something is not scientific.That's critical thinking.I'm tolerant sure.I'm fine for it to co-exist with libertarian analysis but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
"You guys who question aids denialism, are you even familiar with the scientific opinions and testing regimens defining what AIDs is? If you're serious about making claims about denialism, then you should listen to the recent podcast Lew did with a documentary maker who took on the AIDs question and went straight to authoritative sources."
I've read about it and considered it and I see the opponents as straw manning the mainstream.
"Right. We should knee jerkedly accept and assume the mainstream is right! Up with statism! Down with freedom! Comrade, the proletariat has spoken!"
See this is embarrassing.
Opposition to pseudoscience apparently = being pro statism.Such a disconnect.
"Quite a few of us have been on paleo diets, and they are awesome."
Fair enough ,enjoy them but don't claim them as some scientifically proven ideal diet.All of these diet plans are fads based on false science.
"What qualifies as science in Scott's world?"
Actually reasoned and/or empirically proven claims.
"You're supposed to be a lifestyle libertarian."
What does that even mean? and Since when?
Because I'm said I'm left lib?
" Why would you reject alternative lifestyles information?"
Even if I accept your claim I'm a 'lifestyle libertarian'(whatever that is- I assume you mean thick libertarian) then it does not follow I favour all lifestyles.I'm culturally liberal(and always have been I'll note even when I wasn't left-lib) but I'm not libertine.Morality exists and some things are just plain wrong or weird.I'm culturally liberal not culturally leftist(in comparison to other left-libs) it's not culturally leftist vs culturally conservative.I reject the false dichtomy.
"Lew's magazine is meant to bring a lot of disparate groups together."
I know.That's all for the good.
" It's not designed to cater to one particular ideology or zealots in general."
Somewhat debatable.There is a tendency to favour anti-evolution cultural conservatism.
" If people can't be tolerant of evolutionary theory or aids denialism, then we don't have a shot at creating a free society."
It's not intolerant to say you disagree or think something is not scientific.That's critical thinking.I'm tolerant sure.I'm fine for it to co-exist with libertarian analysis but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
All of these diet plans are fads based on false science.
No! Whatever it is you advocate is a fad diet based on false science!
I guess this makes me a "hysterical" proponent of evolution. Just like I am absolutely hysterical about germ theory.
At any rate, I am highly disappointed that many Mises readers tend to go the way of conspiracy theories. It really does damage to the public perception of the Austrian movement. If you want to criticize the incentive structure of government-sponsored science research, be my guest; but scientists are not brainwashing artists and they are not out to get you as part of the State apparatus (economists are a different story ). The caricature of any Ron Paul supporter would be a crazed anti-Semitic NWO-obsessed Alex Jones-listener. For as intellectual as the Austrian tradition is, these people leeching on is a downer in my opinion.
Eric080:It really does damage to the public perception of the Austrian movement.
Nonsense.
Eric080:If you want to criticize the incentive structure of government-sponsored science research, be my guest; but scientists are not brainwashing artists and they are not out to get you as part of the State apparatus (economists are a different story ).
Sounds like polylogism to me.
Because LewRockwell.com has always had a distinct social conservative bent. Nothing new.
The caricature of any Ron Paul supporter would be a crazed anti-Semitic NWO-obsessed Alex Jones-listener. For as intellectual as the Austrian tradition is, these people leeching on is a downer in my opinion.
It's why Pete Boettke stopped calling himself Austrian.
It's not that anything was wrong with the Austrian School, but rather that its ideas got less attention than its brand as "internet right wing conspiracist" and so on.
It's sort of the same how some socialists feel about other socialists, who can be hippies with long hair and who see a life of communes as a promising life of laziness and endless sex. And when the former try to show the latter their Closed System Models and mathematized planning ideas, the latter quickly run back to standard capitalist world. Then the former get really angry and baffled when the latter talk about racism and Mumia Jamal, before telling them that they have missed the point and they are dreaming if they think proper socialism will have police who'd spare Mumia than killing him.
Good rebuttal.
I just have noticed that in the mainstream press, Ron Paul followers do get plenty of negative coverage. I know Hannity has made fun of his supporters, Ben Stein has called his attitudes anti-semitic, Michelle Malkin has linked him with Alex Jones (when really Ron Paul will go on any forum to express his opinions), and Levin has pointed out how "Jews control the banks"-esque Paul people are. It tars the movement and like mentioned earlier, it's why Boettke is distancing himself from Rockwell types.
This is exactly why, when Paul was approached by 9/11 Truthers, that the media (especially Fox News) thought it would stick and why Paul was asked about donations given from Neo-Nazis. It's because there is a definitive fringe link that we would be better off to sever.
What AE teaches is that we have a choice, and what I would choose (speaking for myself) is to continue to argue AE and promote logical argumentation. The fact that people are turned off to economics because it is associated with alternative science, only testifies to the universal human predicament to be persuaded by a poisoned well, or changed subject rather than the actual arguments at hand.
So in essence I agree with liberty student and I say if people dislike the alt. methods, then let them argue between themselves but let AE also be taught and if so we too could bring to being a place , "Where ne'er was known the Form of mock Debate,Where change of Favorite's made no Change of Laws, And Senates heard before they judged a cause."
I don't advocate any specific diet as such.Just eat whatever you feel like eating.Just don't try to claim science apparently backs it up
Oh and on my new shift to left libertarianism,it's not like I agree 100% with them just like I don't 100% agree with you guys and probably never have.I'd be quite happy to explain my left-lib positions and reasonings related to it.
Oh and incase the smear liberty student intended was that I'm culturally leftist ,I'm not.I'm culturally liberal.My culture views differ somewhat to most left-libs though I tend to think being left-lib does not imply for example being a radical feminist.I'm certainly not.
Boo hoo hoo. I should give a damn about Hannity, Malkin or Boettke why exactly?
You're a dude. You can't be a feminist anyways.
I don't advocate any specific diet as such.Just eat whatever you feel like eating.Just don't try to claim science apparently backs it up.
So nutrition is not a field of study for science? How anti-science of you.
Why can't I claim that?
@Mark, no, you're not supposed to give a damn about them, you're supposed to give a damn about their audience since those are the people we are trying to reach. Why are many on this board so petulant, disparaging, and dismissive about this stuff? All I'm saying is that it has a very intellectual tradition yet a mediocre public perception.
You know, unless you want most people NOT to be libertarians....
Marko: I just have noticed that in the mainstream press, Ron Paul followers do get plenty of negative coverage. I know Hannity has made fun of his supporters, Ben Stein has called his attitudes anti-semitic, Michelle Malkin has linked him with Alex Jones (when really Ron Paul will go on any forum to express his opinions), and Levin has pointed out how "Jews control the banks"-esque Paul people are. It tars the movement and like mentioned earlier, it's why Boettke is distancing himself from Rockwell types. Boo hoo hoo. I should give a damn about Hannity, Malkin or Boettke why exactly?
Michael Moore himself often said that he is grossly misrepresented as a caricature of someone that he is not, even though he admits his stands are clear in that he opposes the business establishment as an anti-worker creation. Many on what is loosely called the Left have been have been badly smeared and shown as cranks that they never were.
So when you have a mass media that enjoys slandering people, does it hurt their credibility or does it hurt those whom they criticise?
Of course it will be the former. Where do those people stand? Hannity is notorious for not backing up his claims with proper evidence, especially when he says Obama has done nothing to stop terrorists when Obama has ordered more assassinations than any American President. Michelle Malkin herself is seen as naiive and stupid by other neoconservatives. Ben Stein?
BEN STEIN? That man has managed to dig his grave further and further. He said that real estate was fine a month before the housing crisis. That man has made the worst and most unscientific hyperbole claims on evolution that make Sobran's piece look infinitely more thoughtful. That man is the one who said he had to scrounge and work hard to climb up the social ladder, even though he inherited millions of dollars from his father. This a man regularly parodied in media.
By comparison, Huffington Post editorials on Ron Paul always try to praise him before criticising him. Even Robert Scheer defended him and his character. So where does Paul stand and where do Ben Stein and Sean Hannity stand?
Oh yes, lets reach Hannity's audience by having Hannity say good things about Ron Paul?? What the heck are you even talking about here? Hannity and Malkin are always going to hate and smear Paul and Rockwellians regardless of whoever they distance themselves from. Therefore they are exactly the people that is utterly pointless to try to accommodate.
Let's face it. It is not really about Hannity or about Hannity's audience. It is about you. You are unconfortable with some of what gets published on lewrockwell.com and would like to be accommodated. Ok, we get it. You have a narrow and mainstream-chiseled comfort zone. Tough luck. Not our problem.
Prateek Sanjay:It's why Pete Boettke stopped calling himself Austrian.
Who cares?
Prateek Sanjay:It's not that anything was wrong with the Austrian School, but rather that its ideas got less attention than its brand as "internet right wing conspiracist" and so on.
This is a failure of Pete to promote a different vision, not a failure of the market to properly identify the Austrian School with his vision of it.
Eric080:@Mark, no, you're not supposed to give a damn about them, you're supposed to give a damn about their audience since those are the people we are trying to reach. Why are many on this board so petulant, disparaging, and dismissive about this stuff? All I'm saying is that it has a very intellectual tradition yet a mediocre public perception. You know, unless you want most people NOT to be libertarians....
I consider myself a professional marketer. I can tell you that most of the libertarians on here concerned with image, and what "we" should do, don't have a clue. I'd also argue, those who are about a unified message and shunning diversity are not very libertarian when the stakes are higher than posting on forums and blogs.
Politically correct libertarianism. And the radical youth embrace this idea. I need a drink.
Marko: Oh and incase the smear liberty student intended was that I'm culturally leftist ,I'm not.I'm culturally liberal.My culture views differ somewhat to most left-libs though I tend to think being left-lib does not imply for example being a radical feminist.I'm certainly not. You're a dude. You can't be a feminist anyways. Why can't I be one? Saying you need to be a feminist to care about feminist issues/womens rights is like saying you have to be an animal to care about 'animal rights ' and animal issues. It's not true that to be a feminist you must be a women.Anyone can care about those issues.That argument seems a bit like some silly high school jock anti-feminist remark.In any case I am a feminist and have been for a long time in some form or another.Just I'm not a radical feminist-I oppose pretty much everything they say.I'm a sex positive libertarian/Individualist feminist. I don't advocate any specific diet as such.Just eat whatever you feel like eating.Just don't try to claim science apparently backs it up. So nutrition is not a field of study for science? It is but often it's exaggerated.They seem to change there mind every few years. 1 year milk is good for you, another year it's not then it is again.I'm just in favour of critically assessing their claims. Plus you could ignore their claims.Just you suffer the consequences.
Why can't I be one?
Saying you need to be a feminist to care about feminist issues/womens rights is like saying you have to be an animal to care about 'animal rights ' and animal issues.
It's not true that to be a feminist you must be a women.Anyone can care about those issues.That argument seems a bit like some silly high school jock anti-feminist remark.In any case I am a feminist and have been for a long time in some form or another.Just I'm not a radical feminist-I oppose pretty much everything they say.I'm a sex positive libertarian/Individualist feminist.
So nutrition is not a field of study for science?
It is but often it's exaggerated.They seem to change there mind every few years. 1 year milk is good for you, another year it's not then it is again.I'm just in favour of critically assessing their claims.
Plus you could ignore their claims.Just you suffer the consequences.
It doesn't matter. You can't be a feminist no more than you can be a black nationalist. Doesn't matter if you agree with them on everything.
This post along with the other recent religious posts really exemplifies how people here, in all sides, take some issues with far too much emotion.
Marko: It doesn't matter. You can't be a feminist no more than you can be a black nationalist. Doesn't matter if you agree with them on everything.
Why not? Unless you explain my previous point still stands.
I could be a black nationalist but I'm not.
I fail to see how being feminist requires you to be a woman.That's a schoolboy error.
No you can't be. Nationalism is never so much about politics as it is about identity.
Unless you identify yourself as a black person you can not be a black nationalist. Unless you think of yourself as a woman you can not be a feminist.
You can not be an actual Japanese nationalist but feel apart from the Japanese nation. No more than you can be a die hard Celtics fan but feel apart from Celtics.
Your point never stood in the first place because you don't understand what feminism is. If feminism was really defined as caring about human rights for women as you claim then every libertarian would be a "feminist" by default and you wouldn't feel the need to tell us about your feminism every two minutes.
I'm going to ignore Marko for the time being because he is being pretentious and petulant, but as for your points libertystudent, I don't see me as advocating politically correct libertarianism. I just want sane libertarianism.
The reason I'm concerned about the image isn't about sacrificing ideals, it is about having ACCURATE information informing those ideals. I'm not against shutting down anti-evolution inanity, but I would much rather have it not tarnish the reputation of the movement.
Too late. The reputation of the libertarian movement is long-since tarnished. Most people think libertarians are mostly conspiracy-theory-wielding nutjobs who court the worst elements of the political right. And they're at least partly right about that, depending on which libertarians one is dealing with. Some of it's unfair, some of it's not.
Clearly the issue here is that science-loving people are upset over LRC posting articles which go against evolution. As I stated earlier in this thread, I was a little annoyed over the Sobran article and the latest podcast where Tim Ball called Darwin an Atheist. Darwin was by his own admission an Agnostic (or possibly Deist), yet had studied to be a clergyman earlier in his life. So what do non-libertarians who are just getting into the movement think when they hear such things? I imagine they would be turned off. I've been into this whole libertarianism thing for roughly three years now and even I was turned off. I've started reading LRC less and less over the months.
No, I don't think we should be politically correct, nor do I think we are. Nor do I think we should force Lew to reject certain sorts of articles just because most of us don't like them. But it should be a surprise to no one if those articles come under fire for their perceived ridiculousness.
As I stated earlier in this thread, I was a little annoyed over the Sobran article and the latest podcast where Tim Ball called Darwin an Atheist. Darwin was by his own admission an Agnostic (or possibly Deist), yet had studied to be a clergyman earlier in his life.
There's also the fact that Darwin explicitly states in "Origin of Species" that the theory of evolution does not in and of itself contradict theism and the notion that the universe was created by a deity. Why creationists so often conflate the two issues (evolution of species vs. beginning of life and universe) is beyond me.
@BrainPolice, it's because the writing is on the wall, it seems. It seems tremendously inefficient and is hinted at nowhere in the religious texts. They want to hang on to the idea that they are, in some special manner, above the rest of the animal kingdom and not a part of it.
Eric080:libertystudent, I don't see me as advocating politically correct libertarianism. I just want sane libertarianism.
Your definition of sane. Not some objective definition, right?
Eric080:The reason I'm concerned about the image isn't about sacrificing ideals, it is about having ACCURATE information informing those ideals. I'm not against shutting down anti-evolution inanity, but I would much rather have it not tarnish the reputation of the movement.
We all know libertarianism is not defined by personal preferences, including creation narratives. You're welcome to think it is inane (a personal judgment, preference), but I think you go to far when you don the cloak of the entire libertarian movement (a herd of cats at best) to denounce it.
Since when are factual claims about scientific matters personal preferences? :)
Brainpolice:Since when are factual claims about scientific matters personal preferences? :)
Got the creation of the universe and evolution all figured out have we?