Which Battleground in the War on Science?

[n9531l]

I could only list five options, so you can write in one of the following, or another one I overlooked.

6. Our planet is only a few thousand years old.
7. Fluoridation of drinking water is a threat to human health.
8. All forms of life on earth (people, trees, dinosaurs, the polio virus) first appeared within a short time of one another.

You get to decide for yourself what "favorite" means. It could be the one you've done the most intensive research on, or the one you've most enjoyed discussing with your friends, or the one from which you've gotten the most amusement hearing the arguments of its supporters, etc.

[ViseGrip]

#6 & #8 Appear to be factors of the second from the top.

[Ray Brinzer]

n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

[mspart]

I've seen an ex commie drink water from a glass.

mspart

[ViseGrip]

n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

[Ray Brinzer]

n9531l... have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

Exactly.  Vodka.  Never water.

[scmathlete]

I really like taking the "traditional" conclusions from one side in these debates, and using the "traditional" other sides reasons behind it, if for no other reason than for the intellectual exercise, and the bafflement/confusion of the other people.

For instance, I like to take a fundamentalist christian argument to show why evolution has to exist.   I also like to take the conclusion that global warming is manmade, and use it as an argument against recycling, reducing, and reusing (and all that jazz). I also like to take the stance that global warming isn't man made, but naturally occurring, and then make a case for why we need to reduce, reuse, recycle (and all that jazz too).

I also am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am a societal oddball.

I don't really have arguments for all of those topics however, and didn't even realize that some of them were actually debated.

[mspart]

Welcome to the boards.

mspart

[n9531l]

#6 & #8 Appear to be factors of the second from the top.

That religious writings are offered as evidence in several arguments doesn't make them the same argument. If geologists could establish that the earth is very old, would that prove that evolution must have occurred? I don't think so. If evolution never occurred, would that prove the earth must be young? I don't think so.

[lkwdsteve]

Hit man John Martorano claimed that mob boss Whitey Bulger would never drink the water in Boston.

[lkwdsteve]

My most pressing current scientific question:

What do Scientologists think of Monsanto and Bayer joining forces?

[ViseGrip]

#6 & #8 Appear to be factors of the second from the top.

That religious writings are offered as evidence in several arguments doesn't make them the same argument. If geologists could establish that the earth is very old, would that prove that evolution must have occurred? I don't think so. If evolution never occurred, would that prove the earth must be young? I don't think so.

No...but they are frequently used in conjunction and as support for the other.

[ctc]

Your question, n, does a lot or "presupposing".  Maybe it should have been worded "Which Battleground in the War within Science?".

[n9531l]

Your question, n, does a lot or "presupposing".  Maybe it should have been worded "Which Battleground in the War within Science?".

Actually, I was careful to choose topics with a strong consensus among scientists.

[ctc]

Your question, n, does a lot or "presupposing".  Maybe it should have been worded "Which Battleground in the War within Science?".

Actually, I was careful to choose topics with a strong consensus among scientists.

I wouldn't say "strong consensus" either.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein