In article <vpr7k4sc7eeb07@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>> >>
>> >> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>> >
>> >It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>> >air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>> >the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>> >at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>Actually it began around 11,000 years ago, when the last ice age ended.
>
>
Wrong. Why do the scientific ignorant rage?

 

In article <vpr7k4sc7eeb07@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bnjf84$b81$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <Gs%mb.38952$e01.85589@attbi_s02>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <bngqba$8h4$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>> >>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>> >>
>> >> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>> >
>> >It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
>> >air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
>> >the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
>> >at the same time and has increased since.
>>
>> If you look at the data (I know that's a foreign concept to you), global
>> warming began around the middle of the 19th century, as human combustion
>> activities started picking up.
>
>Actually it began around 11,000 years ago, when the last ice age ended.
>
>
Wrong. Why do the scientific ignorant rage?

 

In article <vpr8iqtkru4q64@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:77hnb.33968$9E1.125612@attbi_s52...
>> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>>
>> > Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
>> > Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
>> > possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of
>the
>> > Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
>> > For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
>> > Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying
>wannabe.
>>
>> He will now chastise you for getting information from CNN instead of
>scientific
>> journals.
>>
>> However, keep in mind that Parker believes Road and Track and Consumer
>Reports
>> over SAE papers and articles.... go figure.
>
>I figure him for a clueless, closed-minded imbecile, so far he hasn't proven
>me wrong. ;-)
>
>>
>>
>
>
Coward too afraid to use his name? Boo-hoo.

 

In article <vpr8iqtkru4q64@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:77hnb.33968$9E1.125612@attbi_s52...
>> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>>
>> > Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
>> > Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
>> > possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of
>the
>> > Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
>> > For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
>> > Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying
>wannabe.
>>
>> He will now chastise you for getting information from CNN instead of
>scientific
>> journals.
>>
>> However, keep in mind that Parker believes Road and Track and Consumer
>Reports
>> over SAE papers and articles.... go figure.
>
>I figure him for a clueless, closed-minded imbecile, so far he hasn't proven
>me wrong. ;-)
>
>>
>>
>
>
Coward too afraid to use his name? Boo-hoo.

 

In article <vpr8iqtkru4q64@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:77hnb.33968$9E1.125612@attbi_s52...
>> In article <vpr7cutepp2qe4@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>>
>> > Hell Lloyd it was even on CNN last night, the story about the ice in the
>> > Arctic melting, which, as they put it, is caused by warmer temperatures,
>> > possible because of Global warming, although (their words) The CAUSE of
>the
>> > Global warming is still UNKNOWN.
>> > For someone claiming to be a scientist you sure don't know much science.
>> > Better learn some before you post here claiming to be one you lying
>wannabe.
>>
>> He will now chastise you for getting information from CNN instead of
>scientific
>> journals.
>>
>> However, keep in mind that Parker believes Road and Track and Consumer
>Reports
>> over SAE papers and articles.... go figure.
>
>I figure him for a clueless, closed-minded imbecile, so far he hasn't proven
>me wrong. ;-)
>
>>
>>
>
>
Coward too afraid to use his name? Boo-hoo.

 

In article <vpr958bc1cor0a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pmhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
>> In article <vpr85smbfn0e8f@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
>> >> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
>> > Lloyd,
>> >> >> >nor where you have been published.
>> >> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to
>be
>> >> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real
>scientist
>> >> > with
>> >> >> >your shameful behavior.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
>> > your
>> >> > field
>> >> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
>> >>
>> >> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Error Occurred While Processing Request
>> >
>> > Didn't work :-(
>>
>> Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's
>the
>> first one.
>>
>
>Got it, thanks.
>He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
>much.
>
>
Still waiting for what science field your Ph.D. is in....

 

In article <vpr958bc1cor0a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pmhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
>> In article <vpr85smbfn0e8f@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
>> >> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
>> > Lloyd,
>> >> >> >nor where you have been published.
>> >> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to
>be
>> >> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real
>scientist
>> >> > with
>> >> >> >your shameful behavior.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
>> > your
>> >> > field
>> >> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
>> >>
>> >> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Error Occurred While Processing Request
>> >
>> > Didn't work :-(
>>
>> Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's
>the
>> first one.
>>
>
>Got it, thanks.
>He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
>much.
>
>
Still waiting for what science field your Ph.D. is in....

 

In article <vpr958bc1cor0a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pmhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
>> In article <vpr85smbfn0e8f@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:K3hnb.43148$Tr4.88475@attbi_s03...
>> >> In article <vpr6s32q4afc2d@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> > news:bnjesk$b81$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> In article <vpog8qgknohjbc@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> >> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:bngqj4$8h4$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> >> >a bunch of meaningless BS.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read
>> > Lloyd,
>> >> >> >nor where you have been published.
>> >> >> >You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to
>be
>> >> >> >something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real
>scientist
>> >> > with
>> >> >> >your shameful behavior.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree,
>> > your
>> >> > field
>> >> >> of work. I won't hold my breath though.
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked you first, oh lying one.
>> >>
>> >> More than you wanted to know about Dr. Parker:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Error Occurred While Processing Request
>> >
>> > Didn't work :-(
>>
>> Just shove his name into a google search, grab the link to emory... It's
>the
>> first one.
>>
>
>Got it, thanks.
>He must have used a lot of crib sheets in collage, he sure didn't learn
>much.
>
>
Still waiting for what science field your Ph.D. is in....

 

In article <vpri9bmi6sqff7@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>> > process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>> > the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>> > can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>> > light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>> > almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.
>>
>> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
>to know what science is
>> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
>understanding how the world
>> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
>based on unbiased
>> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
>they are correct--nothing
>> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>>
>> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
>to _find out_ how a
>> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
>observations must be made
>> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
>formed to explain the facts
>> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
>hypothesis. If successful
>> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
>Additionally, everything
>> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
>used for the experiments, so
>> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
>constructed so that it is
>> potentially falsifiable.
>>
>> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
>process--verification, repeatability,
>> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
>access to similar equipment
>> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
>was somehow flawed (if
>> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
>the original researchers),
>> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
>additional variables not accounted
>> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
>important as well. The
>> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
>can be learned from the
>> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
>stand up to the most severe
>> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
>theories are designed so
>> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
>a better theory that can
>> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
>knowledge can really be
>> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
>other's ideas, with
>> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
>be absolutely proved, but
>> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
>scientific community in general
>> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
>indeed correct in their
>> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
>theory or law is incorrect,
>> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
>the Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
>things like internal
>> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
>information, which itself must pass
>> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
>worth worrying about. Only
>> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
>is not falsifiable it is
>> _not_ science.
>>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
>review, in order to have
>> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
>make sure it is as unbiased
>> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
>methods, theories, set on
>> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
>cherished work of a career
>> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
>that's why there is a
>> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
>of being skeptical, and not
>> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
>they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
>as they may be, seem too
>> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
>the work to be deemed
>> worth publishing.
>>
>>
>> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
>asserted to be true by its
>> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
>saying "because I said so, and
>> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
>attempting to "prove" just so
>> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
>particularly dishonest in
>> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
>needs if it is to be
>> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
>nonetheless people who don't
>> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
>up to make people think it
>> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
>to _discover_, to get as
>> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>>
>> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
>to, certain _established
>> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
>proved or disproved, nothing
>> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
>it simply is what you
>> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
>This is not an attempt
>> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
>science), however a belief
>> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
>no matter how competent
>> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
>or even rationally argued
>> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>>
>> --Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
>fails on every level.
>
>
Excuse me, fool, science is what is saying GW is real and caused by CO2 levels
increasing. You are the yahoo claiming it's not, and you've no evidence, no
proof, nothing to back you up. You are a creationist, and you're too stupid
to realize it.

 

In article <vpri9bmi6sqff7@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>> > process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>> > the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>> > can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>> > light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>> > almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.
>>
>> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
>to know what science is
>> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
>understanding how the world
>> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
>based on unbiased
>> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
>they are correct--nothing
>> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>>
>> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
>to _find out_ how a
>> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
>observations must be made
>> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
>formed to explain the facts
>> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
>hypothesis. If successful
>> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
>Additionally, everything
>> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
>used for the experiments, so
>> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
>constructed so that it is
>> potentially falsifiable.
>>
>> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
>process--verification, repeatability,
>> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
>access to similar equipment
>> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
>was somehow flawed (if
>> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
>the original researchers),
>> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
>additional variables not accounted
>> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
>important as well. The
>> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
>can be learned from the
>> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
>stand up to the most severe
>> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
>theories are designed so
>> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
>a better theory that can
>> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
>knowledge can really be
>> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
>other's ideas, with
>> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
>be absolutely proved, but
>> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
>scientific community in general
>> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
>indeed correct in their
>> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
>theory or law is incorrect,
>> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
>the Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
>things like internal
>> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
>information, which itself must pass
>> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
>worth worrying about. Only
>> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
>is not falsifiable it is
>> _not_ science.
>>
>> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
>review, in order to have
>> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
>make sure it is as unbiased
>> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
>methods, theories, set on
>> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
>cherished work of a career
>> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
>that's why there is a
>> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
>of being skeptical, and not
>> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
>they weren't they wouldn't
>> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
>as they may be, seem too
>> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
>the work to be deemed
>> worth publishing.
>>
>>
>> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
>asserted to be true by its
>> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
>saying "because I said so, and
>> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
>attempting to "prove" just so
>> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
>particularly dishonest in
>> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
>needs if it is to be
>> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
>nonetheless people who don't
>> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
>up to make people think it
>> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
>to _discover_, to get as
>> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>>
>> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
>to, certain _established
>> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
>proved or disproved, nothing
>> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
>it simply is what you
>> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
>This is not an attempt
>> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
>science), however a belief
>> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
>no matter how competent
>> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
>or even rationally argued
>> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>>
>> --Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
>fails on every level.
>
>
Excuse me, fool, science is what is saying GW is real and caused by CO2 levels
increasing. You are the yahoo claiming it's not, and you've no evidence, no
proof, nothing to back you up. You are a creationist, and you're too stupid
to realize it.