Re: Creationists Don't Like Other Sciences, Either

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:42:20 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:33:20 GMT, in talk.origins 
>luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Luminoso) wrote in
><45abdd2d.29991437@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:06 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:50:23 GMT, luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Luminoso)
>>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Where have I lied ? There may be some GW,
>>>
>>>That is beyond reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>>> we may be responsible
>>>
>>>That is also beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>>   I don't know about that ...
>>
>>>>   or not, the long-range effects are, to put it politely, purest
>>>>   speculation. 
>>>
>>>A very conservative speculation.
>>
>>   I'm a moderate ... an equal-op****tunity BS detector.
>
>Feel free to point to conservative BS that you have attacked. Certainly
>you have bought the energy companies' claims hook, line and sinker.

   'Conservative' BS was not addressed. There's plenty
   of that too, including total denial of CO2s potential
   to cause GW or claiming that GW will have no consequences
   whatsoever. They see GW as a sort of leftist plot to
   undermine western business and conservative interests
   in the US and elsewhere.