To: KevinDavis
Pleasantly surprised implies an agenda. This is not science.
5 posted on
02/20/2011 4:43:28 PM PST by
rsobin
To: rsobin
8 posted on
02/20/2011 4:46:13 PM PST by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: rsobin
Oh? do tell...
12 posted on
02/20/2011 4:50:29 PM PST by
starlifter
(Pullum sapit)
To: rsobin
I've learned to remember that science articles are generally comprised of the words of science reporters, not of the scientists themselves. I see nowhere in the article a scientist declaring himself the be "pleasently surprised"
It looks like spin from a reporter.
20 posted on
02/20/2011 4:59:47 PM PST by
muir_redwoods
(Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
To: rsobin
Pleasantly surprised implies an agenda. This is not science.Well I suppose. But I think that unlike the R vs. D world we live in there is a pretty broad agreement that it would be a good thing if we find other planets that support life.
To: rsobin
50 posted on
02/20/2011 6:12:47 PM PST by
BenLurkin
(This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both)
To: rsobin
Pleasantly surprised implies an agenda. This is not science. Utter horseshit, you anti science bigot.
54 posted on
02/20/2011 7:16:28 PM PST by
Salman
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson