As I stated in my post, which you either didn’t read or couldn’t quite grasp, settled science isn’t always that settled.
So go ahead and get all pissy on me. When you come to your senses, study up on issues of the day, and realize that there is generally descent within the scientific community, and today’s core belief at times change to the ones held by the minority for some time.
If you didn’t know this, you know a lot less than you think you do.
I focussed on that one statement of yours - which really irritated me. That was poor form on my part. Sorry if I offended you.
So go ahead and get all pissy on me.
Yes, sometimes I do overly enjoy attacking a poorly-worded statement. It sounded a lot like that familiar refrain heard from Creationists to the effect of "Science has changed its standpoint so often in the past six hundred years [thank goodness for that!] that it has lost all credibility," and "It's all so complicated and confusing [read: to me, who flunked 8th-grade science] that it can't be true." (Disclaimer: I don't wish to imply that you, specifically, belong to that ilk.)
When you come to your senses, study up on issues of the day, and realize that there is generally descent within the scientific community, [...]
Yes, I'm well aware of the existence of dissent in the scientific community - but, in most cases, it seems to me like Creationists exaggerate its significance - like kids complaining that, because Mom and Pop sometimes aren't always in total agreement, they (the kids) know better.
The politicization of Science is a genuine issue (catchword: AGW).
In short: I'm sorry for the cheap shot and admit to sometimes being overly contentious.
Regards,