Evolution is not a scientific theory

Originally posted by Taurisk: ↑

@thalweg - I am trying to understand what you wrote - aren't you adding to what you call confusion?
You wrote not a single sentence which is logical nor clear and I have no idea what you are intending to say except some subdued mumblings that 'it is not our fault' - the excuse any small child makes, when faced with disaster.
and
anthropogenic climate change is not a hypothesis, but it is not necessarily proven that humans are the only ones causing or contributing to climate change; however, it is possible to come to some conclusions about the contributions humans are making to climate change if you simply look at the numbers of one particular species on the planet (us) and how far it has out-competed, killed and destroyed other species. It stands to reason that us/we/humans also have an effect on the climate; we have created an earth which is out of whack big time - but there could be long-range changes happening as well, which are not caused by us. We cannot do much about that, but we can change our behaviour and we must change our behaviour - big time!!!

If we had stayed 'in the trees' 'the woods' maybe just remained herders and agricultural critters, we would not have made the huge advances which have enabled us to inject, adorn, imbue almost every moment of our lives with an object, which is strictly speaking not a necessity of life.

We are a wasteful species, completely uncaring about the rest of creation - and we do deserve some form of 'pay-back.

If I believed in myths, I would say 'Mother Earth/Nature' is giving us a jolly good spanking and will continue to do so and climate change is part of that punishment.
Take care
Taurisk

Expand

Are you educable?? (it's easy to find out)...

this is the fundamental question...so many scientists are not for example educable.

Scientists exist solely across the higher IQ domains at the brain but higher IQ entrains on balance problems with reality and identity (clinical classification not the cultural Marxist) It's a poisoned chalice...it alone allows individually and as groups for the greatest resource gathering (power, control and things) potential in the modern world..but outside that again on balance it owns a negative association with life (as in life lived, ones affect etc and view of the world as it actually exists).

ALL the modern soft and softer sciences are today Guilds not disciplines anymore if they ever where of coarse, what this means is all conclusions and results etc expounded/marketed are made at the Scientist not at the Science...the scientist is a flake..solidly a flake...science is considered and uses a method that cannot be fiddled/biased with or shortcut ...the scientist does all these things routinely in the modern day.

Corruption and fraud is endemic in science now because of the scientist...the scientist is an ideologue., it has the backing of a multidisciplined church at the disposal and behest.."do not become a heretic" is all the religion asks and they scientist easily comply's

At least 2/3rds of all humans crave religiosity deeply and at the scientist they get this in spaces across so many of the "sciences".

Modern Climate science is at the scientist only..solidly religious and attracts only those who crave religion (via identity and reality problems)..as a result climate change cannot become a theory until the scientific method is traditionally satisfied.....we are a long ways from that place atm and losing ground yearly it seems.

Gender, Climate, paranormal. Environmental, Psychological sciences etc are a quintuple.....science exists as the hard sciences and then shades of grey of all the others below.....within these shades of grey type 'sciences' these above sit in the guild only section of scientific endeavour and attract only those scientists who own the ability to disregard traditional scientific behaviour where science alone is the religion and irrespective of the titillation or religiosity or cultural Marxist/postmodernist doctrines in the discipline being researched.

One of the easiest ways to tell a real science from a fantastical in form 'science' is....do they allow it to be openly questioned ..if not it si NOT a science (full stop) but is of the scientist only.

CC is a hypothesises, advocates are resoundingly religious in their adherence as one must easily notice..it never got any further..perhaps one day but certainly not anytime soon.

Frontal lobes have not changed in thousands of years.