segnosaur

The majority isn't always right...remember? I, however, always am. By the way, I notice you still haven't answered the question... Why should I be forced to subsidize your entertainment?? Come on, you're a CBC fan, you should have a huge massive brain capable of answering that question.

Ummm... why? Pro-cbc peole keep crowing on about how important it is, but I've never seen anyone make any real logical argument about why it is. They just keep repeating the same empty-headed statements over and over again. Perhaps I don't see the value because there is none. Another empty-headed statement. A country can survive without meaningless symbols. Any Canadian content that is popular can be carried by other sources, so people craving 'Canadianna' will not be left empty. Oh, and once again, since you seem to consider yourself such a smart CBC fan, Why should I be forced to subsidize your entertainment

One issue is a funding of a public corporation, the other is civil liberties. They don't belong in the same sentence. Once again... I brought the issue of gay marriage up as an example of how the majority is not always right. You know, you'd figure being a fan of CBC would make you smart, but its amazing how brain-damaged people are by totally missing the point... I'm not dealing with the issue of liberties, I'm dealing with the issue of automatically assuming the majority is somehow always right. Of course, I could also point out that by funding the CBC the government is depriving me of my property rights (i.e. taking money away from me for activities that I will not be using.) Granted it is nowhere near as serious as the issue of gay marriage, but its a question of degree. And the majority doing so deprives me of my right to property. Granted, we live in Canada, where they never actually bothered putting property rights into the constitution, but most people still think they should have some right to their actual property.

Why was it silly, because you disagree with it? Hey, guess what, not all of us see the need for some publically funded broadcaster. The point I was making was that "the majority is not always right". I could have also pointed to U.S. public support over the invasion of Iraq in 2002, or that most Americans support the death penalty. Why exactly do you think that if the majority thinks something is right, then it automatically is? Ok, perhaps that was the question in which case one of my points was dealt with. However, you have pretty much ignored all the other points. (And note that simply labelling something as 'silly' is not really dealing with the issue.) Ummm... Why? Once again, why should I be forced to subsidze your entertainment. And if individuals desire to access that content, then why should they not be prepared to do so. First of all, you're admitting that there are organizations with comparible "newsgathering abilities". (Although why that should be a good thing is questionable.... look at the number of people who complain about monolithic media organizations in the U.S., and here you're supporting just another 'big' organzation.) Secondly, even if the CBC is the 'biggest' news organzation, we also have CTV, private radio broadcasters, major private newspaper chains, and a host of smaller dailies, not to mention foreign news services such as CNN, the BBC, Reuters, etc. If there is a news issue of importance, it will likely be covered/discussed in one of the many other news outlets in the country or in the world.. Significant news stories get broken on a regular basis by private broadcasters.

No, actually their 'evidence' has been examined and rejected as bunk. The problem is, creationists and ID believers tend to come up with the same old cr*p over and over again, hoping that nobody notices that their argument #3234564 was exactly the same as argument #324563, which was exactly the same as #364562.... etc. No stress, only frustration that our educational system has failed to properly educate people in logic and basic sciences. As well they should... If a person holds to faulty beliefs such as ID in the face of, you know, actual evidence, then their abilities to think logically and scientifically should be legitimately questioned. Put it this way, would you trust an auto-mechanic who doesn't know that cars need gasoline to run? Or trust a doctor who doesn't understand that the heart actually powers the circulation system? Like I said, ID is typically based on junk science. If a professor accepts such junk science (despite the flaws being evident, often to people with even just a basic science education), then they DESERVE to be black listed. But I don't just 'believe' the sky is blue. Such things can be examined, the spectral characteristics of the sky can be tested, and theories can be developed about why its colour is blue. Similarly, I just don't "believe" that evolution occured... we can examine the fossil record, study the genetic characteristics, etc. The fact that you don't recognize the significance of labelling something as a "belief" is another failure on your part. No, you couldn't. You could offer junk science, likely stuff that's been debunked multiple times in the past by people dealing with the same sort of "evidence". Just out of curioisity, you claim that you are "not a scientist". Your posts also illustrate a startling lack of knowledge in science. So, just where exactly are you getting these "reams of evidence from"? If you're getting them from some pro-creationist/ID site, then how exactly can you tell its valid evidence without some sort of reasonable logical and scientific background? How do you know you're not just being fed a load of bunk? (At least I can point to multiple university-level courses, as well as substantial post-educational study as a basis for understanding what evidence is valid and what is not.)

I'd be rather skeptical about using such 'figures'. First of all, how do you define 'using the CBC'? I never watch CBC programs (there's nothing o them I find interesting). I never listen to CBC radio (again, nothing I find interesting). Yet I have posted links to various articles on the CBC website. Does that make me a 'CBC user'? After all, most of those times I refer to the CBC articles just because it might have been the first one to come up in a google search (and in many cases articles from the CTV, Globe and Mail, or Canoe would have provided the same content.) Secondly, keep in mind that there is some content that is exclusive to CBC, but does not need to be. I'm sure CTV would be quite happy broadcasting the NHL playoffs, but don't because CBC has the broadcast rights. However, in this case there's nothing the CBC does that actually adds any value to the viewing experience itself... The nice thing about via is if one of their trains flips over, their logo still says 'via'. First question... why do they have to provide 'commercial free' radio? Do you think Canada will be seriously harmed if listeners hear fast food ads in the middle of their CBC Jazz music review? Secondly, as others have asked, why do I, as a non-CBC listener/viewer, have to subsidize the entertainment habits of others? I've seen you make the same argument before (you've even posted references to opinion polls about it.) Here are the problems with that argument: - Even if the 'vast majority' of people think that the CBC should be maintained, that does NOT mean it is the correct decision. Remember, at one point the majority of people were against gay marriage. - Ever here of the phrase "tyranny of the masses"? Even if the 'majority' of people hold some belief, it is usually not considered a 'good thing' for those masses to impose their will on those who disagree. If the 'Masses' of people want to support the CBC, let THEM pay for it; don't let the majority take away the rights of the minority, in this case by forcing them to fund something that they disagree with. (And before you jump in and point to other things that the government spends money on that you might disagree with, I want to preemptively say that yes indeed the government wastes money, and I'm sure there are plenty of other things that can be cut as well.) - Most importantly, I wonder just how such "support" questions were asked. Its real easy for people to say "yes" when they are just asked "do you support the CBC"? However, if exact terms were layed out, people's opinions would change. I wonder how many people would have said "yes" if the exact question was "Given the fact that the CBC takes between $25-30 out of your pocket anually, do you favour continued funding?"

That sounds good until you consider it. The scientific community does believe that ID is quackery. Careful there... This is a question of semantics. The word 'belief' implies acceptance of something without proof... christians believe in an invisible sky daddy not because of the evidence, but because of what they "feel". Creationists/ID believe that some unknown entity interfered with the process of evolution not because of the evidence, but because of their feelings toward g*d. The sciencific community doesn't believe ID is quackery, they accept that it is quackery because that's where the evidence leads them. Similaryly, they accept that evolution is the correct explaination for all life on earth because that's where the evidence leads them. (Note that if you go back and look at my posts in particular, I'm very careful not to apply the term 'belief' with respect to evolution.) I could also point out that the 'scientific community' is not some monolithic entity passing judgement on various hypothesis and theories. Its composed of thousands of scientists, many with opposing viewpoints, who can and do often have disagreements until some sort of final understanding is reached by the majority.

Yeah, maybe you should check the post above yours, and like, read it. Gosthacked supports it. So now you better assassinate his character too, he might not be a scientist. First of all, I had started to compose my message before Gosthack had posted his message, so I didn't notice it at the time. However, if Ghosthack actually believes that Aliens 'seeded' the earth with life, then yes, he does believe in a 'crackpot' idea. However, in his defence: - He recognizes that his data is unsupported by current evidence (unlike your average creationist/ID believer who tries to find 'proof' by using junk science) - He is not currently 'pushing' his idea. He has his belief, but he's not trying to get others to accept it, nor is he claiming some vast conspiricy to squash the 'truth', or demanding his ideas get taught in school (unlike creationists/ID believers who have started multiple threads on the subject pushing their beliefs, or who have tried to take over various school boards in order to influence school cirriculum) As I have stated before, there is not one article appearing in any respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal which pushes the 'aliens have visited earth' ideas. The fact that there are no such articles is pretty suggestive that the vast majority of the scientific community rejects the idea of alien visitation.

Well, how about the fact that the "alien theory" has never been published in any sort of proper peer-reviewed scientific journal is a pretty good indication that the scientific community does not accept the idea of aliens creating life on earth. Yet we know the earth is billions of years old; we have radiometric dating as evidence for this. And we know that crystals can and do provide regulated environments. Compare that to the amount of evidence supporting ID, which is... absolutely nothing. (Your 'alien' statement is nothing more than a Non sequitur, since none of the evolution supporters here believe in it.) Well duh.... The problem is not that you are not a scientist. (Heck, although I've studied biology, I haven't done any real 'science research' in years). The problem is that you are not a science, yet claim to pass judgement on work done by actual scientists, while at the same time producing statements with significant factual flaws. If you want to be considered seriously, there's no need for you to actually become a scientist. What you DO need to do is actually learn some of the fundamentals, so that you can hopefully recognize when and how your own arguments are flawed (and if by some miracle you actually continue to believe bunk like ID, you at least will be able to do so without illustrating your ignornance with every post.) Yet through the Miller-Urey experiment, we know that amino acids can form in conditions that would likely have existed on a young earth. So how is that "pretty wild"? And we know that amino acids go together to make protiens. How is that "pretty wild"? And we know that some protiens can self-replicate. So how is that "pretty wild"? Ah yes, that old myth... that somehow there is some vast conspiricy that is silencing oppostion to evolution, without considering the fact that, given the fact that the majority of the civilian population (unfortunately) has doubts about evolution, such a 'conspiricy' would likely not last long.

The fact that someone may have had success at one point in their career does not mean that they are immune from being a 'crackpot' at some other point in their life. It happens. (Heck, I could also point out that John Nash, subject of the biography "A beautiful mind", also made anti-semetic remarks. And Apollo 14 astronaut Mitchell has claimed there is an alien conspiricy coverup.) Go back and read my description. You do NOT need to have a full complement of protiens/nucleic acids to begin with at the start. Self-replicating protiens can and do exist, and a single protien capable of replicating itself could be considered the 'start' of life. Additional arrangements (i.e. the remaining protiens) would not have been necessary at the beginning. We already know of cases where 'genetic' information is carried by single protiens... prions (such as those that cause mad cow). Ah, this is known as 'proof by (ignorant) assertion'. When you don't actually have any actual evidence/proof supporting the creatiionism/ID side, just jump in and label all the hypotheses regarding abiogeneis as "unlikely", even though they have, you know, evidence supporting them. Oh, and by the way, lets point out your mistakes, OK? - You said that 'single molecules became amino acids'...wrong... amino acids ARE single molecules - I never claimed amino acids evolved into protiens... protiens are COMPOSED of strings of amino acids You can't even get such basic science correct, and yet you are trying to suggest your explainations have some sort of scientific merit? The fact that you consider such hypothesis as 'unrealistic' is more an illustration of your ignorance than the quality of the hypothesis themselves.

Actually, protiens are composed of amino acids, and can form randomly. We've also obverved protiens which are capable of self-replicating. (See: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html) So, what might have happened: - Lightning in the early atmosphere creates amino acids (observed in the lab) - Amino acids combine to form random protien segments - Some protien segments are capable of self replicating (observed in the lab) - imperfect replication would have allowed those protien segments to 'evolve' - The most successful protien segments would have evolved faster, taking on more and more charactistics of early 'life' (including organizing a containing membrane, etc.) Is that the way things happened? Nobody will ever know. But since most stuff here has been observed in nature and/or the lab, its a bit more plausible than a big sky daddy starting things out.

Yet you fail to define just how far 'natural' evolution can go, and where abouts you are forced to insert the phrase 'goddidit'. How about because the issue of Abiogenesis (the actual origin of life) is not strictly part of the theory of evolution. Neither is the big bang. (Granted, most scientists who accept the theory of evolution are likely going to accept natural explainations for those other items.) How about because any explainations about how life might have formed are currently on the cutting edge of science, and as such probably outside the comprehension of most people not working in the field? How about because I recongized the 'theories' you presented as nothing more than ignorant bunk not really worthy of comment? No need... I recognized your 'arguments' as the bunk they were. However, since you seem to be so interested in answers, let me address them from your previous post: The fact that you label any sort of interactions with crystals as 'hocus pocus' illustrates ignorance on your part. Crystals have a regular formal structure, and as such could have served as a template for early organic molecules to organize on. No 'hocus pocus' needed. More ignorance on your part. There is no serious belief in the scientific community that "aliens seeded the earth with life". Such ideas are in the realm of crackpots and sciencie fiction writers. There are hypothesis that early life and/or some key components have extra-terrestrial origins, however, no 'aliens' are needed. Material could have been deposited through comments/asteroids. Horrible over-simplification. I assume you're referring to the Urey-Miller experiments. First of all, it wasn't mud that was used, it was a mixture of methane, water, and other chemicals that are common in the universe and which might have been common in our early atmosphere. Secondly, it wasn't really the point to get 'life to start'... instead, he managed to get ammino acids (the building blocks to protien) to form. This is a step by step process... in order to test various hypothesis on the origin of life, we have to check whether minor steps are plausible (rather than assuming 'goddidit'.) Frankly, your arguments are irrelevant. As I said before, abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution. Plus, even if we can't exactly prove any particular mechanism was the actual start of life, even coming up with one feasible mechnanism shows that there is no need for an invisible sky-daddy to get things going.

You're right in that there are many 'articulate' types on the ID side. But that's all they are... articulate. You see, the vast majority of real scientists accept evolution. However, their acceptance is based on science, and sadly, Science is often hard (especially much of the cutting edge stuff) and, to many people, boring. However, we live in a world where real decisions involving science often have to be made by non-scientists. Unfortunately, far too many people, when presented by arguments made by an articulate a creationist/ID believer (who spreads just enough buzz-words around to make their faulty arguments sound legitimate to the uninformed), and arguments made by a scientist (who has the duty to ensure the data he presents is accurate, which can make for a very boring presentation), many people will side with the creationist. That's why when we find a scientist/educator who is actually good at explaining evolution/debunking creationism, their contributions (or, in this case links to a video presentation) are so valuable. Actually, there are no 'different theories' on the process of evolution itself... we now understand that greater reproductive success by individuals better suited to the environment can lead to modifications and, eventually, new species, and that this has taken place over billions of years. There may be arguments about some of the minor details (e.g. are species X and Y related, how quickly can speciation occur, etc.) but pretty much everyone is in agreement over the broad details. Compare that with the god-believers, where there is a complete disparity between old earth creationists, young earth creationists, and ID believers. They can't even agree on the broad strokes, much less the fine details.

My point is that that government should have no more right than the citizen. In fact to my mind that concept is very likely the root cause of a great many flaws within our society. Congratulations... you just repeated yourself without addressing any of the points I brought up. Hurrah! Once again... We already have cases where the government is assigned certain rights than an individual does not have. I gave the example where an individual who holds someone against their will is guilty of kidnapping, but a government can hold a convicted person in jail against their will without it being considered 'wrong'. So we already have cases where the government can do something private citizens cannot. Applying the death penalty is not a difference in concept, just a difference in degrees. If you want to argue that 'life' is such an important right that it can never be taken away, that's fine... its a valid opinion (although not one that everyone will share). But that is not the same argument that you made before (that a government cannot do things a private citizen cannot.)

You can let someone out of jail if they're guilty. You can't unkill them. Ummm.... Go back and look at my post. When I referred to the 'fault' with the previous poster's logic, I was referring specifically to his argument: if its wrong for an individual to do something, it should be wrong for the government. I made it very very clear that that was the issue I was addressing. At no point did I suggest the previous poster was wrong because all convicted people are actually guilty; in fact, I even pointed out that that the risk of wrongful conviction was a valid reason to oppose the death penalty. Your statement above is pretty useless in that it A: brings up a point that has already been discussed, and B: doesn't actually address the content of my post.

The fact that you do not consider what has been presented as 'sensible rebuttals' is more a symptom of your lack of understanding of basic science. Just out of curiosity, how many university-level science courses HAVE you taken? How many actual real scientists doing actual scientific research? Rather ironic that you would accuse people like me of doing so, considering YOU are the one that keeps falsely and repeatedly suggesting people like Dawkings might be pro-intelligent design/pro-god, even after your error has been pointed out to you. Actually, they're quite relevant. The fact that you're unable to address them doesn't make them irrelevant, it just highlights the flaws in your belief system. Many of those 'self-acclaimed authorities' who accept evolution are Nobel Prize winners. Others have had articles accepted into peer reviewed journals. So much for 'self-acclaimed'. Again ironic that you would accuse us of deliberately taking my statement out of context, considering the quote-mining you've been doing (espeically regarding Darwin and the Origin of Species). Doesn't matter how "rational" a philosopher is; if his understanding of basic science is faulty, then any conclusion that they may derive from his arguments are also going to be faulty. If the greatest philosopher in the world wrote an essay talking about the effects of us having a pink-coloured sky, that essay would be worhless because we do not actually have a pink sky, we have a blue one. Ummm... "other sciences" do not have to be ommitted. And hey, if I want to find the answer to some engineering or math problem, I will have no problem asking an engineer or mathematician. The issue is when those other scientists attempt to make statements that involve evolution. Being an expert in one area of science does not make someone an expert in all areas of science, regardless of how accomplished they are. The greatest mathematician in the world may be no more qualified to comment on evolution than my mechanic. Stop right there... There is no such thing as an 'Atheistic religion'. Religion, pretty much by definition, involves a belief in the supernatural (i.e. god or gods). If you are Atheist, you do not have such a belief in the supernatural, so it fails the definition of a religion, regardless of how charismatic the athiest is or how many followers he has. So why exactly should we care about the opinions of some idiot who can't even understand the simple definitions of religion or athiest?

There is a fault with your logic. Currently, we consider it illegal (i.e. "not right") for somene to kidnap another and hold them against their will. Yet if such a person were found guilty of that crime, they would be imprisoned (i.e. held by the government against their will.). Its also considered illegal (i.e. "not right") to steal from someone, yet many cases of petty theft/shoplifting can result in fines (i.e. government taking something from a guilty person.) In both those cases, I suspect most citizens would consider such punishments "fair", even though the punishment is similar to the crimes themselves. This doesn't necessarily mean that the death penalty is automatically 'good'... its still reasonable to oppose it on other grounds (such as the possibility of wrongful conviction). But claiming the government shouldn't use a punishment because an individual engaging in such an action would be illegal is wrong. The difference is, the government engages in certain processes to make sure that when a person is fined, imprisoned (or executed), the chance of a wrongful conviction is minimized and the punishment benefits society as a whole. When a individual engages in theft, kidnapping, or murder, they A: may be doing so for self-serving purposes, and B: there is no due process to prevent wrongful convictions

Why am I reminded of the Brave Sir Robin sequence from the Holy Grail. I mean, just who do you think you're fooling? Don't you mean the Black Knight scene? Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch! King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off! Black Knight: No, it isn't! King Arthur: Well, what's that then? King Arthur: I've had worse. Actually, with the way Betsy likes to quote people she doesn't understand, I'm reminded of one of the scenes from A Fish called Wanda: Otto West: Don't call me stupid. Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape? Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Well, the sad fact is that if he donesn't "go after others", he might loose all chance to govern. Politics is messy. Nice guys can and do finish last. For that, see "Stanfield, Robert". As others have pointed out, the Tories willingness to get dirty is certainly not that different from actions taken in the past by Liberal governments.

True... If you look at the schedule for YTV, they do have cartoons like Spongebob Squarepants during the day, but tonight they have: - Malcom in the Middle - Futurama (a cartoon, but one that is not necessarily geared towards kids) - Fresh Prince of Bel-air Each one of those shows would have at least some interest to those outside the 'children' demographic. (Given the fact that the channel runs 24/7, and not too many kids are up past midnight, you'd expect them to have at least some material that appeals to non-children)

I'm a firm proponent of evolution. I use TalkOrigin as a reference, but that is not the sole source of my knowledge. I've obtained my understanding of evolution through: - first year Zoology, Microbiology and chemistry, Second year genetics and physics, and 3rd year astronomy at university (key courses that helped my understanding of both the universe and evolution). Because its not realistic to expect you to take those courses, a reference to TalkOrigins sometimes has to serve as a substitute - conferences I've attended where I've talked to some of the scientists who are acutally involved in either evolution, astronomy, or education - Years of reading various biology text books (including several on human evolution), so many that I can't always remember the title You see, I (and I assume others here) accept evolution and reject things like creationism and intelligent design because we have a grasp of basic science. For better or worse, its easier to tell you to go to a talk-origins page to read something rather than tell you "go take several university courses, attend these conferences". There are some other key differences between referring to Talk Origins and your basic creationist web site: - Talk Origins often (although not always) provides references to actual peer-reviewed scientific literature. Even if not all pages do, the fact that there are some should lend some credibility. (And a lot of the pages on their site that don't have references are dealing with topics that are so basic to biology that its not really "cutting edge" enough to have peer-reviewed articles.) - Many of the 'creationists' claims run contrary to basic science knowledge that I've built up over years and years. Not so for the material on talk origins - TalkOrigins successfully debunks claims made be creationists, by pointing out instances of things like quote mining, faulty science, etc. However, when your average creationist has their arguments debunked, rather than providing counter scientific evidence, they run on to yet some other topic; the creationist realizes their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny so they use the shotgun approach of putting out MANY flawed arguments, hoping that people will think the quantity means something and forgetting that all their arguments get debunked.

First of all, keep in mind that this was an 'open letter'... it was not properly peer-reviewed, nor did it appear in a proper science journal. Second, who exactly are the authors? (Waldmann-Selsam, Aschermann and Kern.) From the looks of the article, these are physicians. While becoming a doctor may require intelligence, being a doctor is not the same as being a scientist, where strong use of control groups, statistics, etc. is critical. Furthermore, I did a quick search on these people; about the only things I could find that they published were similar warnings about electromagnetic radiation (from cell phones). If these are accomplished scientists, I have yet to see any evidence for it. (I know that a lack of scienctific history doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong, but if their claims are true, why haven't they published them in a peer-reviewed journal? Thirdly, this article appeared on the globalreasearch web site, the same web site that's hosting such nonsense as 9/11 conspiricy articles. Lastly, as someone else has pointed out, they've actually been broadcasting digital TV in the US for years. The original February deadline (now delayed to June) was not the date when stations were supposed to START broadcasting in digital (many stations had been simultaneiously broadcasting in digital and analog). It was the date when all stations were supposed to stop broadcasting in analog and use digital exclusively. If there had been any problem with digital tv, we would have seen the effects already.

First of all, while it is possible for MPs to change party affiliations post-election, in reality it is not a very common event. For example, between the 2004 and 2006 elections, 5 MPs either crossed the floor, yet there were over 300 MPs in the house of commons. So roughly 98% of all MPs stuck with the party that elected them. Secondly, your rule would be assuming that indivuduals making the selection would be educated enough to know what a particular candidate believed in, but not educated enough to know what party they belong to. (In other words, how many voters on election day would say "I don't know if Candidate X is a liberal or conservative, but I like what he said on issue Y".) Usually, the party is the FIRST thing that a voter learns about a candidate, not the last. (I doubt if anyone who voted for, for example, Belinda didn't know at the time she was running as a conservative candidate in 2004, so even though she eventually switched parties it probably wouldn't have effected the initial election results.

The scary thing is that, even though you haven't learned a thing about science, his seminars are probably filled with people without a clue who actually believe the junk he's spewing. In the beginning, there was nothing. Then god said Let there be Light. And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it better.

Before you run around quoting Melanie Phillips, as some sort of authority in this area, keep in mind that on her website she admits: I am an agnostic if traditionally-minded Jew; not a scientist..., http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...quisition.thtml (Later in that particular article she goes on to talk about 'intelligent design', but since she herself admits she is not a scientist, what exactly makes her qualified to discuss matters of science? To give further evidence that her opinions are not to be trusted, Melanie Phillips is also an anti-vaccination idiot. (And yes, its true for someone to be wrong in one area and right in another; however, such a flagrant disregard for science in this case indicates a problem with critical thinking skills.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips Frankly, listening to her opinions on anything 'scientific' is like listening to Osama bin Laden for a description of the Swine Flu... in other words, she seems to lack critical thinking skills.