This contains a pretty simple message. What is your counter argument?
For the record I do believe we should continue to reduce carbon emissions. However:
I think he is conflating experimental science with speculative science. I agree with him that the scientific method is powerful however what test confirmed that humans and carbon emissions are warming the globe? How has the signal (man made warming) been separated from the noise (the natural temperature cycle).
The papers I have read are much more conservative on the real knowledge of science on climate change then public appeals like Neil’s.
Why is this news? Of course any pastors in a YEC movie aren’t going to understand evolution. Why would we think anything different?
This is news because this is the country we live in now. Where everyone has his own set of facts and alternative facts.
Again, what is your counter argument to the claims in the movie aside from Darwin being racist.
Other than it was complete nonsense? YEC trash.
I guess you don’t have a counter argument. No problem.
That is my counter argument. Complete YEC BS.
They did not make any YEC claims. Did you listen to the video?
I was. I didn’t tell him to f… o… 
Only half of it as I try to refrain from YEC Christian porn. 
And I didn’t tell you to f…o…so maybe we moving to common ground 
Maybe there a change I can get you to the neutral zone of science.
I thought the claim that Darwin was a racist was offensive but other then that they attacked the Occums razor claim of Heckel and the science guy and then made a Paley’s watch argument… Pretty benign.
@Patrick give credit where credit is due. @colewd just kicked back at an unfair argument from something closer to his camp than yours.
I am a huge fan of experimental science. I did research for almost a year recently. I also used the scientific method in my professional life and found it extremely useful.
Yes agree that the Darwin was a racist is an old YEC favorite but that doesn’t bother me much. I am more offended by equating state mandated atheism with individual free thought atheism. Finally I think the common ground should be neutral science which is neither theistic nor atheistic. Can’t we discuss science agreeing that it is neutral on whether God exists or not?