Sorry I shouldn't just post a sarcastic reply... here's a more polite reply;
"Science is not about the scientist, whether they are infallible, reputable or anything else. "
Sorry I cannot agree with this - whether you like it or not and no matter how you define your holy grail of "scientific method" you're gonna have very fallible humans like us running the show who are prone to bias etc.
"Science is based on rational arguments" - so who is going to make these rational arguments and who's going to judge them as rational? The first sign of irrationality is to think oneself rational! (sorry that statement is irrational too)
"All of the science behind the IPCCs findings are there for you to read. So is volumes of litrature on evolution." Not sure of your point here - I am aware of a lot of work that has been done on evolution in the scientific community of course - why else would I write a post about how science supports it?
"You could contribute greatly to the worlds knowledge by finding errors or extra information that refutes either." I disagree mostly - people will generally believe what they want to believe and they'll find plenty of evidence to support it. I think its better to argue about the foundations of your belief system - which is why I'm posting this.
Until then expressing baseless opinions ultimately sourced from irrational religious belief systems will not win you any arguments or respect on matters of science.
Here you have told me as a matter of fact that my opinions are baseless and derived from irrational belief systems and you have assumed that I want to win an argument or that I am at all interested in gaining respect on matters of science.
In reality you have surely just confirmed my original post with your naked biases and assumptions?
