This guy:

This is from the OD group. I just want to share it because it makes me smile.

einstein99 wrote: " Fish are amphibians, not animals."

Well, at least he spelled everything correctly. 

??

This is his follow up, "Evilution is Satan inspired, not Marxist!"  

In the US, knowledge about basic biology is woefully lacking.  Not knowing what an animal is unfortunately is very common, as is confusion between viruses and bacteria.  Many people don't know the difference between reptiles and amphibians (and apparently don't know the difference between amphibians and fish, as evidenced by Einstein99's comment).

I recall a story told by a friend of mine who grew up in India and went to graduate school in Texas.  During his first week there, he went to a restaurant and asked the waiter if they had any non-meat dishes.  The waiter responded that they had some good chicken dishes.  My friend was shocked by the response and said, "Dude, I'm a vegetarian.  I can't eat meat."  The waiter then argued that chicken was "not meat."  My friend then tried to explain that he couldn't eat anything that was once an animal.  The waiter then suggested a fish dish!  My friend gave up trying to explain and just ordered a salad.

Then, of course, there are those who insist that humans are not animals.

There are also many people who mistakenly believe that human males have fewer ribs than females, apparently taking biology lessons from Biblical stories.  Once someone was very adamant about this "fact" and refused to believe me even when I showed this person an anatomy textbook that clearly stated that there was no difference in the number of ribs in males and females.  Given the general lack of understanding of basic science in the population, I am not at all surprised by the percentage of climate change deniers (most of whom have never read any scientific articles about climate change in their lives).

"I am not at all surprised by the percentage of climate change deniers (most of whom have never read any scientific articles about climate change in their lives)."

I don't know, I once took a whole class on climate change and it seems like a lot of times you have to look at data and make interpretations that just sort of seem reasonable yet hard to ascertain (more so the anthropogenic part of it than climate change itself). The evidence does seem to point to climate change but even science can have trouble being clear cut sometimes -- it can simply be difficult to know certain kinds of things about the world sometimes. Still, given how many scientists believe in it, it would be hard for them all to make the same mistake and actually be wrong.

                        Is that my cue gg ??  Einstein use to be smarter when he was younger. He's a little elderly, and not in good health. He's a good Joe.

fish is not animal??? 

Anyway, I think it's ok to be sceptical of things in general -- it ensures your mind is actively thinking about the issue. Just don't take it too far and become too stubborn.

It's like in chess: I might question a master's reasoning not because I don't think he'll have a good answer to it but because I get something out of hearing that answer, that makes me correct a flaw in my thinking.

Then what are Bigfoots?

It's probably just Americans/American society in general -- if kids don't want to learn, well, they won't.

BigFoot is American taught!

It is a well known fact that creationism is an atheist plot to make sure the fundamentalist can't get jobs in biotech. =)

Say what?

                Winerkleiner;  If I told you once, I told you a thousand times. Bigfoot is not an animal. Its just a guy with big feet. I had an aunt who had a big nose, and that's what we called her. HEY BIG NOSE!

Even when I see info about it, I still think, they could be overlooking some other way the data was the way it was besides their interpretation. Just as an example, maybe the higher sea level recently is part of a new chapter in Earth's cycle, as Earth does have those cycles, with sea levels at one time way higher than they are now. Perhaps that objection doesn't hold, but I'm just saying there are always these little things to think about.

@Elubas: It is possible that 97% of scientist are wrong. However that is not a very smart way to bet when you build a bridge, design a GPS system, or change the chemical make up of your planet's atmosphere.

RonaldJosephCote, I met Bigfoot (in a dream) and he say he is real and living under trailers in all those trailer parks.  Now I can't believe him and you at the same time...check you local park!

The consensus is the strongest motivation to believe in it. Yet I don't know much about what their motives are, the kinds of people who get these jobs, and yes, their logical skills, because that is how you draw the best conclusions from complex data. But, yes, 97% is quite a lot.