Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, it is a circular argument, begging the question, and non-falsifiable, so....not quite anything close to science.The ID theory doesNo, I'm telling you the Big bang theory - which is as provable as science can get and falsifiable - is a valid theory.
what competing theory has even 1% of the evidence that exists for the Big Bang?. But I bet you were wanting a scientific theory.
The argument supporting irreducible complexity is quite scientific.
Very.
Then by applying your own theory of ID, God had to have been designed.
I'm not sure. It is worthy of discussion, of course.
And, in science, NOTHING is proved...only supported.
Such as Irreducible complexity, for example.
Then by applying your own theory of ID, God had to have been designed.
I'm not sure. It is worthy of discussion, of course.
It actually disproves the 'theory' of ID, because, if every complex being from amoeba, to man, to God, had to have been designed,
then you run into the problem of there not being able, theoretically, to have ever been a FIRST complex being.
The subject was called Greek Mythology was it not? Was it taught in a science class? Do you really believe that the creation myth should be taught in a science class?
And the THEORY of evolution is taught in science class. Is it proven science??? Does it belong in a science classroom??
All your statement does is prove you need to go back to school and learn what a scientific theory is and how it differs from faith.
And, in science, NOTHING is proved...only supported.
Such as Irreducible complexity, for example.
Irreducible complexity of what?
Liberals object to any ideas or concepts that are not preapproved liberal ideas and concepts.
Tell you what. You prove that creation happened like the Bible says it did.
Good, I'm pushing for the theory of the floating apple to be taught next to the theory of gravity.
The ID theory doesNo, I'm telling you the Big bang theory - which is as provable as science can get and falsifiable - is a valid theory.
what competing theory has even 1% of the evidence that exists for the Big Bang?
The argument supporting irreducible complexity is quite scientific.
You've stated as a certainty that everything complex has to have been designed,
Such as Irreducible complexity, for example.
Irreducible complexity of what?
The cell, DNA... worthy of debate. What are you afraid of?
The ID theory does
The argument supporting irreducible complexity is quite scientific.
How does the introduction of antibiotics into a bacterial environment, over time, result in a resistant strain of bacteria?
Does the Creator reach down and 'design' new bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic?
Few want the discussion of it blocked.Good, I'm pushing for the theory of the floating apple to be taught next to the theory of gravity.
Over 90% of humans believe in the notion that there is some sort of an intelligence associated with the design of the universe. A tiny minority seek to block any academic discussion of such widely held belief in the classroom.
Your floating apple theory, not so much.
Irreducible complexity of what?
The cell, DNA... worthy of debate. What are you afraid of?
Wasting time on fruitless pursuits.
I'm not sure. It is worthy of discussion, of course.
It actually disproves the 'theory' of ID, because, if every complex being from amoeba, to man, to God, had to have been designed,
then you run into the problem of there not being able, theoretically, to have ever been a FIRST complex being.
Not at all. You make the flawed assumption that the incarnation of an Intelligence which at some point existed OUTSIDE of the known universe can be - must be - measurable by your known standards.
That is absurd on it's face.
God probably puts your methodology right up there with attempts to draw out evil spirits with leeches.
You've stated as a certainty that everything complex has to have been designed,
No, I didn't. Are you retarded?
Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.
Few want the discussion of it blocked.Good, I'm pushing for the theory of the floating apple to be taught next to the theory of gravity.
Over 90% of humans believe in the notion that there is some sort of an intelligence associated with the design of the universe. A tiny minority seek to block any academic discussion of such widely held belief in the classroom.
Your floating apple theory, not so much.
Most want it discussed in the correct subject.
Good, I'm pushing for the theory of the floating apple to be taught next to the theory of gravity.
Over 90% of humans believe in the notion that there is some sort of an intelligence associated with the design of the universe. A tiny minority seek to block any academic discussion of such widely held belief in the classroom.
Your floating apple theory, not so much.
You've stated as a certainty that everything complex has to have been designed,
No, I didn't. Are you retarded?Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, by definition, is proof something MUST have had an Intelligent Design. Else, it would not be irreducibly complex.
I'm not so sure you understand what you write.
