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.
Perhaps. You fear that, then?
You're projecting
Not at all. Is a theory either more or less valid based on the motivation of those promoting it?
You suck at this.
Correction in bold.It was a question, not a deduction.Poor deduction. You aren't very good at science, are you?
The punctuation should have given you your first clue.
Again, is your god reducible?
It was a declarative which begs the question.
Up your game.
The vast, vast majority of Americans?That is your opinion. Not shared by the vast, vast majority of Americans.
Yes, moron. About 90% of people believe we are more than just curiously animated carbon particles, pointlessly glued together until our inevitable return to entropy.
. . . 
And, I can affirm that. I was there too...dialed in, but just listened.Perhaps. You fear that, then?
You're projecting, you don't have to be scared. Evolution doesn't say god doesn't exist. If your god exists you're not scoring brownie points with him right now by denying the way he made the world.
Trust me, I asked him in our teleconference this morning.
.
Correction in bold.It was a question, not a deduction.
The punctuation should have given you your first clue.
Again, is your god reducible?
It was a declarative which begs the question.
Up your game.
You're projecting
Not at all. Is a theory either more or less valid based on the motivation of those promoting it?
You suck at this.
Motivation isn't important in scientific theories
Honestly, when I get more rep, I promise to neg your consistent dishonesty.Correction in bold.It was a declarative which begs the question.
Up your game.
Why am I always correcting your flawed premise?
Not at all. Is a theory either more or less valid based on the motivation of those promoting it?
You suck at this.
Motivation isn't important in scientific theories
Thank you. We agree.
Correction in bold.
Why am I always correcting your flawed premise?
Hack.
Motivation isn't important in scientific theories
Thank you. We agree.
You're welcome.
I'm not at all concerned about my rep points.Why am I always correcting your flawed premise?
Hack.
Are you really concerned about your 'reputation' points? LOL
The junior varsity played earlier, dude. Come earlier next time.
Yes, evolution is proven science. The theory of gravity is proven science.And the THEORY of evolution is taught in science class. Is it proven science??? Does it belong in a science classroom??
What makes them both theories is that the explanations for the exact scientific mechanisms that lead to both gravity and evolution are not fully understood. We're still trying, for example, to prove the existence of graviton.
But the lack of proof of a Graviton doesn't mean that things don't fall when you drop them.
I wonder when Churches are going to allow this sort of debate?
Thank you. We agree.
You're welcome.
It is great when we can all get along.
Debate is a good thing. History tells us we should be very wary of those who try to stiffle ideas.
Yes, evolution is proven science. The theory of gravity is proven science.
What makes them both theories is that the explanations for the exact scientific mechanisms that lead to both gravity and evolution are not fully understood. We're still trying, for example, to prove the existence of graviton.
But the lack of proof of a Graviton doesn't mean that things don't fall when you drop them.
I wonder when Churches are going to allow this sort of debate?
I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.
Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.
Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.
Again, why are you so afraid?
That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?
It was a question, not a deduction.Poor deduction. You aren't very good at science, are you?
It was a declarative which begs the question.
Up your game.
Perhaps. You fear that, then?
You're projecting
Not at all. Is a theory either more or less valid based on the motivation of those promoting it?
You suck at this.
What is 'reducible' in God?
You are rambling.
Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.
Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.
Again, why are you so afraid?
Because the schools have enough problems without teaching something in science class that isn't science.
Intelligent Design is the ultimate science.
