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.
Let's expose your bias.
Since there is no scientific explanation as to the origins of life you can't rule out design. By rejecting the possibility of design it's no longer science it is a philisophical view.
Science can't prove naturalistic processes produced all we see they can't rule out the designer. They can cling to their view but a creationist and a propopnent for ID has the same right.
There are no scientific explanation for ID or creation theory....as such, it must be discounted as a valid scientific theory
You can only say that because of the interpretations of an anti God and completely secular courts.
It seems some of the more excitable creationist should spend some time and get acquainted with what the term "theory" actually means as it applies in the science world.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Otherwise, I suppose we can dismiss gravity, Einstein's silly notions of "relativity", etc. because they are merely theories.
Yes please learn what a scientific theory really is.
What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience
The LiveScience article is consistent with what I provided you.
Did you notice that the article you linked to made mention of natural processes and experimentation? You inadvertently refuted your own claims to supermagical agents.
I suppose I should say thanks for your assistance in dismantling your own argument.
So, thanks.
YWC: "Genetically speaking we are to far apart to be related to any non Homo Sapien. This is one of the many holes in the theory".
can you explain why there are no Homo Sapien fossilized remains equivalent to the earliest life on Earth - ~3.4 Billion years old ?
when the oldest remains for Homo Sapien actually date back less than 200K years -
You're asking the wrong person. I do not trust dating methods.
Of course you don't. An old earth conflicts with the genesis fable. So does much of science which explains your loathing of science, knowledge and results in your floating of goofy conspiracy theories.
If "they" admitted to the christian and hebrew gawds (don't slight the islamic gawd ), as the "intelligent agent", wouldn't that qualify as introducing religion into the creationist agenda.You're again (still), befuddled.The reason why so many confuse ID with creationism is the trial in Dover PA. That is the result of activist and secular courts not understanding science.
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
What Dover accomplished was a thorough dismantling of creationist appeals to Christian fundamentalism. The inability by the Christian creationist cabal to make a coherent argument was another embarrassing drubbing suffered by crestionist, ie: re-branded Christian fundies.
Your own fundamentalist leanings prevents you from objectively assessing the humiliating defeat suffered by the religionists. They attempted to force their Christian fundie dogma into the public schools and were given the Bum's Rush.
You are just exaggerating the facts as usual you embicile. The court decided for the plantiffs because of some of the tenets of ID they concluded had ties to religious views which violated separation of church and state. They admitted that the intelligent agent for design was the Christian and Hebrew God.
Once again you resort to being dishonest.
You're asking the wrong person. I do not trust dating methods.
Of course you don't. An old earth conflicts with the genesis fable. So does much of science which explains your loathing of science, knowledge and results in your floating of goofy conspiracy theories.
No man has any idea how long life and this planet has existed.
You're again (still), befuddled.
What Dover accomplished was a thorough dismantling of creationist appeals to Christian fundamentalism. The inability by the Christian creationist cabal to make a coherent argument was another embarrassing drubbing suffered by crestionist, ie: re-branded Christian fundies.
Your own fundamentalist leanings prevents you from objectively assessing the humiliating defeat suffered by the religionists. They attempted to force their Christian fundie dogma into the public schools and were given the Bum's Rush.
You are just exaggerating the facts as usual you embicile. The court decided for the plantiffs because of some of the tenets of ID they concluded had ties to religious views which violated separation of church and state. They admitted that the intelligent agent for design was the Christian and Hebrew God.
Once again you resort to being dishonest.
You're angry and lashing out. That won't change the facts of the Dover case, however.
Here's an extensive detailing of the case.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court
From the article, here's something interesting
[This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]
You need to revise your global conspiracy theories to include those atheistic, evilutionist judges.
If "they" admitted to the christian and hebrew gawds (don't slight the islamic gawd ), as the "intelligent agent", wouldn't that qualify as introducing religion into the creationist agenda.You're again (still), befuddled.
What Dover accomplished was a thorough dismantling of creationist appeals to Christian fundamentalism. The inability by the Christian creationist cabal to make a coherent argument was another embarrassing drubbing suffered by crestionist, ie: re-branded Christian fundies.
Your own fundamentalist leanings prevents you from objectively assessing the humiliating defeat suffered by the religionists. They attempted to force their Christian fundie dogma into the public schools and were given the Bum's Rush.
You are just exaggerating the facts as usual you embicile. The court decided for the plantiffs because of some of the tenets of ID they concluded had ties to religious views which violated separation of church and state. They admitted that the intelligent agent for design was the Christian and Hebrew God.
Once again you resort to being dishonest.
Unique and identifiable gawds are associated with christianity and with creationist lore. You're aware of that, right?
Of course you don't. An old earth conflicts with the genesis fable. So does much of science which explains your loathing of science, knowledge and results in your floating of goofy conspiracy theories.
No man has any idea how long life and this planet has existed.
That's just silly creationist prattle.
Yes please learn what a scientific theory really is.
What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience
The LiveScience article is consistent with what I provided you.
Did you notice that the article you linked to made mention of natural processes and experimentation? You inadvertently refuted your own claims to supermagical agents.
I suppose I should say thanks for your assistance in dismantling your own argument.
So, thanks.
Can you name these experiments ?
I have said the theory of evolution is built on extrapolations.
1. That all things came into existence through natural processes because there are natural processes that can be observed.
2. Dna similarity.
3. Extinct organisms that are similar to other organisms from the fossil record.
4. Because small changes happen within a family they assume that larger scale changes can happen which would lead to Macro.
How did these natural processes get started ?
We can discuss the rest.
Of, course. And the earth is flat.No man has any idea how long life and this planet has existed.
That's just silly creationist prattle.
Most creationist believe in 6,000 years.Unlike yourself, I can say what I agree with and what I don't agree with.
Nope, it is true.
The LiveScience article is consistent with what I provided you.
Did you notice that the article you linked to made mention of natural processes and experimentation? You inadvertently refuted your own claims to supermagical agents.
I suppose I should say thanks for your assistance in dismantling your own argument.
So, thanks.
Can you name these experiments ?
I have said the theory of evolution is built on extrapolations.
1. That all things came into existence through natural processes because there are natural processes that can be observed.
2. Dna similarity.
3. Extinct organisms that are similar to other organisms from the fossil record.
4. Because small changes happen within a family they assume that larger scale changes can happen which would lead to Macro.
How did these natural processes get started ?
We can discuss the rest.
Actually, you have said nothing about evolution being built on extrapolations.
Your "opinions" are not your own. You cut and pasted the opinions of Henry Morris from the ICR, that bastion of "quote-mining", creationist charlatans.
I just realized that I might have misunderstood the meaning of this statement.. Maybe it was meant to mean that the existence of a god is fantasy.
Evolution is a theory. God is not
Of, course. And the earth is flat.That's just silly creationist prattle.
Most creationist believe in 6,000 years.Unlike yourself, I can say what I agree with and what I don't agree with.
Nope, it is true.
If "they" admitted to the christian and hebrew gawds (don't slight the islamic gawd ), as the "intelligent agent", wouldn't that qualify as introducing religion into the creationist agenda.You are just exaggerating the facts as usual you embicile. The court decided for the plantiffs because of some of the tenets of ID they concluded had ties to religious views which violated separation of church and state. They admitted that the intelligent agent for design was the Christian and Hebrew God.
Once again you resort to being dishonest.
Unique and identifiable gawds are associated with christianity and with creationist lore. You're aware of that, right?
Yes and that is what the judgment was based on. Who testified for the defendants ? the defendants were members of the school board.
If "they" admitted to the christian and hebrew gawds (don't slight the islamic gawd ), as the "intelligent agent", wouldn't that qualify as introducing religion into the creationist agenda.
Unique and identifiable gawds are associated with christianity and with creationist lore. You're aware of that, right?
Yes and that is what the judgment was based on. Who testified for the defendants ? the defendants were members of the school board.
Yes, your fundamentalist agenda is clear.
If you read the trial transcript, you will notice that some of the most notorious creationist hacks testified for the plaintiffs. Are you confused by the terms plaintiff and defendant?
I guess you have no issue with lies being used by school board members in furtherance of their religious agenda?
Of, course. And the earth is flat.Most creationist believe in 6,000 years.Unlike yourself, I can say what I agree with and what I don't agree with.
Nope, it is true.
Did I say I believe the earth is flat ?
You are a liar hollie and you really don't want this discussion because you simply lack the knowledge to discuss it. I have explained many times why the view we are related to animals is absurd and it is only vivid imaginations at work. It's the faulty assumption that all animals evolved from the same source of life.
Genetically speaking we are to far apart to be related to any non Homo Sapien. This is one of the many holes in the theory.
YWC: "Genetically speaking we are to far apart to be related to any non Homo Sapien. This is one of the many holes in the theory".
can you explain why there are no Homo Sapien fossilized remains equivalent to the earliest life on Earth - ~3.4 Billion years old ?
when the oldest remains for Homo Sapien actually date back less than 200K years -
You're asking the wrong person. I do not trust dating methods.
Yes and that is what the judgment was based on. Who testified for the defendants ? the defendants were members of the school board.
Yes, your fundamentalist agenda is clear.
If you read the trial transcript, you will notice that some of the most notorious creationist hacks testified for the plaintiffs. Are you confused by the terms plaintiff and defendant?
I guess you have no issue with lies being used by school board members in furtherance of their religious agenda?
You still don't understand the difference between creationism and ID.
No I have no reason to read the 139 page manuscript. Now name the witnesses that testafied for the defense ?
YWC: "Genetically speaking we are to far apart to be related to any non Homo Sapien. This is one of the many holes in the theory".
can you explain why there are no Homo Sapien fossilized remains equivalent to the earliest life on Earth - ~3.4 Billion years old ?
when the oldest remains for Homo Sapien actually date back less than 200K years -
You're asking the wrong person. I do not trust dating methods.
Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
YWC: I do not trust ... dating methods.
because creationism is based on trust rather than evidence ...
Yes, your fundamentalist agenda is clear.
If you read the trial transcript, you will notice that some of the most notorious creationist hacks testified for the plaintiffs. Are you confused by the terms plaintiff and defendant?
I guess you have no issue with lies being used by school board members in furtherance of their religious agenda?
You still don't understand the difference between creationism and ID.
No I have no reason to read the 139 page manuscript. Now name the witnesses that testafied for the defense ?
You don't understand the meaning of integrity, truth and moral compass.
The witnesses are identified in the trial transcript.
Is lying for the sake of forcing your religion on others in concert with your religious beliefs?
