Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it always comes to that, huh? Miracles can't happen if God doesn't do your parlor trick and regrow a limb. You can't convince someone who doesn't want evidence.
What evidence? You keep talking about evidence, but sure seem shy when it comes to sharing it.
Forgive me for using the wrong term, but I think you did know what I meant. It was obviously used to differentiate between creationists. Perhaps, I should have used a different term to differentiate the one from the other.
What evidence? Well, when I point out the fact that it's not all doom and gloom such as is the case that extremes are not increasing or some of the other extreme silliness that alarmists purport.
The naturalistic fallacy is when we assume what is natural is better or more healthy. In other words, natural climate change is good while man-made climate change is bad because what is natural is better. Instead of starting with a neutral opinion on the net effects of AGW, it is assumed the changes are all or almost all bad. This is largely why your good buddy David Suzuki has a problem with GMOs as well as climate change, in my opinion.
The stuff not allowed to be taught in schools would be statements from the Global Warming Bible such as, "that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls 'are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming'."
I will check out HistorianDude's link.
This thread is about Creationism and the up coming debate with Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye -science educator. Why do you keep inserting your little rants about AGW denial? Very little of what you write makes any sense at all.
Haven't you been reading the thread? Its been posted about fifty times. "Intelligent Design" is just "Creation" with the word "God" edited out of it so they can sneak it into the school curricula.
In some people's imaginations, maybe. I live in the real world in which intelligent design is in fact responsible for the development of GMO crops.
Yes, by the barest definition, GMO crops can be considered "intelligently designed", but that's because we can scientifically prove so.
I'll bet Monsanto and Pfizer and whatever other companies make GMO foods are LOVING this thread! All this free pub, without any of the usual bad press or health scares, real or imagined, that GMO usually gets. Its a win-win for them!
Isaac Newton never used the words "intelligent design."
He was a Biblical Creationist.
I see no reference to the Bible or creationism...
Isaac Newton (Physicist, Mathematician)
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”
Or this?
Isaac Newton (Physicist, Mathematician)
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
