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.
How many of you ID deniers are willing to believe that humans (intelligence) had nothing to do with the evolution of dogs, cats, farm animals, crops, etc.?
That is called artificial selection.... You have no clue how any of this evolution stuff works do you? Artificial selection
They created their own definition of ID in 1984, long after the concept had been in existence. Shame on you for buying into it. But that's what happens when one has a closed mind.
They created their own definition of ID in 1984, long after the concept had been in existence. Shame on you for buying into it. But that's what happens when one has a closed mind.
I get it. You just don't WANT to know that ID is just creationism rebadged. So you pretend all the evidence that proves it is just doesn't exist. Easy.
I interrupt the currently ongoing argument to bring up something I just read online. Perhaps this has already been posted and discussed, but having given up 2 days ago on staying current with EVERY post in this thread, here it is:
"The agreed-upon topic for the debate is: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" "
Since the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life (this point has been emphasized many times in this thread), then how/why does anyone expect the upcoming debate to be about evolution?? The statement above says it is to be about ORIGINS.
I interrupt the currently ongoing argument to bring up something I just read online. Perhaps this has already been posted and discussed, but having given up 2 days ago on staying current with EVERY post in this thread, here it is:
"The agreed-upon topic for the debate is: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" "
Since the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life (this point has been emphasized many times in this thread), then how/why does anyone expect the upcoming debate to be about evolution?? The statement above says it is to be about ORIGINS.
The debate is on the origin of humanity, not the origin of life, so it will certainly be about evolution.
I interrupt the currently ongoing argument to bring up something I just read online. Perhaps this has already been posted and discussed, but having given up 2 days ago on staying current with EVERY post in this thread, here it is:
"The agreed-upon topic for the debate is: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" "
Since the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life (this point has been emphasized many times in this thread), then how/why does anyone expect the upcoming debate to be about evolution?? The statement above says it is to be about ORIGINS.
Life is only one thing. There are other things with origins suitable for discussion here.
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.
