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.
Yes. it is , when you get down to it, a discussion about religious belief, not about science. The trouble is that it often gets into a dispute about what the science actually says. This was probably pointed up best in the Nye - Ham debate (which validated actually debating with Creationists - some had claimed it was a bad move) and the Dover trial that definitively showed that I/D was Creationism and not science.
Since then Creationists have been trying to discredit the findings.
In case any should doubt that the scientific side presented and explained their case in detail and the judge fully understood the issues or that religion is at the bottom of ID (though, since Dover, Creationists have tried to pretend that it is not) and the claims that Creationist papers are peer - reviwed is dubious. Creationists who happen to be scientists have published some acceptable scientific papers -yes. But not those which are not valid science - which is what Creationism has to do, and had to create their own Peer review journal.
I have to labour the point because we see (not too far from here) either ignorance or denial of just how utterly ID was debunked at the trial. So much so that, since then ID has tried to pretend that they are nothing to do with religion and the proponents have been trying to get science redefined as whatever religious authority says it is.
This points out that the 'Peer review journal' cited in the attempt to discredit the Dover court ruling ceased to be in the year of the trial when the strategy became separation of Bible -based creationism and the supposed science of ID
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-21-2019 at 03:37 AM..
Yes. it is , when you get down to it, a discussion about religious belief, not about science. The trouble is that it often gets into a dispute about what the science actually says. This was probably pointed up best in the Nye - Ham debate (which validated actually debating with Creationists - some had claimed it was a bad move) and the Dover trial that definitively showed that I/D was Creationism and not science.
Since then Creationists have been trying to discredit the findings.
In case any should doubt that the scientific side presented and explained their case in detail and the judge fully understood the issues or that religion is at the bottom of ID (though, since Dover, Creationists have tried to pretend that it is not) and the claims that Creationist papers are peer - reviwed is dubious. Creationists who happen to be scientists have published some acceptable scientific papers -yes. But not those which are not valid science - which is what Creationism has to do, and had to create their own Peer review journal.
I have to labour the point because we see (not too far from here) either ignorance or denial of just how utterly ID was debunked at the trial. So much so that, since then ID has tried to pretend that they are nothing to do with religion and the proponents have been trying to get science redefined as whatever religious authority says it is.
This points out that the 'Peer review journal' cited in the attempt to discredit the Dover court ruling ceased to be in the year of the trial when the strategy became separation of Bible -based creationism and the supposed science of ID
The judge used TWO words to make his determination and those same TWO words if taken the way the judge gave them then not even darwin or neo darwin evolution is science.
I will explain further later, but trans that case happened years ago and biology has grown by leaps and bounds since then and the further it has grown the more and more it shows ID,
LMAO one of the last time I spoke with HD he gave me an answer to a evolution question that actually speaks against neo-darwinian evolution and he did not even realize it, so yes mystic he has just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
Translation, I gave you TWELVE arguments refuting why evolution would NOT lead to men raping women. Others also pointed out how stupid was your argument.
We also suggested you take it to the science section, which you never did.
well if science could be used here trans i would challenge you on some of this. Heck you never know we might have ended up in a good conversation like we did last time.
I would however likely have to put a muzzle (put on ignore) your two yaping lap dogs who usually add nothing to our discussion and just ridicule or try and pick a fight just like HD did here.
Proverbs 6:16-19, Pneuma. Even your god hates you. Twice.
But if you think real science is not adding anything, then you must be ignorant of science.
The judge used TWO words to make his determination and those same TWO words if taken the way the judge gave them then not even darwin or neo darwin evolution is science.
I will explain further later, but trans that case happened years ago and biology has grown by leaps and bounds since then and the further it has grown the more and more it shows ID,
... is STILL a load of BS.
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.
That is all part of the game.
