Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?

[jwoodie]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

 

[abu afak]

Why do Darwinsits debate.."

The main reason is that 12 IQ Kweationists constantly are allowed to TROLL the Science section with their Stupid and fake objections to real Science.
Otherwise there would be all science in the science section.
Hark, You Brain Dead Mutha.

BTW, I've totally Destroyed PoliticalChick and she's been DEAD/MUM here for a week+.
Bang - she STFU.
But/SO all of a sudden YOU popped up starting threads doing same, despite not having started one in this section for FOUR MONTHS.
Otherwise, again, there would be just science in the science section, Not religion masquerading as scientific objection.
You are 50 IQ points to low to debate anything.

You're determined to harass/LIE-FOR-JESUS, despite not knowing enough science to name sodium chloride, and otherwise having NO real interest in anything science.
You're just trailier-church-trash
`


`

 

[abu afak]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

YOUR 'alternative' belongs in the religious section Reverend dipshlt.
`

 

[james bond]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

 

[james bond]

I still dont know what came first the chicken or the egg

The chicken came first because scientists found a protein on the eggshell that can only be produced by the ovaries of a hen in 2017.

 

[james bond]

"Survival of the fittest" is an ugly thought when applied to humans' relationships with humans.

It's not true.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

 

[james bond]

Why do Darwinsits debate.."

The main reason is that 12 IQ Kweationists constantly are allowed to TROLL the Science section with their Stupid and fake objections to real Science.
Otherwise there would be all science in the science section.
Hark, You Brain Dead Mutha.

BTW, I've totally Destroyed PoliticalChick and she's been DEAD/MUM here for a week+.
Bang - she STFU.
But/SO all of a sudden YOU popped up starting threads doing same, despite not having started one in this section for FOUR MONTHS.
Otherwise, again, there would be just science in the science section, Not religion masquerading as scientific objection.
You are 50 IQ points to low to debate anything.

You're determined to harass/LIE-FOR-JESUS, despite not knowing enough science to name sodium chloride, and otherwise having NO real interest in anything science.
You're just trailier-church-trash
`


`

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! You can't even destroy a wet paper bag.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

I think not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.

Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?

No, they would not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.

Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?

Absolutely, no.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?

Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?

No.

Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?

And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.

So -- what's really at stake in this debate?

It's not about science. Not at all.

The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.

Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.

With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.

Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.

I believe there is a middle ground.

Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."

I can destroy Darwin's theory without any reference to reliigon.


The fact is, Darwinism is part of the Left's religion, Militant Secularism.


"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic



There are many examples of evidence that prove the very opposite of what Darwin proposed.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science


Yet Darwin-believers accept it on faith....because it is a part of their religion.

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

I think not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.

Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?

No, they would not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.

Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?

Absolutely, no.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?

Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?

No.

Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?

And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.

So -- what's really at stake in this debate?

It's not about science. Not at all.

The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.

Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.

With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.

Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.

I believe there is a middle ground.

Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."

I can destroy Darwin's theory without any reference to reliigon.


The fact is, Darwinism is part of the Left's religion, Militant Secularism.


"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic



There are many examples of evidence that prove the very opposite of what Darwin proposed.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science


Yet Darwin-believers accept it on faith....because it is a part of their religion.

Your silly ''quotes'' destroyed Darwin's theory?

Where did that happen exactly?

Such is the disease of the fundie religionist,

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

I think not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.

Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?

No, they would not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.

Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?

Absolutely, no.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?

Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?

No.

Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?

And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.

So -- what's really at stake in this debate?

It's not about science. Not at all.

The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.

Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.

With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.

Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.

I believe there is a middle ground.

Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."

I can destroy Darwin's theory without any reference to reliigon.


The fact is, Darwinism is part of the Left's religion, Militant Secularism.


"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic



There are many examples of evidence that prove the very opposite of what Darwin proposed.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science


Yet Darwin-believers accept it on faith....because it is a part of their religion.

"Darwins said simple to complex''

Who is Darwins?

This is another example of your phony cutting and pasting. The edits and alterations you make to ''quotes'' makes you the silly buffoon.

Darwin never said "simple to complex". Your simpleton cutting and pasting reveals another of your frauds,

 

[Erinwltr]

I still dont know what came first the chicken or the egg

Ever since I was a kid everything science told us was the gospel has been disproved, changed or we found out instead of helping us like they said, it was killing us...Then when they are caught being wrong they use the same old line..."We came to the conclusion based on the best evidence at that time"
I do not bet my marbles on scientists that have create something sensational to keep getting grant money so they can get paid.

You apparently have not attended a chemistry class or a debate team. You should bet your marbles on scientists. They don't create, they hypothesis and study. And prove. And then after multiple times of trying to get grant funding, finally get published.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

I think not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.

Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?

No, they would not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.

Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?

Absolutely, no.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?

Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?

No.

Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?

And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.

So -- what's really at stake in this debate?

It's not about science. Not at all.

The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.

Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.

With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.

Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.

I believe there is a middle ground.

Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."

As an Atheist, I'm not going to go around and around regarding Darwinian Evolution and an Invisible Thingy in the sky.
I will address the strong prey on the weak and genocide concept of Evolution. Yes...in nature, there are predators that attack and consume their prey. If you take the time to do your research, you will find that while Hitler and his Nazi cronies were into the occult, Hitler was actually a Catholic and said as much. I doubt though that he wasn't much of a practicing Catholic. A lack in the belief in a all-powerful, all-knowing, Invisible Thingy in the sky, doesn't make a person immoral.
Let's take my family for instance. No one in my family went to a church or prayed, nor had any opinion on religion. It just wasn't part of our lives growing up. But, even though I don't believe in the Invisible Thingy in the Sky, I have the following rules:
1. I wouldn't like it if I were robbed, beaten or murdered....therefore, I have that same stance with regards to others. A do unto others as I would have them do unto me stance.
2. I'm not lazy, which the same can't be said for many Communists. I've worked all my life and provided for my wife and kids. Further, I don't believe in hitting my wife and kids.
3. I don't care what a person's race is. It's irrelevant. I care how he/she treats me (are they courteous?).
So, you don't need religion to have some baseline morals that you weren't taught, only used via common sense.

 

[james bond]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.

I'd be perfectly happy if they simply provided the examples of where Darwin has been proven wrong, and stopped offering it to the uninformed as 'fact' and 'proven.'

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.

Actually, ID’iot creationism is not taught in public schools because religion is not taught in public schools. It would be pointless to teach magic and supernaturalism in place of science.

Id’iot creationism is not a theory.

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.

I'd be perfectly happy if they simply provided the examples of where Darwin has been proven wrong, and stopped offering it to the uninformed as 'fact' and 'proven.'

Biological evolution is fact. Darwinian evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

I’d be perfectly happy if religionism could support claims to magic and supernaturalism but of course, it can’t.

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.

“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Hollie]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

I’m not convinced that magic and supernaturalism is really a countering argument.

 

[Hollie]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

A scientific theory does not have to be true. That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.

Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.

The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.

I'd be perfectly happy if they simply provided the examples of where Darwin has been proven wrong, and stopped offering it to the uninformed as 'fact' and 'proven.'

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


I’m not convinced that dinosaurs on an Ark, 900 year old men, a global flood just a few thousand years ago and a 6,000 year old planet is realistic.

Show us the magic.