[[The problem is you don’t have any good evidence against it.]]
Lol- you keep saying that- but the evidnece refutes that statement
[[Creationism says look at this book dating back over 2,000 years, and make the evidence fit into it.]]
Bzzzt wrong again
[[That is true in many areas of science. We don’t completely know how gravity works either.]]
The probklem with your ‘explanation’ is that gravity doesn’t have several key sicentific principles that it must ignore in order to be true hwile macroeolvution does- so in order to to avoid beign caught i na logically inconsistant position -you simply state that ‘we just don’t know how macroevolution could have violated these principles and statistics
[[Basically, you are arguing God of the Gaps,]]
bzzzzt- wrong again- We aregue hte evidnce- Macroevolution argues that it ‘just haven’t been discovered yet’ how macroevolution could have violated these prinicples- talk abotu gaps- Nature is the god which fills i nthe gaps apaprently- ‘Nature done it’ just falls flat when examined in detainl- Nature aint capable- plain and ismple- and no matter how you go on and on about ID, that fact won’t ever change
[[Again you’re missing my point. The ID claim is that it doesn’t posit on the intelligence, yet I have not yet met and IDer who doesn’t believe that intelligence isn’t God.]]
Then you aint looking hard enough- infact- I doubt oyu’re looking past the first couple of links in a google search on the issue, because several have indeed stated they don’t think God is the intelligence- Th3y are wrong of course- but they’re welcome to their erronious beliefs
[[[IOW, it’s still a religious movement pretending to be science.]]
IOW you’re still a broken record who is ignorant abotu ID if htis is your silly agendist belief
[[You’re the one who made a statement and then backed away from it by claiming it was just a copy/paste.]]
Bzzzt wrong- I explaiend why it was posted- Sorry- not playing your game-
[[You are responsible for everything you post, even the plagiarized parts.]]
How old are you? seriously? You act liek a kid- I sdtated that tactics liek that are best left ot lesser sites liek Darwin central where the kids go to squack on and on abotu ID and Creationsits- ut apaprently you don’t mind bringign that childish rhettoric here for all to see- Oh well- you only hurt yourself and you credibility by doign so- Have at it
[[So back to the salient point, in this thread you used an appeal to a non-scientific factor (negative social consequences if your theory isn’t accepted)]]
Lol- still playing hte victim card-
That's pretty much the definition of creationism, it happened as it says in the Bible, period, end of story, nothing can conflict with it. If there's an apparent conflict it's a problem with the evidence or the thinking of the observer, not the Bible. That's a fact, deal with it.
The ONLY way you can refute this is to admit the possibility that the Bible is scientifically and factually incorrect. But your belief in your religion won't let you do that.
That's fine, I don't have a problem with your personal belief. But don't try to call it science. That's absurd.
Lol- still playing hte victim card-
This is about the third time I've tried to explain this extremely simple concept to you, and as often goes with creationists you keep twisting it to an absolutely different meaning.
That's it. I'm done with you. I've debated with far more rational loony left liberals.