No, having a significant number of atheists on your side, as there are a significant number of the religious on evolution's side, would lend some credence to ID not being religiously motivated. You have yet to show even one, yet alone a decent percentage.
[[No, having a significant number of atheists on your side, as there are a significant number of the religious on evolution’s side, would lend some credence to ID not being religiously motivated.]]
Once again you just don’t get it- it’s not about ‘consensus’ it’s abotu hte facts, and whether the theories are scientifically possible or not- either macroeovlution is possible, or it’s not- you’ve decided however that a theory rests o nwhether there is a certain number of atheists, or certain number of people calling themselves religious, regardless of whether their actions show they are truly Christ’s own or not (that doesn’t matter to you- as logn as they cal lthemselves Christians, and support evolution which contradicts God’s word, then chalk them up as A-OK in your eyes when it comes to the numbers games you liek to play)
[[You have yet to show even one, yet alone a decent percentage.]]
What is the goalpost yardage today? 10%? Tommorrow will it be 17%? how about hte fact that evo scientists have specifially concluded macroevolution couldn’t happen, or that nature is incapable, or that mutations only work on info already present, and can not supply the needed new non species specific info to move species beyond their own kinds? What of htose who have noted all manner of problems with darwinism? Are they all agendists too? Is everyone of the 700 o nthe dissent fro mDarwin agendists too?
[[But don’t try to call it science. That’s absurd.]]
I see you’re goign to carry on with your absurdly ignorant argument that ID isn’t science- Guess I was setting my hopes too high that you’d set aside petty rediculous accusations, and step up to the itnellectually honest line of debate- My mistake— And Sorry- but the facts refute your petty claims
[[But your belief in your religion won’t let you do that.]]
Bzzzzzzt Sorry- wrong again- Golly- you’re batting a 1000 tonight- The facts and evidneces are what support the bible and refute the scientifically impossible hypothesis of Macroevolution- Donthca just hate it when the facts don’t support your position? Must get tiring arguing assumptions and not beign able to present any facts and evidences to support your preferred hypothesis eh?
[[If there’s an apparent conflict it’s a problem with the evidence or the thinking of the observer, not the Bible.]]
‘Apparent problem’? sorry- but htere are factual problems with your preferred hypothesis, not apaprent problems- and yes, there are problems with the thinkign of hte observer IF they glibbly keep dismissing these serious violations of science time and tiem again and insisting it ‘could have happened’ despite complete lack of evidnece to back that silyl law defying claim- and That’s a fact, deal with it.
[[That’s it. I’m done with you.]]
awww- ya gotta leave so soon? But I was bout to poison the tea