You've GOT to be kidding me! No, ummmmm, sooooo aptly named one....that's not correcting fellow evos...that's actually attacking creationists for rightly pointing out the cult-like atmosphere of evolution and any and every examination is attacked as "religious attacks on science".
As a matter of fact, now that I'm thinking about this subject, I've seen this idea about dino soft tissue before and every liberal on FR has crawled out of the woodwork to smear and squeal and shout down debate about it.
You would be well served to carefully read #170.
And that's not at ALL how science works.
I know it's some partial IDEAL theory of how it works, but in practice it simply doesn't happen and for hundereds if not thousands of times people have provided you with the hot air cult example of your fellow liberal evo-cultist algore to illustrate just how broekn down science is on many levels.
I suppose liberals just don't want to understand they've hijacked science, and definitely don't want to hear it.
I note you did not write that they disagree about the validity of evolution.
OF COURSE they don't disagree about their evo-religion! That's not at all in contention, but yet another helpless strawman argument. Geeee, that wouldn't even be tolerated!
Or the mechanisms in a general sense. I credit you for that.
I don't know about the mechanisms, I've seen quite a bit of arguments, on both sides of the aisle btw...about micro vs. macro-evolution, etc. etc. etc.
And FWIW, I think the actual discussion and scientific communication can be both enjoyable and informative, on FR and formally speaking.
As far as your last question...ummmm why would there ever be a need?
If an evo-cultist accepts evolution as their religion outright, if they're an atheist or agnostic, it's not even an issue in play.
If one is confused and dismisses Genesis and the veracity of scripture, then I suppose they can just pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject on the basis of their own sensisibilities.
That's not how it works, but personally I'd never condemn a person to hell for such mis-guided beliefs...
First, I'm not the ultimate judge...
second, I honestly try not to judge a person's eternal destination.
third, I'd pray for them, since this is just a senseless thing to get uptight about...origins...or the idea that people are really nothing more than soulless great apes...people will believe what they want to believe anyway...it's their choice.
But to pretend this discussion arises on here because creationists are actually doing that,
as opposed to the REALITY of evos mis-representing creationists for that...along with 'flat earth' this and 'Jesus riding dinosaurs' that...
is pretty laughable and the only people that buy into that nonsense are the FR liberals on here that don't know they stick out like sore thumbs!
The only one who apparently is permitted to challenge a *scientist* is another *scientist*.
And since evos/scientists decide that they get to define the terms, they get to decide who qualifies as a *real scientist* and is allowed to challenge another without earning a screed about religious attacks on science.
Not that you see much of scientists challenging other scientists going on. Peer review weeds them out.
Good thing science isn't done by consensus.
Blah blah blah. I just remembered that I declared that I would never post to you again. I honestly had forgotten, but you’ve refreshed my memory.
I’m eager to see all the others who frequent the religion forum to reign in your deplorable lack of decorum.
Have a lovely evening.