Search results

Appears designed does not mean evidence of a designer or creator, no matter how much you wish it did. There is evidence the earth appears flat too. There is no scientific evidence for the idea of a creator. Simply because the idea is completely unscientific. Seems you evangelical...

Your argument for a God it seems, is no more than the making of spurious criticism against science. Unless you include make-believe, the scientific method has already been shown to be the only route to that meaningful knowledge of reality which you mention.

You asked a pseudoscientific question. Now you are adding pseudoscientific statements. It is physically impossible for biological life to violate the laws of physics of which (the increase of) entropy is a property. There's your legitimate answer. I suggest you don't answer with even more...

Care to elaborate how this notion of yours is anything but pseudoscience, seeing how it is not a scientific one? "Do you think living cells simply organized themselves from mud spontaneously?"

....common people call such knowledge learning.

...justifying the thread title: Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

The Earth appears flat. "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." — Francis Crick What Mad Pursuit (1990) On the same evidence there is no Mother Goose. All your second and third hand quote mining, copying someone who...

That's just ridiculous. This country has been a constitutionally secular nation under law for all of those 150 years and the rest. Simply because some christians want to think christianity is the be all and end all of everything does not make it so.

"You could substitute the word abiogensis with cold fusion..." Bollocks you could. Abiogenesis contains both a common sense understanding that there are no real alternatives, and factual proven scientific knowledge and advanced research, making the whole thing highly probable to prove...

Obviously -454F is just as irrelevant as when you started your nonsense, being that there are vastly differing temperatures throughout the universe depending where or what is measured. Taking just one of them in isolation is, well, gaumless. No surprise that you are also of course...

Lol. More of the creationists' crazy minded approach to rationality. Come up with any ridiculous remark, contradict it, whilst screaming everyone else is wrong. So now you are saying temperatures other than -454 degrees F. do exist in outer space. Dear me! So I'll ask again where this...

David Icke will be happy with that man.

yeah yeah ok, so you're angry. Another one of your arguments can't stand up. Lol. Try telling an extremophile it doesn't live, it survives. May I suggest for your argument, whatever it is, to even stand a chance of getting off the ground, you stop saying so many pathetic things. You're...

It is a correct and factual statement to make. Abiogenesis contains proven science and research. It is an established branch of science. Why the hell should it be said any differently. As a Creationist you have sweet fuck all to offer in place of that science, so you can only think to act...

It takes no faith to say there is no Santa. It takes no faith to say there is no God I do know the altogether imaginary and the non-existent look very much the same. Troll yourself. I honestly wonder what you must be on. Your cut & paste is still philosophy and not science as you were trying...

Yes you are a troll, but that won't stop me acknowledging a mistake. My bad, one too many e's in extremophile. Love you Trader. Damn it. Now I spelt fuck wrong too. There are vast areas of outer space which are not far colder than it is known these organisms could survive in. So...

Why not? Because it is irrelevant. If it were the only temperature in outer space then...whatever... but it isn't . So 'tell us specifically', what are you grasping at?

That is so absurd it’s hardly credible a rational person could suggest it. No religion is religion - is not good reasoning . It is religion to say there is no Santa - is not going to work either. After biologists had described life based RNA, Francis Crick responded by saying he...

Why?

You really think posting links to a photo of yourself wearing a dunce's hat and some random text is being well read for the conversation? Lol. Ricter was wrong, Harold Camping worse than wrong, you don't even make it to loon. :p