Search results

Your comments above are an intentional distortion of reality. Biology teachers are not instructed to teach atheism. Kenneth Miller, author of the most widely used public school biology textbooks is a Roman Catholic and he does not suggest for one second that there is not God in the universe...

That you would post this guy's thoughts and expect it to be taken seriously by anybody on the other side of the argument, demonstrates a distinct preference for obfuscating the issues. John Morris is the son of Henry Morris, the founding father of "creationist" science, and the Institute of...

Your article supports my position, thank you. The fact that there are gaps in the theory of evolution doesn't argue in favor of intelligent design. It merely argues for more scientific investigation. Intelligent design, on the other hand, argues against any further investigation. Michael Behe...

I did reply, however, I've now deleted it, in favor of a reply here: 1. One of the definitions of "falsify" is to "declare or prove to be false." See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/falsify. 2. One of the definitions of "disprove" is "to prove false or wrong." See...

That's fine, but it's philosophy, not science. We have no disagreement in philosophy. The disagreement is whether philosophic observations should be permitted to invade science. I say no, because if it is permitted, then science loses the reason to continue to search for answers, because all...

You can contest my "theory" all you want, but until you falsify Schneider's mathematical model, your contest is no more viable than your horoscope in today's paper. Schneider's model proves that evolution can do exactly what you say it cannot do, produce order from chaos. Tomorrow, someone...

You keep falling back on "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want." What you're missing is that it's unnecessary to prove you're wrong, i.e., that there isn't a designer in order to demonstrate that evolution works. Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without...

So, lemme get this straight. The jews are using Federal District Court Judge John Paul Jones III (a G.W. Bush appointee, and definitely as "goy" as mayo), as a pawn to undermine the notion that Christ is Lord. If that's your position, then I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I'm not missing anything. You avoided my challenge and then you state as if it were self evident that "there is no way to determine probabilistically that living beings are more likely to have been a product of ignorant chance than by intelligent design." And, you did this immediately after I...

I see. You can't prove ID is true by any scientific method, so you will resort to simply proclaiming it to be true based on the weight of your empirical observations of nature and your belief in what those observations reveal. And, you want your "scientific explanation" taught as science...

I disagree. It would be completely fair, because their thinking is one and the same. They seek a natural scientific proof for the existence and nature of a supernatural deity. This is impossible. If God were measurable scientifically, God would be a natural phenomenon, rather than God...

Attempting to reason with Z10 re a subject about which he has already made up his mind is fruitless. I just use him to practice controlling a difficult witness. You'll feel better if you try to think of your posts as a means of satisfying yourself that you have thought your argument through...

LOL! This is a historic moment. You did RESEARCH! And, really interesting research, at that! Congratulations! I commend you on actually attempting to learn something new, and provide the information to others. I suggest that (1) your research doesn't support your original claim, i.e., your...

NO, science is NOT "after all" observation. Science is the VERIFICATION of observation by repeatable TESTING. Just saying something is so, because it looks like it is so is NOT science, because there is no verifying of the observation by repeatable testing. But, I will take you at your...

I've made the scientific case for evolution dozens of times in the past. You have yet to make any case for intelligent design, other than to state that it is self evident, i.e., just as it is self evident that the Earth is flat. Federal District Court Judge Jones has exquisitely detailed why...

Of course not. It is self-evident that the Earth...is flat.

Your comment "may be by design" is theoretical. The experiment is a fact. You can teach the result of the experiment, but according to your stated position, you cannot teach the theoretical "may be by design," until some demonstrable experiment is produced. The proffered experiment was...

The proffered experiment was repeated and was done under controlled conditions. Even if the experiment doesn't prove that inter-species evolution occurs in all species all of the time, it proves that the biology of evolution is sound for at least one creature on the planet, and that creature is...