Search results

That is quite simply wrong. There is no need for belief in evolution, as it is a fact, a biological fact and a scientific fact, For any atheist to use a belief in evolution as an attack on anything would be just as flawed at the outset in the same way creationists and theists who do use that...

You are only really indulging in the same fragmented undeveloped form of argument as Z. Whereas he makes up disjointed characterized parodies as he goes along, your base is an apparent smugness which selects "scholars" quotes off of Wikipedia, and then with a twist of supreme...

In the unlikelihood of you being able to do any of those things jem, just some well grounded argument on your behalf might help. And here..I admit I was wrong..once! I thought you were interested in genuine debate. How wrong could I be!

I don't think this is a question of there being a need for any contradiction in the first place. There is no necessity to believe in something that is actually a fact. As evolution is a fact, belief in it seems incongruous and unnecessary. Belief suggests something is not actually a fact...

But evolution is actually a fact . As a fact it is scientifically proven. Do you say a scientifically proven fact is still a belief ? Do you consider there to be any intrinsic difference between a proven fact and a belief , or when it is a scientifically proven fact then it can only be a belief??

I think you will find that creationists would like to suggest there is a lot more than how it all began between them and Darwinism. For the simple reason that Darwin has nothing to say about how it all began. If that is their only dispute, creationists have no dispute. To be a scientific...

Then he would need a science lesson to explain how the sequence of biological events he observes is in fact Evolution. Nothing else proves the fact of Evolution to be so. Let's do so then. Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Darwin scientifically explains effects, results and facts...

Great response noo noo. You messed up mistaking the science of evolution with a completely separate question of what the philosophical theory of knowledge might or might not be, and you run off to Gilbert for shelter. You seem to get a little more f'd up each time.

Clearly, you will not be one of those very few. noo noo, To suggest knowledge gained from the outcome of practical scientic demonstrable evidence is simply a question of epistemological discussion, is akin to pissing in your pants and talking about whether or not you can actually know...

You're welcome

Go read the reply you say kjkent has not made. That covers the nonsense you have come up with so far , pretty well I think

Quote: kjkent1" meant "disprove" not "falsify". Learn English; learn to think clearly. Invoking some obscure scientist ... funny how you did not first jump onto that as your well poisoning instead of stalking my every word My comments were not smearing intent as the record shows once I got...

..."with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything he is about to say..." He had already said it. There was no well poisoned by myself. He had already pissed into it. That was probably the discoloration you perhaps took to be poison.

What well?

As a matter of little interest nonsense, if you've nothing to say, why do you bother saying it?

Worked what ZZzz? ? your chain?

Learn Enflish ?!! This from the person who goes about the place with a non English word... “postors” telling someone what they meant to say! oh the hyrocrasitty of it all!

Let's see kjkent makes the point a designer is irrelevant in a science class, for the reason, any such speculation is not science. Zzz's says, you have to put the possibility of designer in the science class because it is a possible speculation that science does not deal with. So you have...

I see no words or explanations in any quote you give, that do other than express the understandings of the people who wrote them. They do not represent whatsoever, any actual findings recorded as fact or scientific Theory, that deals with questions of creation or God or religion. There is...

I agree with vehn. Non of that denies or supports religion or creators or Gods. Reading into things, stuff not said is to my mind what is disingenuous roberk, evolution is not creation.