Replies

[[False. Science works on the assumption of naturalism, that is, it works with what can be observed.]]

BS- Macroevolutionary science works PURELY on assumptions and dogmatic beliefs!

[[Ideally it works by repeatable experiment, but in many fields that is not possible. But by following the scientific method it manages to do pretty well.]]

Yup- it does pretty well IF you’re willing to IGNORE the fact that Macroeovlution is a biological impossibility- IF you’re willing to IGNORE all the refuting science- IF you’re willing to jump to conclusions and make wild leaps of reason trying to connect species that are biologically entirely different in order to make hte case for Macroevolution. But alas- this is your ‘science’ you hold in such esteeme while belittling and maligning the opposition.

[[Scientists who abandon the scientific method for religious dogma and belief are no longer doing science.]]

You are so fulkl of crap- you sit htere prtetending your ‘science’ isn’t a faith based science and you pretend the serious problem of biological impossibility doesn’t exist, and you pretend Macroevolution is strictly science- but hte fact is coyote- it is EVERY BIT as much a faith as Creationism is- infact it is MORE a faith and religious belief than Creationism/ID because ID studies empiracle evidences and points to a logical plausibility not some fairy tale biologically impossible imaginary scenario.

ID isn’t a ‘fundamental belief’ it’s a logical annalysis of hte empiracvle evidence- period! It makes NO claims about who or even hwat the intelligence is- it simply forensically and scientifically determines that nature is incapable of producing IC and that is fact- that is not a belief. Biology confirms this- if you can dispute htis- then do so- but don’t sit there and pretend Macroevolution isn’t a religious belief because doing so just exposes the fact that you’re nothing but a pot calling hte kettle black