[[Leave science to those who are not trying to distort both the data and the methods in a vain effort to support their particular religious beliefs]]
Hahahahaha- now I’ve heard everything- “Scientists don’t distort to fit their religious beliefs” hahahaha
[[There is no evidence for deities, while evidence pointing toward the common ancestor remains in the genomes. Its just a matter of working out the details. See the difference? Evidence vs. no evidence?]]
And how’s the evidence that conclusively shows common ancestry goign for you folks htese days? Not so well? So, what you’re saying hten, is that Common ancestry is still an evidenceless religious belief that somethign took place ‘in the past’, but that we ‘just don’t have the connections yet’... Religious a priori belief in Macroevolution (hiding under the blanket of science) vs. Science which studies actual empiracle evidence for ID - Psssst- You have no evidnece - just assumptions and imaginary scenarios abotu past unknowns - don’t kid yourself, Macroevolution is more a religious idea than the belief in intelligence behind life’s irreducibly complex systems. (and by the way- the bumblebee impossibility wasn’t nearly as implausible statistic wise as the biologically impossible Macroevolution is- not even close.
[[False again. “Divine” creation rests on no evidence — it is entirely a religious belief. That’s why they call it a belief!]]
False again, Divine Creation rests on the foundation of ID/IC- both of which are producible, testable forensic clues- somethign Macroevolution lacks
Well and truly said, CottShop! Thank you so much!