Replies

When asked to cite evidence for a undirected naturalistic start to the universe you said "Evidence? I bet there is LOTS of evidence, we just haven't discovered it yet"

If Gargantua said that concerning I.D, what would your response be?

Of course he didn't say that. Not one person posting in support of a creator on this thread has failed to cite evidence for a creator such as history, archaeology, logic and personal testimony when asked.

You, however, were not able to cite evidence for an undirected, naturalistic start to the universe. When challenged you responded by saying you "bet" there is evidence. It just hasn't been discovered.

Do you understand that in matters of science undiscovered evidence is not evidence? If you claim a faith you may be able to get away with that. If you speak in the name of science your position is not rational.

Behe's claims have not been disproved dispite what some say. His position is quite rational. He's making his claim on the basis of observations, not "there's LOTS of evidence, we just haven't discovered it yet."

First of all, as I have told you, AGAIN, again, again and again, and again, GOD cannot be proven nor disproven, therefore, god has no place in a SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!

Do we understand each other yet?

God CANNOT be proven, Therefore ANY theory that uses GOD as the beginning of it, or intelligent designer or whatever, CANNOT be a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

There, I have repeated it again, has it sunk into that fundamentalist brain yet?

There is NO scientific PROOF that you can give me that God exists.

Therefore ID is religious and so is creationism.

Evolution is based on scientifically verifiable facts, we take those facts and logically extrapolate that this is what occurred. If the new facts do not fit the theory then the theory changes, or is replaced.

Evolution is fundamental enough NOT to need the name changed.

Evolution ALSO does NOT try to explain how LIFE BEGAN, it only tries to explain how we got to be what we are from that original LIFEFORM!!

You creationists LOVE to try to pervert it into something it is not. It does NOT try to explain the beginning of life, or how it occurred, this is the realm of chemists etc.

Now, has it sunk in yet, do you understand?

I doubt it, creationists are the most boneheaded, illogical thinkers that I come across, so I seriously doubt you get it.

I am NOT saying that you are unintelligent, I just think that you are so close minded that learning anything new that might at all take away from your faith would be life threatening.

Sad, but true.

Oh, well, lifes that way sometimes.

I am not so conceited to think that there is NO way that a monkey might be a far distant cousin. so what? it doesn't change anything. We are still the most intelligent beings on the planet. Doesn't change a thing.

Science extrapolates a lot of things, but that extrapolation is based on logic, not leaps of faith or some ancient book.

THe facts ARE INDEED out there, waiting to be discovered, many all ready have been, you just conveniently forget about those. They wouldn't fit your worldview.

THese facts that are extrapolated, are then looked for, and glory be, they seem to be found, in the right spots, in the right timeframes, etc. Nothing weird about it, logical.

But then again, logic is NOT something that you are obviously familiar with either.