Replies

That is a flat out lie- are you a liar ok-now?

Now who's resorting to petty insults? Please, point me to the vigorously peer-reviewed articles supporting young-earth-creationism. I'm all ears on this one, and I can't wait to see what you turn up.

Oh I’ve submitted articles here many many times refutting the nonsense proposed by Christian haters- but alas- the articles submitted are completely ignored, and the folks simply devolve into petty childish insulting such as yopu’ve done repeatedly.

Did it occur to you that maybe this says something about the level of scientific acumen in the submission, or are all the scientists "Christian haters", part of a massive conspiracy to destroy religion? Perhaps you're just not as good at science as you think. That's okay - we're all good at different things. Learning your strengths and weaknesses is part of finding your place in the world.

The debate is still ongoing and both sides have points- the fact that you prefere one point doesn’t solidify the point as concrete.

Science as whole knows better. There are thousands of scientific articles supporting evolution, and the theory, while being corrected in places here and there (like a gardener prunes a tree), still stands tall (the tree hasn't been chopped down, despite the ardent political attempts to do so). Like I said, contribute to the body of scientific work, or remain marginal. Your special religious ideas don't get affirmative action where scientific analysis is concerned.

In your mind it might- but oh well, that’s your close-minded biased problem.

Right - I'm 'close-minded' in the regard that I demand science conform to a cumulative body of knowledge and data. I'm certainly not so open-minded my brain falls out. Are you open minded? Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis? You can't just cry "bias" in science - you actually have to do hard work to back your point up.

"Close-minded" is an insult, by the way (just like "liar"). I don't mind at all, but I'm just pointing out that you might want to jump off the high-horse where "childish insults" are concerned.

Formulations that work on paper yet lack experiential factual data are fien and dandy but far from actual fact.

Science agrees. That's what peer review is for. Evolution survives because it rigorously survives the required consistency between different analyses.

Do you still want to defend GourmetDan's insight into the geocentric universe, or are you letting that one go?

[[(like a gardener prunes a tree), still stands tall (the tree hasn’t been chopped down, despite the ardent political attempts to do so). ]]

Lol- yeah, pointing out biological impossibilities is ‘trying to chop the tree down’ Sorry- but the ‘tree’ fell on it’s own

[[Now who’s resorting to petty insults? Please, point me to the vigorously peer-reviewed articles supporting young-earth-creationism. I’m all ears on this one, and I can’t wait to see what you turn up.]]

Plenty available to you with a simple search.

[[Did it occur to you that maybe this says something about the level of scientific acumen in the submission, or are all the scientists “Christian haters”, part of a massive conspiracy to destroy religion]]

Nope- the obvious however did occure to me and that is that opposing scientific evidneces are simply ignored and waved away as though they don’t exist- time and time again- thanks for playing

[[Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis?]]

Not at the expense of ignoring impossibilities I’m not- which apparently some are willing to do- but alas- only the ‘real scientists and advocates of ‘true’ science’ are those who do so eh?

[[Evolution survives because it rigorously survives the required consistency between different analyses.]]

Wrong- but you’re welcome to your opinion- Evolution science survives at hte expense of ostracising htose who have different opinions- Macro-Evolution science is nothign more than an a priori belief with absolutely zilch in the department of evidnetiary fact to support it.

[[Do you still want to defend GourmetDan’s insight into the geocentric universe, or are you letting that one go?]]

I never supported geocentrism,, nor do I support any other unknown in regards to the issue- I do however support the fact that opposing views have valid points that can’t simply be brushed away because you prefere your own set of assumptions that can’t be tested. As you full well know, there are studies that differ in hypothesis that hold valid plausibilities

[[I’m just pointing out that you might want to jump off the high-horse where “childish insults” are concerned.]]

Sorry, but calling someone who lies a liar isn’t childish- it’s pointing out fact if indeed that was your position which I asked you about.

[[Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis?]]

Forgot to add- As well I’m not willing to trade a superior faith for a failed faith that relies on biological impossibilities and feels the need to ostracize those who don’t toe the line and is nothign but a faith that leads to nowhere scientifically- Contrary to what you might beleive, time does not heal all wounds, and no amount of time can overcome the biological impossibilities of MACRO-evolution. Not willing to suspend sensibility in order to adhere to it- sorry.