Replies

You missed the point. The evolution side won't tolerate a debate. If they are so confident in natural selection, then they should welcome the debate. They resist because they are so invested in secular humanism and atheism. Doesn't that remind you of the global warmists/alarmists? "The debate is over." How about there's no correlation of abortion with breast cancer when the NY State Department of Health stated not long ago about the increased prevalance of breast cancer on Long Island in effect that not having a full term pregnancy increased the risk of breast cancer?

CORAM, MT. SINAI, PORT JEFFERSON STATION (CMP) FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION pdf format

The importance of reproductive factors in affecting breast cancer risk has been known for a long time. Women who have never given birth (or had a full-term pregnancy) are at a higher risk for breast cancer compared to women who have carried a pregnancy to term.(Page 26)

Never had a full term pregnancy also includes abortion. Where are those clowns that say there's no relation between breast cancer and abortion? It has a very good, politically incorrect section, "BREAST CANCER RISK FACTORS," with references that starts on page 25.

How about they have to continue with embryonic stem cell research when they they discovered cellular reprogramming of somatic cells without viral assistance?

Do We Still Need Embryonic Stem Cells?

Promotion of Reprogramming to Ground State Pluripotency by Signal Inhibition

I don't have a problem with evolution, but I thought we still have a First Amendment for those who don't agree with evolution.