[Coyoteman]

The scientific method requires: Observation, Hypothesis formulation, Prediction, and Testing of Predictions. Since we have never observed one species changing to another (nor is there any indirect evidence of this), darwinism fails in step one.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case. (Is that an example of creation "science"? Are real scientists supposed to be impressed?)

Its all religious belief anyway.

What's that, the latest creationist talking point?

Creationists are doing their disingenuous best to pretend that their religion is science (ID), all the while claiming that legitimate science is religion. What a mixed up bunch!

[razzle]

darwinism is only supportable with the belief that our existence should only be explained via materialistic processes. Unfortunately the evidence is pointing more and more in the direction of design. darwinists are frustrated and demand that any explanation other than theirs should be banned. The truth is irrelevant to darwinists, they already know the answer (just like the old carbon dating trick; figure out what result you want and keep testing until you get that result).

[CottShop]

evos are pretending their 'science' is actual science, and all the while touting how 'precise and factual' it is, while at the same time looking down their collective noses at those who believe in God as being silly heads and 'unscientific'. Evo's use the word 'science' when explaining their supposedly superior intellect and suggesting that anyone that doesn't hold to their hypothesis' are simpletons, yet amazingly, evo science touts such fantastical hypothesis and scenarios devoid of any concrete evidences, and simply dismisses any biological impossibilities with a wave of the hand and the rediculous statement that "we just haven't found out how yet". See Coyote? Anyone can indulge in petty little rhettorics that would make any gradeschooler proud. <> {{Sorry, that happens not to be the case. (Is that an example of creation "science"? Are real scientists supposed to be impressed?)}} Yes, that is the case- But the dogmatic simply won't admit it.