Give up a successful scientific theory in place of religious belief which relies on revelation instead of evidence? Is that what you're preaching?
Piltdown Man
Nebraska Man
Lucy
Archaeoraptor
Etc., etc., etc., etc......
Obviously you didn’t read “Darwin’s Predictions.” Darwood’s theory has been so utterly falsified that to call it successful is an insult to the very meaning of success.
Please Coyteman, educate us. What makes the theory “successful”? Good PR? The high number of Kool-Aid drinkers like you? I also like how you automatically assume those who dispute the validity of evolution as relying on “religious belief” and “revelation instead of evidence”. That disputes none of the facts, but hey it was a really good argument anyway! </sarc> Prove evolution is true, if you can, but you still won’t be able to disprove the existence of God. While we’re at it, can you tell us one thing about evolution that has been proved true?
[[Give up a successful scientific theory in place of religious belief which relies on revelation instead of evidence?]]
your fairytale visions of what ID is has NO place in serious scientific discussions Coyoteman, and exposes the fact that you aren’t serious about discussing anyhting that exposes the myth you hold so dear, and as such, your reputation as a ‘serious scientist’ has really suffered here on FR. ID in NO way resembles your ardent agendist accusaitons, and you know that- but have persisted to make htis false accusaiton for many years here on FR- and you ownder why noone takes you seriously? Your only counter argument to articles posted that poke holes in Darwininian hypothesis is to say “ID is a religion”? Wow! Color me shocked!
How should I categorize those of my scientist acquaintances, respected academics and researchers in the biological disciplines, who do not accept the faith-driven Genesis account and also do not accept the faith-driven claims of evolutionists?