Ones who could have no religious or other non-scientific motives for their opinions?
Pssst- #1 the bible IS scientifically free of error #2 Of course you’d take an oath IF soemthign is scientifically free of error- you’d not be objective if you didn’t-
What declared it free of scientific error? What made it authoritative on the subject of science?
Psssst- the objective evidence DOES fit the bible- Dating methods are only accurate back to 5000 years- Beyond that- the methods used to ‘determine age’ are based solely on ASSUMPTIONS
In other words, don't believe your lying eyes.
You’d better do some reasearch
I did. It was a creationist argument, now it's an ID argument, perfectly supporting my claim that IDers rehash old creationist arguments.
I read the relevent parts and always do
Apparently not.
that quote you listed was in a section fro mthe paragraphs that wasn’t pertinent to the evidneces and explanations being given
Then why post it? It's because you're a copy/paste king who can't make his own arguments. You didn't even set out the copy/paste as the work of others, making you a plagiarist.
[[In other words, don’t believe your lying eyes.]]
Lol- this is why arguing with folks liek you is useless- No matter what hte evidnece strongly suggests, you simply wave it all away and claim we ‘can’t trust our lying eyes, and macroevolution might still be possible’ despite all them ountign evidences against is- some so serious, that the hypothsdis can NOT stand
[[Then why post it? It’s because you’re a copy/paste king who can’t make his own arguments.]]
What’s hte matter Antio? Runnign out of arguments and feel the need to start makign htis personal? I’ve made MY arguments, and my points, and I’ve used refernces to back up my poitns- Are you the ‘discussion derailment king who can’t argue the issues ande must resort to attackign hte messenger’?
[[You didn’t even set out the copy/paste as the work of others, making you a plagiarist.]]
I most certainly DID- I posted quote marks AND links, MY comments are not in quotes- and in somep osts I specifically pointed out that the quotes I listed were from previous posts of mine where I got hte quotes fro mthe links I presented- Apaprnetly you’re goign to start digging at me and my posts because you haven’t anymore amminution to defend your arguments with? It’s the same damn thing with folks like you time and time again! Step it up a notch, or else I’m doen with you- I won’t tolorate childish bieckering on your part
[[Ones who could have no religious or other non-scientific motives for their opinions?]]
Yes- knock yerself out searching- They still think evoltuion happens, and that htere must be another mechanism which htey ‘just haven’t discovered yet’- GGG, Myself, Betty Boop, Alamogirl and many others have posted quotes many times form folks like that-
[[What declared it free of scientific error?]]
The evidnce- it’s beyond reasonable doubt- and it doesn’t go beyond hte evidence like macroevolution does- when hte fossil record shows beyond a resonalbe doubt that discontinuity happened, that’s where they stop- they don’t go beyond the science and claim thigns that are contrary to scientific laws like common descent despite htere being no evidnece to support htis claim.
[[What made it authoritative on the subject of science?]]
The eivdnece did
[[I did. It was a creationist argument, now it’s an ID argument,]]
Again your ignroance of ID is showign htrough loud and clear- Creation claims God is the intelligence- ID doesn’t posit who or what hte itnellgience is, only that an intelligence is needed because hte evidence demands that, and hte evidence shows that nature is incapable of beign hte itnellgience- Soem in ID stil lthink nature is the itnellgience, they just have no proof or evidnece to back that beleif up- they keep falling back o nthe same old copout time and time again that they just haven’t foudn the evidence yet to support the belief that nature was capable of producing irreducible complexity- their argument is akin to arguing that 1000 complex cellphones foudn buried were ‘created by nature, but we just haven’t foudn the evidence or mechanisms respopnsible for hte creation yet’ They are welcoem to their beleifs of course, but the evidence is moutnign showign that their stubborn beleif in nature’s capabilities is simpyl an unreasonable argument
[[Apparently not.]]
My points stand just fine- it’s your points that you apparently feel the need to ‘shore up’ by by attacking me instead of the issues brought up- Again- step it up- or I’m done- I explained why that quote made it into the copy and paste- and insulting me as ‘copy and paste’ king is a childish ‘argument’ on your part Most of hwat was pasted was read carefulyl by me, and supports my arguments just fine- That quote was simply in hte middle of hte paragraphs soemwhere, and I simpyl skimmed that part, and copied the several paragraphs al lat once- If you’re goign to glom onto that as your only argument, then this shows an intellectual dishonesty on your part, and an unwillingness to address the issues that were beign discussed, and tactics liek that are best suited to lesser sites liek darwin central where they care nothign about defending their positions, but care only about insultign and belittling their opposition- IF that’s the tactic you’re goign to use here- then Bye Bye fella- not itnerested in such petty bickering. I posted several points- NONE of which you bothered to even address, and instead you glom onto an irrelevent issue as htough it’s the achilles heel of hte whoel argument- it’s not- it’s nothign but a petty sidetrackign avoidance tactic, and I’m not itnerested in playing your little game