Replies

Over time, science allowed us to understand the earth was round not flat, and by the time we saw the earth from space, there are going to be few around to debate it's flatness anymore.

Exactly.

Which is a completely different matter entirely when it comes to origins, or how drugs work let alone if they work better than others.But I can see how you're so desperate to simplify such complex problems in science.

Again, you are conflating different things.

You're also stuck in the rut of stagnation. The data supported a round earth over time. It was accepted and therefore objective science at one time, and for a LONG time that it was flat. And your position today would remarkably resemble arguing the earth is flat: "the debate is closed, you're nothing but a junk scientist, that's not science", blah blah blah, all while demanding others believe your dogma of a flat earth.

I would be if I were arguing from a position of dogma and ignorance, yes.

Much like the ID folks, really.

I am, instead, arguing from the perspective of the round-earth perspective. There is way more than enough proof supporting that. Bingo...meanwhile science textbooks are no longer referring to Pluto as a planet. Opinions DO mean something after all, when it comes to what is accepted "objective" science as it is taught.

Wow, you really are driven by ignorance, aren't you?

The only opinions feeding the Pluto debate are about what constitutes a planet. Eventually the definition was set as a body that contains enough mass to become spherical, clears its own orbit, etc.

Once there was a concrete definition in place Pluto no longer qualified.

That lack of qualification is a fact and not an opinion or theory.

The exact same is applicable to manmade global warming. IN FACT what passes as objective science in science classrooms all across the country isn't objective science at all, just as the cult of evolution is presented more as fact than theory.Nothing is allowed to compete, because the debate is closed.

Sorry, but you are still not getting it. Anthropogenic global warming, like ID, is junk science, if it is science at all. There is no credible evidence backing up either, just deliberate and selective misinterpretations of data to support a predetermined solution.

Evolution is no such animal. There is no credible debate about the basic premise that organisms mutate, compete and evolve.

None.

Yes, some of the finer details are still open to speculation. Was this species descended from that. Was this structure evolved from that. Did this stimulus bring about that adaptation and so on. Those are, however, all details and have no bearing on the proven validity of Evolution. The evolution cult followers need to understand no one gave them the keys to define what is or isn't objective science, no one appointed them but themselves.

Exactly. Science is defined by scientists. Evolution is but one tiny branch that meets the qualifications next to physics, biology, chemistry and so on.

And it is they who are forcing their ideology and religious beliefs on the public. If anything, the junk scientists are the ones who pretend they and they alone are the only people capable of "doing science" (algore and evolutionists who exclaim "the debate is over, my defininition is as good as God's", blah blah blah...) while their fellow NEA godless liberal cultists sue dissenters into silence, enforcing their cultish science through courts and not the labs, let alone so-called peer review, etc.

Sorry, but that's not the case.

If anyone in the ID community ever brings up a valid point following appropriate scientific methods they'd be heard. Sure it would be scoffed at initially because of the reputation creationists have, but if they had real, scientific evidence then it would work.

Sadly that does not work both ways. Creationists/IDers have no respect for the scientific method and refuse to see the inherent validity of their opposition.

That is one reason they are bound to fail. In the end they are bringing a rubber band to a gunfight.

In practice it's precisely how it works, and I live in the real world as a hospice nurse and see how all kinds of things other than the actual objective science influences the science of medicine on a daily basis; and it's simply preposterous to believe godless liberals don't infect science as they have journalsim, art, history, politics, law, and virtually any and everything else they touch. And the only people incapable of seeing this fact are the kool-aid drinking liberals themselves.

I have no argument with most of that. Medicine is not science. For most practitioners it ain't even close. . . and liberals do infect the world with their nonsense, but in the end reality usually prevails.

Medical research, on the other hand, is usually science.

There simply is no serious peer review of evolution because normal people without myriad insecurities and God-hang-ups understand each and every threat is met with "that's a religious attack on science" rather it is or not! (As well as "Inquisition, theocracy, burning at the stake", as well as your ineffective drivel.)

There has been 100 years of serious peer review of Evolution and it has passed with flying colors.

There has been no credible, scientific opposition for years.

And no, ID does notqualify because ID is not science. Like medicine, it ain't even close.

So why isn't it called Evolution FACT already?

Actually it is.

Evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is only about the details, as mentioned above.

It appears the debate isn't over after all, no matter how desperate you and the algoreacle are ready to claim victory, it just isn't the case, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

The "debate" isn't over because there are still flat-earth types out there. There is no scientific debate, but don't let that stop you.

But I agree about the AGW crap. It's utter nonsense. . . again, just like ID.

You just made my point for me, game, set, match.

If I did then clearly you don't understand the point you are trying to make.

But I will agree that ID is closer to tennis than science.