Who said it is not science? Who appointed you to decide? Darwinism is a “Theory” only, not proven science (missing link found anyone?)
Say it is “not fucking science” is in iteslf a pretty dogmatic and narrow minded statement, one bereft of ignorance.
Sadly, no one on the Evolution side ever wants to debate it. if you do, please contact:
Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics Intl.
He has so far been unsuccessful getting anyone to debate Creationism vs Evolution.
34 comments
Saying 'intelligent design' is "not fucking science" is a statement bereft of ignorance? Yes, indeed.
Hm. Yeah, 'debating' science vs. creation myth isn't pointless or anything.
[Say it is “not fucking science” is in iteslf a pretty dogmatic and narrow minded statement, one bereft of ignorance.]
Does this guy know what "bereft" means? Apparently not.
Robert Sungenis is a geocentrist and got his "Ph.D" from a diploma mill.
His dissertation: "The Heliocentric Model of Cosmology Introduced by Nicolaus Copernicus and Advanced by Galileo Galilei, is an Unproven Scientific Hypothesis; a Faulty Interpretation of the Bible; and in Conflict with official Magisterial Decrees of the Catholic Church."
No wonder no one wants to debate this crackpot.
"Darwinism" is not a theory. Darwinism is not science. Darwinism is a word made up by religious nuts. Using it makes you look like a religious nut, whether you are one or not. (in thes case, you are a RN).
The missing link is a remnant hypothesis from the victorian era. Current theory does not bother with a single "missing link". Oh, and we have lots of fossils from our fore fathers.
Creationism is not science. There is no evidence for it. The bible is not evidence for creationism. Kent Hovind is not evidence for creationism.
No self-respecting scientist is going to debate with creationists, because creationists opinions are not on par with evolutionary fact.
"Darwinism is a “Theory” only, not proven science (missing link found anyone?) "
Christianism is a "Myth" only, not proven real. We found the missing link, we win.
"His dissertation: "The Heliocentric Model of Cosmology Introduced by Nicolaus Copernicus and Advanced by Galileo Galilei, is an Unproven Scientific Hypothesis; a Faulty Interpretation of the Bible; and in Conflict with official Magisterial Decrees of the Catholic Church."
No wonder no one wants to debate this crackpot. "
We should get one of the "catholics are not christians" fundies to debate him.
Do you have any idea what the word theory means? If you wanted to honestly discuss evolution with a scientist, trust me, not one would avoid it. It is, actually, fundies who avoid the discussions because you might actually learn something, and your god knows you can't have that happening.
The Supreme court of the Unitd States, among others have plainly stated after (unnecessary) careful review that creationism (or ID) is not science. I can't quite say whether or not it was ever considered science, but it was at least accepted as truth for a long period of time. Actual science has since made advances to explain what actually happened, however, and as such we'll never revert to a hypothesis we know to be flawed. Also, since you know nothing of science I'll just throw this out there for the millionth time: a theory is proven to the extent that there is little doubt and absolutely no evidence to refute it. Prior to this it is 'just a hypothesis'.
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is christianist dogma.
Evidence, facts, logic and reason against "Goddidit" is a waste of time.
I'll do a deal, I'll debate it when you:
Learn the true meaning of the term "theory"
Learn which common ancestor we came from
Learn the scientific method, with especial attention to a priori reasoning
Then get back to me
Why do people think that theory means an unproven idea? Maybe in a colloquial, nonscientific manner. But the science term? Totally different.
Although, it's pretty bad when they have to clutch at semantics to try to win their arguement.
Jesus f***ing Christ!!
Let me fill you in on something you may not be aware of. In the parlance of Science a theory is a framework of observations and conclusions reached via experimentation and rigorous peer review. A theory is the finished product. What you're obviously refering to is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is the starting point of the scientific process. It's a "guess", if you like. Hypotheses are subjected to the 7 step Scientific Method and, if they are found to have merit, are later developed into fully described and documented theories.
I explained this because I'm sick to death of hearing know-nothings like yourself dismiss theories as if they were nothing. It's a mistake made by ALL truly stupid people.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.