Evolution or Creation? (Page 21): Which intelligence design is, It’s the same process that any scientist uses but comes to a different interpretation and conclusion. There is a...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

DirtFarmer wrote:

A theory's validity is determined by testing.

Which intelligence design is, It’s the same process that any scientist uses but comes to a different interpretation and conclusion. There is a difference between biblical creationists and intelligent design proponents. But they both have relatively same conclusions. I signed more with the intelligent design proponents than I do with creationist, because Creationists do believe in a young earth, which may be true, but I don’t believe it is, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t . I believe the old earth theory holds more validity at this point.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

Creationism is pseudoscience; it is not a valid theory. Once again, there is no evidence of a "creator". The lack of contrary evidence is not proof.

Many scientists claim to believe in a creator. I question their veracity; there is a lot of social pressure against being honest about being an atheist, or even an agnostic. This is the tyranny of religion, and it's influence cannot be understated.

lol pure nonsense, there is definitely more social pressure against supporting, intelligent design or creationism. You are definitely ridiculed and outcast more if you claim that you believe in intelligent design or creationism. You are absolutely wrong or at least you’re lying about no evidence that there could be a creator. There is plenty of scientific evidence that creator may exist.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

lol pure nonsense, there is definitely more social pressure against supporting, intelligent design or creationism. You are definitely ridiculed and outcast more if you claim that you believe in intelligent design or creationism. You are absolutely wrong or at least you’re lying about no evidence that there could be a creator. There is plenty of scientific evidence that creator may exist.

None whatsoever. Creationism is pure hogwash.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

Which intelligence design is, It’s the same proce... (show quote)

Intelligent design is pure hogwash.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

None whatsoever. Creationism is pure hogwash.

lol nobody cares about your opinion you have no credibility to determine either way.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

Intelligent design is pure hogwash.

The most strongest evidence that there may be a crater is an “irreducible complexity” and the “cosmological constant”. Not to mention that life begins life and non-life gets non-life. There is no such evidence that a nonliving form can produce a life forming organism or consciousness, yet you still believe in it where is your evidence that life came from nonlife? You claimed that there is no scientific evidence that God exist, and that may be true, but there’s also no evidence that life came from nonlife yet you believe it. You are quite the irrational hypocrite.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

lol nobody cares about your opinion you have no credibility to determine either way.

Even so, you're going to get my opinion about the ridiculous fairy tales and unintelligent lies of Creationism.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

Even so, you're going to get my opinion about the ridiculous fairy tales and unintelligent lies of Creationism.

lol it’s a good thing Nobody in here takes you seriously you’re too arrogant and blind to take seriously.

srt101fan

After 21 pages, not a single logical statement of proof on either side of the argument. Of course we knew all along that there wouldn't be any.

So the winner of the debate is.....
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-795418-6.html#14356601

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

lol it’s a good thing Nobody in here takes you seriously you’re too arrogant and blind to take seriously.

I see you are back to talking about yourself. I'm done.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

srt101fan wrote:

After 21 pages, not a single logical statement of proof on either side of the argument. Of course we knew all along that there wouldn't be any.

So the winner of the debate is.....
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-795418-6.html#14356601

And the loser is JCboy for being an arrogant close minded individual.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

I see you are back to talking about yourself. I'm done.

See, this is what you always do you always twist and deflect.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

I see you are back to talking about yourself. I'm done.

See you’re leaving after I asked you these questions because you have no scientific answer.

There is no such evidence that a nonliving form can produce a life forming organism or consciousness, yet you still believe in it where is your evidence that life came from nonlife? You claimed that there is no scientific evidence that God exist, and that may be true, but there’s also no evidence that life came from nonlife yet you believe it. You are quite the irrational hypocrite.

Rose42

jcboy3 wrote:

You can't observe it, because it happened a long time ago. But you can put the pieces of knowledge together to form the theory. As a theory, however, it is valid. Elements of it can be tested.

Whereas creationism is not a theory; there is nothing to test. There are no experiments to run. It is just a fantasy trying to simplistically explain a very long complicated process.

And it proposes that the "creator" has always existed. Want to test that?

You aren’t searching for truth but rather looking for reasons to prop up your unbelief

Science is a religion for many but science has absolutely no idea how we and life’s complexity and interdependencies came to be no matter how anyone tries to spin it

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Rose42 wrote:

You aren’t searching for truth but rather looking for reasons to prop up your unbelief

Science is a religion for many but science has absolutely no idea how we and life’s complexity and interdependencies came to be no matter how anyone tries to spin it