http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws

I can refute all of these creationist websites in three words: Snakes don't talk.

Hilarious.

Kent Hovind would fail high school science. His credibility on anything scientific is zero.

Very nice.

This is technically an ad hoc argument, but I think it is hilarious that this guy is in prison. The real problem with Hovind is that he doesn't even seem to have a clear understanding of evolution in the first place and there was evidence that magic man did it, then you wouldn't need faith. Hopefully he can find some time to read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins during his stint in prison.

[]what you wrote

Still waiting for you to provide DNA evidence, or any kind of scientific peer reviewed credible evidence, that the Cusco Mummy is a Nephilim and not an Alien from a Flying Saucer.

At least you arent denying that it exists or its not human
but watch this and it will explain to you that the "Alien" phenomena is a cover up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjmFm8PIz8M&t=59m20s

Of course I'm not denying that it exists, clearly it does. Neither do I really believe that it's an Alien, I was simply making the point that the religious aren't the only people leaping at this as proof of something they would like to believe true.

Until I see evidence that it's anything other, I'll continue to believe that it's much more likely to be simply the skeleton of a deformed child.

mods wont delete this thread ;_;

i want to make a Young Earth Creation General on the science forum instead

Creationism isnt science, so it goes in RGT.

You could start by posting all the evidence for creationism. It would at least have the merit of being extremely short, infinitesimally so in fact.

Like Bunny said, it's not science. I's not useful since it doesn't explain any natural phenomena, it can't be used to make predictions, it doesn't provide a useful paradigm unless you think that 'god did it' prompts questions and answers that could actually explain anything or increase our knowledge and understanding, it's not correctable or progressive, it's not based on empirical observation and analysis, it's not testable, and it's certainly not tentative.

It is a religious view not a scientific theory.

Creationism might not be scientific, but its derivative intelligent design is. In the sense that intelligent design is potentially provable. The only problem is that the complete lack of any meaningful supporting evidence causes ID to loose credibility.

Yes.

True. We'll never know. I guess I assume it didn't happen that often, and you assume it happened more often than not.

Sure, people are inquisitive. But (personally) if I want to fully appreciate the beauty of someone's work, I want to study it as much as possible. Whether it's how a football team structures an awesome set play, or how a producer/director put together a masterpiece movie, or a creator God places order into the universe, whether on a ginormous scale, or an insanely small scale. The more I study it, the more I appreciate it.

Yes. There are pockets of religiously inspired ignorance, but (in my experience) the overwhelming majority of religious people support the study of science. I'm sure I'm biased towards 21st century American Protestants, though. But I'm not even sure that historically, religion has been obv anti-science or pro-ignorance. So, I question your usage of the word "bastion".

[x] Question Conclusion
[ ] Hypothesis
[ ] Experiment
[x] Conclusion

And, by extension: God; therefore Jesus.

Hypothesis: Someone could have interfered in an intelligent fashion with our development at some point during the last 4 billion years. Its conceivable, its possible.

Experiment: Just about every investigation into human evolution could be considered an investigation into ID, so far all giving a false result.

Conclusion: Until supporting empirical evidence is found, ID cannot be considered much more than a fantasy.

Still all we need to do is find some lab in the Antarctica dating from a million years ago with evidence for the development of viral agents to splice genes into homoerectus. Computer records of their development of the process. Remains of experimental subjects. Then the confirmation of the tinkering in the analysis of our own genome.

Don't know what God and Jesus has to do with anything.

At best ID could be kindly described as pseudo science. "because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes." Wiki

Irreducible complexity is grasping at straws and Specified complexity is just people seeing what they want to see. ID is not science, it's an attempt by the Creationists to legitimise their religious view.

It wouldn't be very scientific to base your opinion only on your experience. Historically, religions have done great harm to scientific advancement and the understanding of the natural world, for the simple reason that it always contradicted their divine explanations which made them look foolish and reduced their control and power. I can provide many many examples if you wish. I can link videos of much more intelligent people than I arguing the exact same point also.

This is in no way an argument that science proves or disproves that gods exist and everything to do with men and their petty power struggles. Even now there are people (46%) in what is supposed to be one of the most educated and advanced nations on Earth, that believe god created us in our present form within the last 10k years. Thanks to religion. Stunning.

Ooh, a new video from the Discovery Institute! Reporting from their laboratory!



But there's something odd going on here...


http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/...erstock-image/
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-8620...-at-night.html

Lol

Wow.... I'm stunned by the hypocrisy. 'it doesn't rule out the possibility that there is no tree (1:10)'.... sure, how about you include the possibility that there isn't a god...

She thinks that 'they' think that we have an ancestor in common with chimps because we look like them (she must hang out in some rough bars), I thought it was because we have 96% DNA in common with chimps. Too bad for chimps huh, they should have left the forests when we did, life on the plains turned out to be not so bad.

It's not possible for an animal to reproduce a human. People only believe in it because they are told that "intelligent" people who are "scientists" believe in it. Most people have never really studied the issue or thought about it logically. Its not possible for life to form from non life, nor i it possible for one kind of animal to reproduce outside its own kind. But trying to reason with evolutionist is pointless. The best thing to do is to politically have it removed from a public institution near you through the political process. trying to reason with evolutionists is pointless because they accept it for religious reasons. Ans they hate a perception of what they believe is religion. There is no such thing as religion. There is only truth and untruth.
The atheist uses the word religion as something to give them an identity. That identity is non-religious. Then they go around trying to pretend to sound intelligent. Many people are repelled by what they see to represent "religion" according to media spin. They think the republican party represents religion. When all it represents is itself or nobody. Their whole identity is rebelling against a stereotype that doesn;t exist.

The 96 percent DNA analogy was based off of a small mapping of the genetic code. Evolutionists wrote off turned off genes as junk DNA. Which they misubderstood. By the same logic humans are 50 percent banana according to similar studies. Every evolutionary claim can be torn down very easily. No, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Its not possible for an animal to have sex and make people. You have to be an idiot to believe that. Just because people don;t like the concept of God. They try to make up new laws of nature and biology to suit their beliefs, then try to pass it off as science. And then try to put people who disagree into the category "religion"

Gold, just gold