Search results

Anyone who uses the phrase "proven science" has proven they do not know what science is.

Darwinists love it when the argument is over semantic nonsense.

What you wrote is called a platitude. Next to useless in a sensible conversation.

Yeah. Some "scientists" never thought through the whole "can we" versus "should we" thing, released a global pathogen and those responsible have read Nineteen-eighty-four.

E is only approximately equal to mc2

A comprehensive and exhaustive list of reasons to reject the jab: 1. I don't want it.

It's actually not. It's simply another example of how easy it is to show the arguments of a Darwinist to be empty. Your observation of similarities does not provide any evidence for common descent. All it does is help disguise the fact that you assume the truth of your ideas and use your...

Is this a serious argument?

Great. Let us know when you actually have evidence instead of a fluffy article that does nothing but promises that there is some.

Darwinists love it when the argument is about the argument. They hate it when the discussion is over the evidence.

Not really. It's what the word means.

...is that fish turned into people. We prefer the scientific method.

If it's not free, it's not a will.

I came to see what was being said about fossils, instead it's a liberal crying (again).

UN has never posted anything of value in his entire career.

Darwinism cannot be presented any other way. They say it themselves: Evolutionists are forced to use a "creationist shorthand" to be part of a comprehensible conversation. "That is a kind of irrationality that is essential to high-quality work."

The history of why Christians reject Darwinism: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."

No

It's all the things you say that are true. :) Lol. Yep.