Evolution is "Just a theory" : Mike Pence to Congress in 2002.

[Mallow]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

Are you kidding me? I'd call it out for the utter bullsh**t it is, no matter who says it. Anti-science rhetoric is the absolute worst, and Creationism is just about the worst form of anti-science rhetoric.

[Maxwell]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

literally stfu not believing in evolution is pretty close to disqualifying to me.

[Ebowed]

Technically, it's both a law and a hypothesis

No, it's neither of those things. It's not a law because it can't be expressed as a mathematical formula that can be applied as a universal constant (laws are generally associated with physics and chemistry, rarely biology) and it's not a hypothesis because a hypothesis because that would mean it hasn't been repeatedly tested and confirmed.

Theories, laws, and hypotheses all refer to different things, nothing can be all three.

There are two kinds of evolution. I was referring to microevolution when saying it was a law, and every time evolution has been "tested" is either flawed, or proves creationism.

That's plainly untrue.  Macroevolution is an essentially identical process to microevolution, only the time scale is different.  To accept one and dispute the other is to say that you have a disagreement with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

Are you kidding me? I'd call it out for the utter bullsh**t it is, no matter who says it. Anti-science rhetoric is the absolute worst, and Creationism is just about the worst form of anti-science rhetoric.

Creationism /=/ anti-science. Lumping Young Earth like Pence excludes Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution, all forms of Creationism that are not anti-science.

[Mallow]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

Are you kidding me? I'd call it out for the utter bullsh**t it is, no matter who says it. Anti-science rhetoric is the absolute worst, and Creationism is just about the worst form of anti-science rhetoric.

Creationism /=/ anti-science. Lumping Young Earth like Pence excludes Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution, all forms of Creationism that are not anti-science.

Evolution /=/ the origins of life. Creationism == anti-science.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

Are you kidding me? I'd call it out for the utter bullsh**t it is, no matter who says it. Anti-science rhetoric is the absolute worst, and Creationism is just about the worst form of anti-science rhetoric.

Creationism /=/ anti-science. Lumping Young Earth like Pence excludes Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution, all forms of Creationism that are not anti-science.

Evolution /=/ the origins of life. Creationism == anti-science.

All Creationists, even Young Earth, accept the theory of evolution in some way, shape, or form.

[Ebowed]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

Are you kidding me? I'd call it out for the utter bullsh**t it is, no matter who says it. Anti-science rhetoric is the absolute worst, and Creationism is just about the worst form of anti-science rhetoric.

Creationism /=/ anti-science. Lumping Young Earth like Pence excludes Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution, all forms of Creationism that are not anti-science.

Evolution /=/ the origins of life. Creationism == anti-science.

All Creationists, even Young Earth, accept the theory of evolution in some way, shape, or form.

Still plainly untrue.  The entire point of creationism is to operate within a pseudo-scientific framework to attempt to disprove evolution.  Why do you have such an interest in defending this?

It's a sad thing, too, because corporations relish our scientific illiteracy and make many spurious claims about their products.  That's not even getting into the nefarious activities of certain industries (the petroleum industry has been hiding the link between carbon pollution and changing temperatures since, at least, 1968).

[Mallow]

If Kaine or Clinton said this, you guys would have a very different response.

Are you kidding me? I'd call it out for the utter bullsh**t it is, no matter who says it. Anti-science rhetoric is the absolute worst, and Creationism is just about the worst form of anti-science rhetoric.

Creationism /=/ anti-science. Lumping Young Earth like Pence excludes Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution, all forms of Creationism that are not anti-science.

Evolution /=/ the origins of life. Creationism == anti-science.

All Creationists, even Young Earth, accept the theory of evolution in some way, shape, or form.

Anybody who thinks "kinds" were "created" in their current form, and "microevolution" is the only form of evolution, is demonstrably anti-science and factually challenged.

[Sir Mohamed]

I guess using a brain is also just a theory.

[Figueira]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

[Mallow]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creationism is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

[Figueira]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Usually when people talk about creationism, they're talking about belief in the creation stories as told in the Bible, the Quran, or other books. Theistic evolution is generally not considered creationism.

[Mallow]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Science, by definition, cannot have anything to say about a deity. Anything that requires or suggests a theistic (a supernatural) explanation for anything is non-scientific, by definition.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Science, by definition, cannot have anything to say about a deity. Anything that requires or suggests a theistic (a supernatural) explanation for anything is non-scientific, by definition.

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

[Mallow]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Science, by definition, cannot have anything to say about a deity. Anything that requires or suggests a theistic (a supernatural) explanation for anything is non-scientific, by definition.

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

Hooray for ad-hominem!

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Science, by definition, cannot have anything to say about a deity. Anything that requires or suggests a theistic (a supernatural) explanation for anything is non-scientific, by definition.

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

Hooray for ad-hominem!

Hooray for Atheist Fundamentalism!

[Figueira]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Science, by definition, cannot have anything to say about a deity. Anything that requires or suggests a theistic (a supernatural) explanation for anything is non-scientific, by definition.

Science doesn't say anything about deities, so you can believe in a deity and still not be anti-science. Non-scientific=/=anti-science.

[Ebowed]

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

Let's review:
- You come in here to make, and repeat, false claims about the nature of creationism by demonstrating that you don't understand the definitions and that you will change them as required to suit your purposes (intellectual dishonesty).
- When asked to defend your assertions on any level, you retreat (intellectual cowardice).

Maybe there's no point arguing with "the likes" of you?  You won't even admit why you are engaging in this debate.  That's really pathetic.

[Mallow]

There is actually something I agree with Pence more than I agree with Democratic ticket!
You don't see that everyday.
This won't last. Trump will say something about *insert minority group here*.

You're a creationist!?

Yes, he's a Muslim.

Just as not all Christians are anti-science creationists, neither are all Muslims. It's not a given.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but I wanted to show that I can be reasonable sometimes.

Creation is not anti-science. Theistic Evolution proves that.

Science, by definition, cannot have anything to say about a deity. Anything that requires or suggests a theistic (a supernatural) explanation for anything is non-scientific, by definition.

Science doesn't say anything about deities, so you can believe in a deity and still not be anti-science. Non-scientific=/=anti-science.

I did not say otherwise. "Theistic Evolution" is not Creationism, but it's also not science. I wouldn't say it's "anti-science" per se, but some forms of it certainly fly in the face of research being done about the origins of life. I would only say it's not "anti-science" because there is no scientific consensus yet--history shows that the god of the gaps is becoming ever smaller and weaker. Creationism, the belief that species, or "kinds", were created in their current macroscopic form, is complete anti-science hogwash.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

Let's review:
- You come in here to make, and repeat, false claims about the nature of creationism by demonstrating that you don't understand the definitions and that you will change them as required to suit your purposes (intellectual dishonesty).
- When asked to defend your assertions on any level, you retreat (intellectual cowardice).

Maybe there's no point arguing with "the likes" of you?  You won't even admit why you are engaging in this debate.  That's really pathetic.

When did I ever make a false claim? Creationism is not inherently anti-science. Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution are all forms of creationism, yet close minded atheist fundamentalists insist that they are all the same and completly anti science. Even the ones that fully and completely accept the theory of evolution is automatically anti-science for believing in a god? That is anti-religious bigotry and atheist fundamentalism.

[Ebowed]

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

Let's review:
- You come in here to make, and repeat, false claims about the nature of creationism by demonstrating that you don't understand the definitions and that you will change them as required to suit your purposes (intellectual dishonesty).
- When asked to defend your assertions on any level, you retreat (intellectual cowardice).

Maybe there's no point arguing with "the likes" of you?  You won't even admit why you are engaging in this debate.  That's really pathetic.

When did I ever make a false claim? Creationism is not inherently anti-science. Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution are all forms of creationism, yet close minded atheist fundamentalists insist that they are anti science. Even the ones that fully and completely accept the theory of evolution is automaticlly anti-science for believing in a god? That is anti-religious bigoty and atheist fundamentalism.

Your own crooked terminology betrays any pretense you have of honesty or impartiality.  Atheist fundamentalism, please.  Your "bigotry" against scientists is so overwhelming that your posts are barely readable.  Stop trying to change the terms of the debate for just one moment so that we can keep up with what you are trying to say here.

Your posts are littered with false claims.

"Creationism is not inherently anti-science."  Yes, it is.  The entire point of creationism is to ignore the scientific method.  Creationists do not start with a blank slate; they begin with the presupposition that a particular interpretation of their religious text is accurate and then look for any evidence that might fit their assumptions.  That is very plainly what science is NOT.  Regardless of what claims a creationist makes about the age of the earth, they begin with a belief and look for proof.

The existence of a deity is a separate question, and I understand that it suits your purposes to conflate the two debates, but again, we are trying to have an honest conversation here, so if you could stick to evolution, that would be fantastic.

[Mallow]

You're just a close minded bigot. There's no point arguing with the likes of you.

Let's review:
- You come in here to make, and repeat, false claims about the nature of creationism by demonstrating that you don't understand the definitions and that you will change them as required to suit your purposes (intellectual dishonesty).
- When asked to defend your assertions on any level, you retreat (intellectual cowardice).

Maybe there's no point arguing with "the likes" of you?  You won't even admit why you are engaging in this debate.  That's really pathetic.

When did I ever make a false claim? Creationism is not inherently anti-science. Young Earth, Old Earth, Progressive, and Theistic Evolution are all forms of creationism, yet close minded atheist fundamentalists insist that they are all the same and completly anti science. Even the ones that fully and completely accept the theory of evolution is automatically anti-science for believing in a god? That is anti-religious bigotry and atheist fundamentalism.

Huh? I did not say that at all.

I said those are non-scientific views, not anti-science views. Creationism is anti-science, in that it uses non-scientific methods to directly contradict scientific findings. Some forms of "Theistic Evolution" (which I now see you are lumping in with other forms of Creationism... when most people hear Creationism, that is not what they think of) do not do that, so I would not call them anti-science. But they're certainly not science, either.

Basically, if you're always moving the goal posts, accepting new science and pushing god another step backwards in the process, how is that useful or meaningful in a scientific sense?