8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

100 types of pussies, i must do some research in order to scientifically confirm such claims. In the name of science mind you not.

Right when I heard the Muslim girl talking at the beginning saying that mutations are random, I immediately started laughing my ass off. I'm in a freakin freshman college Biology course, just getting a small taste of what we know in genetics, and even I can understand the alleles, recombination and independent assortment that govern what offspring inherit what. Absolutely ridiculous.

Wow, Crystal....

so lets recap underlings.
u sound like u r reading off talkorigins under th how2debate a creationist tab.

u r elephant hurling.
show me how i dont understand the scientific method, or natural selection or what stasis means.

"You also think scientists try to confirm the status quo rather than challenge it"
i know this4 a fact. confirmation bias is a fact. this is y we hav blind tests in science2 prevent th experimenter reaching his intended conclusion.

The cell contains sufficient evidence4ID

If I sound like I'm reading off TalkOrigins, perhaps it's because I helped CONTRIBUTE to it. I have an evolutionary degree, so should it come as any surprise that I know something of which I speak?

You've used dishonest quote mining and mischaracterized science. You claim scientists accept evolutionary theory only because they can't accept creationism...when if you DID know about science you'd know it's ALL about the evidence, which supports evolution and not creationism (at all).

Also, the scientific method is specifically designed to limit confirmation bias. When even those with an OPPOSITE bias can perform the same experiments and achieve the same results (as with evolutionary sciences), then bias is not a significant factor. Blind testing of fossil strata also prevent bias.

The creationist claim that cells are too complex to imagine being created naturally has been easily falsified, since you don't go from complex chemicals to a cell in one step.

Also, a lack of understanding of every step from complex chemicals to a functioning cell is NOT an excuse to resort to magical explanations. Before DNA was discovered, was it logical to assume that our lack of knowledge of a common blueprint for life was evidence for ID? Of course not.

The building blocks of life are found throughout the universe, and many steps from non-life to life have been discovered and continue to be discovered.

Again, show me ANY evidence for creationism.

You are an idiot.

thank you.
so how is that the earth was believed to be flat?
What was the scientific consensus at the time?

we have atheists arguing that the church believed it was flat and that 'real' scientists believed it was round and there4 the 'flat earthers' accusation against the church when indeed it was the scientific consensus by the 'real' scientists who convinced the church they were right when in fact they were wrong.

Personally, I think Scientists, throughout the Dark Ages (most of them, at least), were well aware that the Earth was not flat, and that the Bible wasn't to be taken literally. It's just the fear tactics and control that seems to have kept people silent. Scientists had to organize secretly, or work privately on their own, like Galileo. The Church, of course, may have believed that the Earth was flat, at the time