"Look, you can say anything you like, and obviously you do. I don't see any reason to continue having this discussion with you. I think you've exhausted the talking points that were provided to you because there doesn't seem to be anything left here but repetition. It's a waste of my time and yours. If you're genuinely interested in these subjects any information you might want is one click of a button away on the web. Good luck."
well it appears to be what you're saying right now. the only thing i repeated in my last comment was about the "but it is scientific to say things look like they were designed, just not scientific to name the designer" part which was b/c you also repeated the part saying mentioning god is not scientific i also repeated that part which was not refuted and it's a fact. it's scientific to say the piramids were most likely built as well as it is to say life looks like it was designed but we don't exactly know by what. everything else i said was. it seams as if your the one who is closed minded. i have looked at your sources but it seams you did not even glance at the videos i posted. i came with the intent to learn but you just want to act better than me disreguarding valid points i have. i feel that if God went to your house and turned your couch to gold you still wouldn't believe it. it's very common for athiests to say to creationists no matter what their credentionals that they "do not understand science and are stuck to their old fashioned beliefs worshiping something that doesn't exist." it seams this forum is full of that therefore i too conclude this is going nowhere. beleive what you want, i never cared about that but evolution is not science. when you make a hypothesis and build another hypothesis on top of that w/o proving the first that is clearly not science. you cannot guess the second w/o proving the first.
well it appears to be what you're saying right now. the only thing i repeated in my last comment was about the "but it is scientific to say things look like they were designed, just not scientific to name the designer" part which was b/c you also repeated the part saying mentioning god is not scientific i also repeated that part which was not refuted and it's a fact. it's scientific to say the piramids were most likely built as well as it is to say life looks like it was designed but we don't exactly know by what. everything else i said was. it seams as if your the one who is closed minded. i have looked at your sources but it seams you did not even glance at the videos i posted. i came with the intent to learn but you just want to act better than me disreguarding valid points i have. i feel that if God went to your house and turned your couch to gold you still wouldn't believe it. it's very common for athiests to say to creationists no matter what their credentionals that they "do not understand science and are stuck to their old fashioned beliefs worshiping something that doesn't exist." it seams this forum is full of that therefore i too conclude this is going nowhere. beleive what you want, i never cared about that but evolution is not science. when you make a hypothesis and build another hypothesis on top of that w/o proving the first that is clearly not science. you cannot guess the second w/o proving the first.
