Search results

I'm led to believe Ken's a very nice guy and he's certainly laughed to scorn, he's still dead wrong though.

That's an observation (based on evolution I might add), not an explanation.

I equate goddidit with a used car salesman saying "You don't need a test drive. Trust me"

What water? Before we worry about where the flood water went let's see if there was any flood at all. Not looking for reasons why you can't find evidence of something that doesn't seem to have happened is not denial. It's what I do every morning when I don't look for reasons why I can't find...

I don't know of any doctrine of evolution that deals with fossils but the lack of any explanation that stands up to the slightest critical examination from young earth creationists is most parsimoniously explained by them being wrong.

The reason fossils can't be explained in terms of a recent global flood and young earth is that neither are true.

Yep here's one such project About the HapMap And another Home | 1000 Genomes

If you believe that homochirality was designed I'd be happy to see your evidence.

So evolution of traits, features and complex functions is fine as long as you can wedge your designer into the origin of life gap.

Are your eyes on the sides of your head? Do you have claws instead of nails? On what basis do you claim not to have the features of a primate?

The planet Venus can be taken as a UFO and bumps and hills on Mars can be taken as a face. Not all interpretations of the evidence are rational or supported.

Who are these imaginary scientists seeking new and better fruit flies? Natural selection acting on variation produced by mutation is a proposed mechanism. I don't believe you when you say things like "evolutionists claim..." "Evolutionists think..." "Evolutionists used to believe..." It all...

I think the problem is energy efficacy. Eukaryotes with all those mitochondria are the only ones capable of sustaining and moving big bodies. I could be wrong of course.

CSI is a joke as a criteria for falsification. It's not measurable nor objectively definable and humans, the only designers of the type you want who we have evidence for, do not necessarily produce complex or specified designs.

So you if you still can't say what ID states then how could any test falsify such a vague notion?

Right so evolution has natural observed mechanisms and doesn't propose hypothetical unevidenced entities.

Heh, I think it can't be stated specifically because it's unfalsifiable. At some unknown point some unknown entity using some unknown means did X for some unknown reason.

What does ID state? Specifically.

Could you explain how any of those four would test or falsify ID?

Alright so if we change "the literal translation" to "a literal translation" that seems fine. By the second rule of thumb I think my interpretation that the bible holds the earth to be flat(ish) and covered with a dome holds up theologically.