You sound so angry.
[Well suppose for the sake of arguement that evolution IS wrong. What evidence do you have that shows ID is the correct alternative?]
What other alternative is there? Seriously? Either everythign happened at random and life came from non life naturally, which is biologically impossible, or life came from nothing and had a supernatural designer.
The only other half-way credible possibility scientifically speaking is that life was begun By God, and allowed to evolve from very basic origins- but again you run into severe insurmountable biological impossibilities. One would htink, that if science were truly objective, and truly looking for the correct answer, they wouldn’t shy away from, and indeed suppress information that attempted to explore ALL three possibilities- instead, what we see is a religious and dogmatic suppression, and an extreme bias that evidently can’t take any coutner evidences.
[as I expected, they are nothing but an attempt to discount evolution. It’s that way with all the ID stuff I’ve seen.]
Well I be less than impressed if that wasn’t there intention- My gosh, of course opposing science evidences will cast doubts- that’s the intention after all.
[You seem to believe that by casting doubts on evolution then ID automatically has to be correct,]
I do? Where did I ever say that? That is simply incorrect of you to say. Look- if a hypothesis has serious biological problems- I want to know- if somethign is impossible, I want to know- and if science were truly objective, instead of highly subjective, and if they were seeking truth instead of attempting to patch together anectotal evidences that slightly make a very weak case for evolution, then they would not be so vehemently opposed.
[Evidence of identity of the intelligent designer. Let’s see what you’ve got.]
Easy- 1: Design seen on every level of life- the fingerprint of a designer 2: Irreducible complexity 3: Specific complexity, and, for the big one, ID isn’t crippled by biological impossibility as is descent from common ancestor. Design is it’s own truth- every organism shows a design that highly suggests a designer- Now, if your side can prove nature is a credible designer, capable of assembling highly complex systems from nothing but a single cell, then more power to ya, but so far the evidence is severely underwhelming.
qam1: No science- lol - K thanks for making clear your arguing tactics early on- saves me a LOT of fruitless counter-arguing.
caffe: I would caution you against bringing any evidence that might show problems with macro-evolution to present to Coyote who’s fingers are firmly inserted in ears and who will repeatedly chant the mantra that ID is apologetics and nothign else, just as Qaml does. It’s a mind-numbing excersize in futility presenting any evidences to folks who are convinced macro-evolution can happen if just ‘given enough time’