[gore3000]

As stated here, irreducible complexity's a transcendental claim of zero scientific merit.

No it is not. The laws of probability show quite well that something is practically impossible. When the scientific facts about something are sufficiently well known - such as with the bacterial flagellum, a claim that it could not have arisen by blind chance (which is what evolutionists say) is unscientific. In fact, science is not about blind chance, it is about causation, so all the claims of evolutionists are unscientific. Further, because of the numerous examples of intelligent design in living organisms, all those problems cannot be waved away with 'but it could have happened'. The succession of totally ridiculous probabilites being necessary for evolution to be true makes the theory itself totally ridiculous.

[Aric2000]

Intelligent design is the lazy man's way of explaining what they do not understand.

Look at how complicated this is, god must have done it.

Intellectually vacant.

So easy, but no scientific PROOF behind any of it.

SHOW me where a MAJORITY of Scientists agree with ID and we can talk about it being scientific, but you can't, so we won't.

You are just so easy, you spout garbage and expect it to be taken as gospel. Sorry Charlie, but your opinions are just that, OPINIONS, science does not accept you worldview, but a MAJORITY of scientists accept Evolution. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

[donh]

happened'. The succession of totally ridiculous probabilites being necessary for evolution to be true makes the theory itself totally ridiculous.

You have once again proved yourself an able desciple of the principle of retrospective astonishment. Anything can look highly improbable if you refuse to consider all the possible alternatives that never came to fruition because you did.