[snarks_when_bored]

No, it's an argument from plausibility. How plausible is it to think that thousands and thousands of smart, professional scientists are engaged in an enterprise devoted to pulling the wool over the eyes of the public? I would argue that that's not plausible at all. They're scientists, and they're trying to understand how life has developed, trying to understand what is the case.

To argue that evolutionists are somehow mere ideologues and not truth-seekers seems to me to ignore the facts of human nature.

[Dataman]

No, it's an argument from plausibility. How plausible is it to think that thousands and thousands of smart, professional scientists are engaged in an enterprise devoted to pulling the wool over the eyes of the public?

Plausibility? An evolutionist appeals to plausibility? How plausible is it that the first DNA assembled itself by chance? Answer 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. That's more than the number of electrons in the entire universe.

What are the chances the simplest DNA would add two gene pairs per year (by random chance) to arrive at human DNA today? Answer: ZERO. Gould knew it-- which is why he invented his Punctuated Equilibrium to mask the problem.

What are the chances that our DNA would stop changing completely when we got the ability to decode it? ZERO.

The whole theory is nothing but a collection of impossible odds, naturalistic miracles, just-so stories and fabricated Peppered Moth pictures.

And you dare speak of plausibility?