[Central Scrutiniser]

Hey, I'm still trying to get a creationist to explain how a sloth crawled all the way from S. America, then swam across the ocean, got into an ark, and then somehow made it all the way home after the floods wiped out all the plant life. (substitute any other animal of the world for sloth, same illogic).

[VadeRetro]

(substitute any other animal of the world for sloth, same illogic).

The koala "bear" might be fun. It is only naturally found in Australia, and only eats eucalyptus leaves. It's also pretty defenseless against large predators if caught out on the open ground.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah, and I'm still trying to get an Evolutionist to explain about the evolution of information or primordial soup or irreduceable complexity. The point is that there is much we don't know. And you can find many gaps in the knowledge base on both sides of the arguments. However, Evolutionists (as a general rule) tend to throw out any argument that ID has anything to do with evolution. While many Creationists are as narrow-minded Evolutionists, there are many IDers who are not.

I will state that to be fair, Evolutionists will have to explain why they are using tools which are based on ID (and in turn, bias their results in favor of ID) while they reject the concept of ID out of hand.