Replies

> I don't buy the "Trust Me" answers from the Darwinists.

Then don't buy that answer. Buy the actual answers. They are out there, and are not that hard to find.

The fact that someone has to sit and ponder a while when asked a "hey, what about this" with regards to a theory does not mean that the theory is flawed or broken. It just means that it is complex, and that not everything has been thought of yet. "Irreducible Complexity" is as much a fundamental problem for evolution as the "Dean Drive" was to Newtonian physics.

> This necessarily casts a pro-ID taint on any and all experiments and observations in the realm of evolutionary science.

Ah. I get it. The fact that any experiment must be designed by humans (intelligent designers), and thus, no experiment is possible that will convince those who believ ethat all things are thus created by an Intelligent Designer.

Perhaps you would be so kind to post some links. I've done an awful lot of research on this, and thus far, all the response I can find the Darwinists saying concerning irreducible complexity boils down to "Trust me." IOW, they are making their premise appear as the conclusion.

In any experiment where you are testing for a specific property, you do your durndest to get rid if any impurities that will cause problems with your conclusions. When trying to remove ID from the evolutionary picture, Darwinists must remove all impurities also. This is simple logic. If someone bases their conclusion on the premise that ID is not a part of evolution, then they should be able to show this by removing all ID producing impurities.

Unfortunately, merely by using an ID tool, an impurity is introduced in experimentation which negates any conclusions that ID could not be a part of the evolutionary scheme. For, after all, if we as finite humans can obtain a certain result using our limited toolset, what makes us think that a much more intelligent agent could not do the same on a far vaster scale?

To deny the possibility of ID in the face of such insuperable difficulties arrogates the omniscience for humans that is generally reserved an infinite G-d.

You can't get there from here.

(Famous line in a joke)

"However, if you drive REALLY ast, and hit that ramp just right, a lot of us agree that your momentum will probably carry you on over...."

(Simplified "E" explanation for a LOT of things.)

You can't get there from here.

(Famous line in a joke)

"However, if you drive REALLY fast, and hit that ramp just right, a lot of us agree that your momentum will probably carry you on over...."

(Simplified "E" explanation for a LOT of things.)

as the "Dean Drive" was to Newtonian physics.

I thought the Dean Drive ended early in the primaries. YEARRRGH!!!!

Seriously, I never heard of the Dean Drive. Can you point me to a decent explanation?