[<1/1,000,000th%]

Dunno.

This is the usual answer that comes from basic ID theory. It's no surprise that most folks don't have much use for it.

[jwalsh07]

This is the usual answer that comes from basic ID theory. It's no surprise that most folks don't have much use for it.

Dunno is infinitely better than your answer to the question appended to dunno.

[microgood]

This is the usual answer that comes from basic ID theory. It's no surprise that most folks don't have much use for it.

Yes but sometimes it is better than saying you know things you don't. That is the biggest problem with the scientific community today, whether it be evolution or global warming or epidemiological studies, you claim to know things you do not.

You claim you know how the old the world is and how old rocks are (there are massive assumptions in radiometric dating). You claim to know how life evolved over millions of years(assuming correlation = causation).

You claim all this and yet noone in the evolutionary world can explain how a creature without legs or arms came to have them, except the standard old mutation and natural selection with a bit of punctuated equilibrium added or not, depending on your preference and my all time favorite, which is that an arm or leg had some other function until it finally became an arm.

I think Michael Crighton was right when he said magicians love scientists the most because they are the easiest to fool, because they fancy themselves as being objective.