[Senator Bedfellow]

The ability to imagine such a scenario is not evidence that such a scenario happened.

Tut, tut - let's rewind the tape a bit, and remind ourselves that the original ID claim is not that this specific pathway didn't happen, but that it couldn't happen by any pathway, because it's impossible.

Now we are, perhaps unintentionally, moving the goalposts by demanding that the proposed pathway not only be possible, but that it's the actual pathway that was used. Which is a completely legitimate question on its own merits - is this how flagella actually evolved? - but it most assuredly does not obviate the fact that the original claim of impossibility is now totally dead in the water. I don't know for a fact if the ancient Egyptians actually used a block-and-tackle to build pyramids, but merely pointing out that they could have is sufficient to refute the claim that it's impossible for humans to have built the pyramids.

[Diamond]

Your point is well taken, though I was not intentionally trying to move the goalposts. I agree that the question of the actual pathway, and any ontologically possible pathway are two different questions. That the Eygptians could have used a block and tackle to build the pyramids, even if we don't actually know if that's the way they did it, is true, but the analogy assumes the very thing in question, and curiously, even in the face of the fact that we KNOW the pyramids were DESIGNED, while the Darwinian explanation is that the BF was not. If one said that the pyramids are the result of wind erosion then some skepticism would be warranted, wouldn't it? The possiblity question refers to ontological possiblity, not the bare logical possiblity that the pyramids are the result of wind erosion.

Cordially,