[Fester Chugabrew]

You don't believe in objectivity either.

I believe in objective reality. I also know that humans cannot be completely objective no matter how hard they try. Part of the nature of being human is to be subjective. But the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is not a subjective judgement on my part. By and large it defines objective reality. But how "objective" is a phylogenetic tree that subjectively assumes relationships in morphology constitute relationships in objective history?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But how "objective" is a phylogenetic tree that subjectively assumes relationships in morphology constitute relationships in objective history?"

Phylogeny is far more than just morphology these days.

" But the presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is not a subjective judgement on my part."

No, it isn't. You claim that this means that there was an intelligent designer IS a subjective statement though. As I and Fester1 has already agreed, there is no way to make a weighted choice between the two options. The only way to make a choice in this is to assume some extra-scientific evidence that is subjective.

[PatrickHenry]

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ABANDON THREAD

This thread is totally wucked up by: (1) a truly malicious troll; and (2) the foolishness of others in responding to him. It's madness to hang around to watch as things get progressively worse. I'm outta here. You guys can continue to chat with the sicko all you like.