I disagree that this is “classic ignorance taken to the limit.”
I never once mentioned that the moths were an example of macroevolution. It is you, rather, who suggested that I made such an allusion. I did, however, present the moths as an example of microevolution – change in the allele frequencies of a population over time. Your statement, “All that happened is that moths of a lighter color died off at a more rapid rate than the moths of a darker color,” ironically enough, actually confirms that microevolution happened. The moths of a lighter color died off at a more rapid rate than the moths of a darker color. That’s what we call change in the allele frequencies of a population over time. Of course, like with GourmetDan, I don’t expect you to realize that what you wrote confirmed my example. That would be asking for too much.
The problem with your “take a look at how the ear works” argument is that you assume an ear has to be as complex as ours to in order to be considered an ear. It does not.
The burden of proof is on you to show that intelligent design was required for the ear to develop. Your refusal to do so is irresponsible and childish - “I believe it, now you prove it.” Does that make sense? No. If it’s your belief, then don’t ask others to do the hard work for you. Do it yourself.
Why don’t you give me a simple experiment that demonstrates the existence of an intelligent designer? As I’ve said multiple times before, I could care less about whether or not you’re creationist. That’s your business, not mine. I do care greatly, though, if you attempt to pass off your creationism as science. In order to be considered science, your creationism requires a redefinition of the scientific method to include the supernatural. If you can show that your creationism is science under the commonly accepted definition, more power to you. But, for some inexplicable reason, I get the feeling you’re not going to make it. Wonder why.
Also, you didn't have to waste time on "fools like me." That was your choice. You're free to waste time preaching your beliefs on persons such as myself, and you're free to use that time to do other things. I can't force you to do anything.
quote:
The burden of proof is on you to show that intelligent design was required for the ear to develop. Your refusal to do so is irresponsible and childish - “I believe it, now you prove it.” Does that make sense? No. If it’s your belief, then don’t ask others to do the hard work for you. Do it yourself.
my reply:
No, if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened. You are the one who claims to have a “theory,” genius.
And “explaining” it doesn’t mean just waving your hands and saying that natural selection can do amazing things. That’s called “begging the question,” a classic logical fallacy. Nor does it mean pointing out simpler ears in other animals, unless you can demonstrate in detail how one evolved into the other, with all the intermediate steps (which must also be functional lest the animal die off due to deafness).
Here’s what real scientists have said about ID:
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Any idea who those guys were, genius? Do you suppose they had some inkling of the “scientific method”?
Oh, I’m sure you are much wiser than they were.
I realize that I shouldn’t be so sarcastic and hostile, but I am just sick and tired of the crap that passes for scientific wisdom these days.