“Pretty powerful evidence agaisnt Macroevolution coupled along with mathematics, biological evidences, the second law- pretty devestating if you ask me”
—Not if you ask me (nor the vast majority of the world’s scientists who actually study the subjects).
“Funny, I thought scientific journals covered embryology, information theory, the Cambrian Explosion, population genetics, etc”
—They do - but journals are for articles with something new to say, which this article didn’t. (And even if it DID have something new to say and was appropriate for a science journal, this was entirely the wrong journal for the subject matter.)
[[—They do - but journals are for articles with something new to say,]]
Really? Because I see scientific journals rehashing the same old tied out crap over and over again- guess the ‘new’ only applies to ID proponents eh?
[[which this article didn’t. (And even if it DID have something new]]
Which is it- did it or didn’t it? As well, making an argument against Macroevolution, and in favor of ID doesn’t necessarily require ‘new material’ as the disciplines you and I both pointed out have plenty of powerful arguments agaisnt Macroevolution despite your claim to the contrary- individually they are powerful, but taken together, even more so- making the odds against Macroevolution happening simply overwhelming, and biologically, mathematically, chemically impossible, not to mentio nthe fact that macroeovlution violates basic scientific principles- I can’t help it IF the ‘vast majority’ of scientists ignore these powerful arguments against macroevolution- the fact is that they ARE devestatign to macroevolution- regarldess of hte unscientific and unrealistic denials of scientists who put all their FAITH in a hypothesis based simply on a priori belief