“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?”
—A journal may print new research backing an old idea, or a new idea based on old research, but not being sufficiently new is one of the common reasons for an article to be rejected.
“Which is it- did it or didn’t it?”
—It didn’t. (For the third time now). But if it did (rhetorically - does that help?) it was the wrong journal for such an article.
“I can’t help it IF the ‘vast majority’ of scientists ignore these powerful arguments against macroevolution”
—Are the vast majority of the world’s scientists ignoring “basic scientific principles”... or do the scientists know something you don’t? Must be one or the other... I wonder which is more likely. hmm
[[—Are the vast majority of the world’s scientists ignoring... I wonder which is more likely. hmm]]
Well wonder no more! YES- they ARE ignoring- palin and simple! They are irreversibly married to their a priori hypothesis- bottom line!
As I mentioend, any ONE of those scientific disciplines you pointed to show that it’s biologically impossible- yet pile on all the other scientific impossibilities, and you just compound the impossibility of Macoreovlution exponentially, and no amount of hand-waving will dispell the seriousness of hte problems with macroevolution, and no amount of reachign into the past and claiming it ‘might have happened’ DESPITE the FACT that it is NOT and indeed can NOT happen today, will make hte case for macroevolution- Informaiton hteory is a VERY powerful argument agaisnt Macroevolution, as is the second law, biological impossibility of mutaitons creating NEW non species specific info, not to mention the mathematical odds beign overwhelmingly agaisnt mutaitons producing NEW non species specific info (and just for hte record- NON ID Scientists- leadign scientists, concluded in a symposium in Chicago that it was simply mathematically impossible- this was NOT coming from Creation scientists, ID scientists, or anyone else- this was coming from leading scientists)