What permeates these debates is the poverty of the creation/ID apologists. A poverty of evidence. A poverty of logic. But they make it up in stupid debating tricks.
Funny that you didn't offer to do the turnaround trick on post #88.
... any bunch of fruit-eaters is likely to eventually lose the ability to synthesize anything that's already adequately represented in their diets. The acid test, what evolution firmly predicts and ID yet again doesn't say one way or the other, is that a study of the genes involved should show that the mutation in fruit bats is completely independent of the mutations in primates or guinea pigs.Want to give it a shot? "ID firmly predicts ..." Hmmm. Predicts what?
"... Whatever happened, it didn't evolve!"
"... It's a miracle."
"... If it isn't a miracle, then that's a miracle."
The one thing you can't dress up is that an utterly unspecified designer who is probably God could have left things in any state whatever. Postulating such a designer tells you nothing at all about what you may or may not expect to find. ID has nothing to teach us about the way the world works. But then ID-ers aren't very curious about how the world works. They know all that stuff, so what needs studying? It was designed, then it was created.
The Orthodox Darwinists seem to be far more arrogant in their ignorance - but you are correct - the double edge sword of debate slogans always cuts both ways.
I don't pick sides in this debate - I just fight for open-mindedness (something in short supply in these types of debates).
The first half of this statement is right-on and the last bit is more bigoted nonsense "mine's bigger" debate tactics. When one side tries tell us what the other side "really" thinks by claiming they all "think alike" rest assured you are now swimming the falsely warm waters of bigotry.
You are better off explaining the strength of your position rather than pretending you can read the minds of the people that do not agree with you.