[orionblamblam]

> your premise is that evolution happened in a Darwinian fashion. Therefore, all your conclusions must support your premise.

Obviously you know nothing of science. Name a scientist who *wouldn't* be thrilled to overturn current undersatnading and win the Nobel.

> Any argument which calls into question your basic premise is then thrown out as "silly."

No. Only the silly ones. And IC turns out to be silly, since it does not present a serious issue... but is repeatedly touted as some sort of proof.

> If it happened, then the odds must be pretty low?

The odds *against,* yes, when stacked up to the imaginary "one chance in 10R164" statistics that Creationists dream up.

Now, if you're done with the lame attempts at tarrign the arguement by tarring the personailty, try to re-focus. How does IC preclude the utility of feathers and arms?

[nasamn777]

Obviously you know nothing of science. Name a scientist who *wouldn't* be thrilled to overturn current undersatnading and win the Nobel.

There is also the bandwagon mentality in science. The establishment wants to ban any ideas that runs counter to Neo-Darwinian evolution. What we must do is put forth the evidence and force them to examine it. If they will not examine it, we should force them out of the ivory towers. Viva la revolution!

It is time to shake up the narrow minded establishment!