Replies

[[No, we have very good evidence that ancient people existed.]]

And we’ve got very good evidence that an intelligence is needed behind life’s irreducibly complex organizations, as well as very good evidence that it’s biologically impossible for mutaitons to create new non species specific info, as well as very good evidence that the fossil record shows discontinuity, as well as very good evidence that nature cna not violate the second law which would have had to occure not just a couple of times, but literally tyrillions of times IF macroevolution had occured, plus we have very good evidence that it’s chemically impossible to create biologically necessary informaiton and metainformation, as well wee have very good evidence that species can NOT violate species paramters when changing, as well we have very good evidnece that each species is seperated by boundaries tha can not be breached, as well we have very good evidnece that nature is incapable of creating the necessary metainformation NEEDED before macroevolution can even be concidered, as well we have very good evidnece that mathematically, it’s impossible for nature to create non species pseicif info, as well we have very good evidnece that homology does NOT equate to species comminality as claimed by macroevolutionists, as well, we have very good evidnece that DNA is NOT comprised of ‘junk’ as was once claiemd by macroeovlutionists, and this non coding region plays a criticial role in seperating species one from another, as well we have very good evidnece that shows that information, by itself, is useless UNLESS there is a livin, governing metainformation inplace BEFORE any new material or info can be added to the already assembled and functioning mix- We have very good evidence that mutaitons can not introduce new non species speciific organs or features, and can ONLY work on species specific info already present- it’s not capable of creation- only alterating what is already present- Macroevolution DEMANDS the creation of new, non species specific info, features, and organs - on and on it goes- whether you personally accept these evidneces is of no relevence to the fact that ID has more than enough evidneces to both support a beyond reasonable doubt case for the need for an intelligence, and that nature simply is incapable of creating what macoreovlution claims it did

[[Obviously you don’t have a good grasp of what ‘evidence’ is. Maybe you should read some Sherlock Holmes novels : )]]

Oh- I’ve got more than an adequate grasp on what is and is not evidence

[ No, we have very good evidence that ancient people existed. ]

True.... the third human on this planet came from the first two..
-OR- a bodacious Yarn must be invented.. to explain him or her.. usually involving the first two.. Removing the first two is an act of circular logic.. or changing the subject to confuse or obfuscate the issue..

Prima facie evidence demands that at one time there was a/the third human on this planet.. thereby proving the first two.. The established Yarns prove that humans love a good story.. and that science fiction requires a logical tale, reality never needs to be logical at all.. Reality needs not make any sense at all to humans..

Could be that Exodus(Torah) ch. 1-3 might be metaphorical with much deeper meanings to a long story/history where origination could be merely minutia.. to a broader story with more scope..