My comments are in bold type.
First, based on what IDiots demand from science and on what they claim their own 'theory/inference' can do (calculate probabilities, CSI, etc.), Nick Matzke asks a perfectly reasonable question:
8
NickMatzke_UD
August 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm
So, JonathanM — what’s the probability of the Grand Canyon? Go on, calculate it, if you think evolutionists should do such calculations for complex biological systems, it ought to be easy for you to do it for the Grand Canyon.
Then joe-boi steps in and trashes his own 'theory/inference':
8.1
Joseph
August 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm
We don’t care about calculations NickMatzke_UD. We care about evidence. And your position seems to be lacking in that respect.
As for the Grand Canyon, the probability of it forming from rain falling in Australia, is zero. :cool:
And then gordo comes along and twists things around (as usual), and accuses Nick (and evolutionary theory) of a "paucity" of "actual evidence", even though gordo and his IDiotic comrades have absolutely NO actual or observational evidence to support any of their ID/creation claims!
8.2
kairosfocus
August 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm
This sort of challenge simply reveals the paucity of your actual evidence.
If you actually had any serious observational evidence for body plan origins by chance variation and differential survival of unicellular organisms several hundred mn ya, you would be shouting from the housetops.
Thanks for inadvertently letting us know how thin your case is.
That’s a red herring FYI.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
gordo and joe-boi, your remarks really show just how empty the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is, and how empty your heads are.
Where's YOUR actual, observational, scientifically testable evidence for ID? And where are all those accurate, scientifically testable calculations that you say ID can do?
Remember your words, joe-boi: "If it is untestable, scientifically, is it science?"
First, based on what IDiots demand from science and on what they claim their own 'theory/inference' can do (calculate probabilities, CSI, etc.), Nick Matzke asks a perfectly reasonable question:
8
NickMatzke_UD
August 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm
So, JonathanM — what’s the probability of the Grand Canyon? Go on, calculate it, if you think evolutionists should do such calculations for complex biological systems, it ought to be easy for you to do it for the Grand Canyon.
Then joe-boi steps in and trashes his own 'theory/inference':
8.1
Joseph
August 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm
We don’t care about calculations NickMatzke_UD. We care about evidence. And your position seems to be lacking in that respect.
As for the Grand Canyon, the probability of it forming from rain falling in Australia, is zero. :cool:
And then gordo comes along and twists things around (as usual), and accuses Nick (and evolutionary theory) of a "paucity" of "actual evidence", even though gordo and his IDiotic comrades have absolutely NO actual or observational evidence to support any of their ID/creation claims!
8.2
kairosfocus
August 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm
This sort of challenge simply reveals the paucity of your actual evidence.
If you actually had any serious observational evidence for body plan origins by chance variation and differential survival of unicellular organisms several hundred mn ya, you would be shouting from the housetops.
Thanks for inadvertently letting us know how thin your case is.
That’s a red herring FYI.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
gordo and joe-boi, your remarks really show just how empty the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is, and how empty your heads are.
Where's YOUR actual, observational, scientifically testable evidence for ID? And where are all those accurate, scientifically testable calculations that you say ID can do?
Remember your words, joe-boi: "If it is untestable, scientifically, is it science?"
