Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
....
It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it.

It doesn't refute it, either. It is quite likely simply incomplete.

And you're eliminating the rational conclusion simply because you want
to postulate that what isn't yet known can't be.

I thought you were the one eliminating the rational conclusion.

I think the postulation of something outside the world continuing to be
involved is the irrational viewpoint.

But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Yes, no doubt.

So you want to assert that because we haven't found it we don't need to
look as it can't be there. That makes sense.

When did I say that?

Previous post--" ...we don't need to excavate the earth."

So we have already found everything that possibly could be if extant
somewhere else? I don't think that's a conclusion which can be drawn at
all.

....

The primary difference is that when (and if) there is an irrefutable
impasse in the direction science takes, it will be modified to account
for such new evidence. ID'ers, otoh, have already decreed they know the
answer.

Evolutionists haven't?

Nope..that's what they're looking for. They're not the ones saying
"someone else did it", they're the ones looking for ways that are
logically consistent w/ what can be observed and discerned from what we
know about how biology works...

And, as I've noted far earlier, if and when it turns out there is
evidence for another viewpoint that does a better job and is more useful
for future prediction, that viewpoint will come to predominate. I don't
see that as an option for the ID'ers.