Tim Daneliuk writes:
Steve Peterson wrote:

snip

Horsehockey. Intelligent design postulates a designer. The
existance (or non existance) of a designer cannot be falsified,
thus, cannot be postulated.


It goes further than this. They claim the complexity of some things, like
the human eye, is so great that they are irreducibly complex, and there is
no point or hope of further investigation. In this way, ID is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Utter baloney. I have never seen an IDer even suggest that this follows
from irriduceable complexity. You are erecting a strawman to desparately
try and save your position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Irreducible_complexity


Tim is only going to be convinced if you actually take all the evidence for
evolution, starting with the pre-Darwinian data, add all that has been
learned since Darwin provided a theoretical framework that makes it all
sensible and coherent, fill in future discoveries, and then do a Reader's
Digest condensation to make it simple enough for him to comprehend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ad hominem. You have no idea how well or poorly I assimiliate complex

Actually, we get a pretty good idea from your writings. Unless you
maintain that your writings don't reflect your knowledge, beliefs and
viewpoints.

scott