dear dipshit. JUDGE JONES arrived at HIS decision as a result of testimony from EXPERT SCIENTISTS who attempted to make plausible and understandable cases affirmative and negative. You really arent that dumb to believe that the Judge made up all the testimony regarding evolution? wait, maybe you are). You get all defensive when you tart losing ground then you get bristly then you begin whining. Take a single stand and make it.
Youve NEVER explained any evidence for ID .Though you alway say that youre interested in it as a scientific argument- while-Im the only one whose been loading you down with information , evidence, book names and chapters etc etc. and all you post are some mind numbing non-sequiturs and phony statments that surround your religious beliefs .HELL, you even quote religious websites like the DI, and try to deny that you are.Please dont try to make believe that I dont understand your silly tricks. (You recently quoted Demski and denied his argument was based on a Theistic point.IT WAS and I quoted you the same passage that was published in a book called "INTELLIGENT THOUGHT" (Maybe 2 years ago.
If you say that youre a "science guy" (< Ive shown you a lot where you caould have made a better argument using real science but you blew me off) . Do you deny or e ven remember my request that you follow up on convergent evolution or Lynn Margulis?)
I spoke to you about Dr Margulis many many months before you even read anything about Dr Woese. So you acted like you discovered endosymbiosis (HGT, as Woese called it). here do you think he got his stuff? . I let you pass on a number of things including the discussions of where the evidence for endosymbiotic transfer in the incorporation of mitochondria or chloroplasts occur?? REMEMBER?? no I dont think you do.
When you started your asshat comment about Jasinskis find of what you thought were what science would call "ancestral birds", that kinda got me pissed at what a simple-minded douche bag you really are.
SO< thinking scientifically, wheres your argument based on evidence about ID. 'Things are too complicated so I must believe in ID" seems to be all Ive gotten. Then youve tried to make up these really dumb Fallacy-fallacies (its a formal fallacy, look it up) to impose an argument you think is based upon science(but it aint). The only thing youve got is that single syllogism you cling to. Maybe It aint a syllogism but Im no English major and I dont "play one" on A2K