Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[The Voice of Reason]

Steve,

Give me some evidence FOR ID. In your very next post. Try to refrain from even mentioning the term "Evolution". I am not interested in seeing you attempt to debunk evolution. I want you to write a post that provides evidence FOR ID (only). This has been requested ad nauseum on this and every other thread that discusses ID. The only responses to this request (to date) fall into one of two categories - arguments against evolution (which are all arguments from ignorance - logically speaking) and the simple citing of scientific facts (i.e. man's descriptions of his universe) with no linkage to how these facts support ID.

I am asking you, point blank, to provide me with some concrete examples of intelligence designing a living organism in a vacuum, where the possibility of random chance or extraterestrial interference has been removed. Show me a picture of the organism, describe it to me, or put it on display somewhere.

Remember, I'm not looking for the "evolution can't do it either" argument. I'm looking for one thing (only) - positive proof of ID. Once we have that nailed down, then you and I can lead this discussion into the realm of debunking evolution, based on the vast number of flaws that you have identified in it.

I will now await the findings that you are going to present...

TVOR

 

[Albino]

I am asking you, point blank, to provide me with some concrete examples of intelligence designing a living organism in a vacuum, where the possibility of random chance or extraterestrial interference has been removed. Show me a picture of the organism, describe it to me, or put it on display somewhere.

Whoa...you dont ask for much, do you TVOR? Did you, when you first appraised evolution (or simply accepted it) make the same demands of them? Did you say, "provide me with some concrete examples of abiogenesis producing a living organism from non-living matter in a vacuum?"

Something tells me you didn't. Something tells me that you don't hold abiogenesis to the same standards you hold ID to. I accuse you of having double-standards, of being biased, and of being deliberatly obtuse.

True agnostics I've known have been more...impartial...than you seem to be. Agnostics should be skeptical without descrimination.

You are demanding apple seeds from oranges, while allowing the apple to get away with only providing apple seeds. You should, to be fair, demand orange seeds from apples as well. Since you don't, its obvious you prefer apples. Why? WTF?!

There is little or no difference between the way you, an agnostic, argue and the way a member of a secular religion i.e. athiesm argues.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

And since the title of this thread includes evidence for or against evolution as well as ID, you have no basis for refusing to discuss weaknesses in evolution. You are obviously educated. But where is your wisdom? Intellect without the balancing influence of wisdom is worse than useless. It's harmful. Intellect and knowledge is a sword, and wisdom is the skill to wield it properly. Otherwise you are just hacking and slashing everything in sight.

 

[Valjean]

"There is little or no difference between the way you, an agnostic, argue and the way a member of a secular religion i.e. athiesm argues."

How is atheism a religion, Albino? Is it a belief or set of beliefs manifesting an ethic among its adherants, or simply a lack of belief?

Would aThorism or a MotherGoosism be a religion, then?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Whoa...you dont ask for much, do you TVOR?

I don't think that asking for some evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design is out of line. Then again, if one has no evidence to support one's claims, I can see why that request might look rather daunting.

Did you, when you first appraised evolution (or simply accepted it) make the same demands of them? Did you say, "provide me with some concrete examples of abiogenesis producing a living organism from non-living matter in a vacuum?"

You confuse evolution with abiogenisis. I believe in evolution because I understand the idea of natural selection, and I can discern that the evidence provided by science has merit. Evolution deals with what has happened to living organisms on our planet. Abiogenisis is an attempt to explain how life came to be - two different subjects. Just as Steve confused Creationism with Intelligent Design, you are now confusing the two complimentary terms on the other side of the debate. You can save us both considerable typing if you will devote enough time to learn the terminology involved.

Something tells me you didn't. Something tells me that you don't hold abiogenesis to the same standards you hold ID to.

Aside from the previously stated error in terminology, I'll leave this statement as it is. It speaks volumes about how these discussions take such wild turns...

I accuse you of having double-standards, of being biased, and of being deliberatly obtuse.

Okay, I stand accused. I will, in turn, accuse you of confusing the language of the debate, of having double standards, of being willfully ignorant, of lacking integrity in arguing your position, of being biased, and of being naturally obtuse.
Now, did either of us really get anything out of that?

True agnostics I've known have been more...impartial...than you seem to be. Agnostics should be skeptical without descrimination.

Agnosticism is a philosophical position that one reaches when one has no evidence of the existence or non-existence of God (or that God's existence is immaterial). Agnosticism and skepticism are two different things. I consider myself an Agnostic because I have no proof of the existence of God, and I cannot be given proof of his non-existence. In questions other than the existence of God, I consider myself an open-minded skeptic. My skepticism can be quenched with evidence, which, at this point in time, only one side of this debate has provided. Again, you need to understand and utilize the terms in this debate more discriminatingly.

You are demanding apple seeds from oranges, while allowing the apple to get away with only providing apple seeds. You should, to be fair, demand orange seeds from apples as well. Since you don't, its obvious you prefer apples. Why? WTF?!

Heck of an analogy, but I'll couch my stance in your terms, in hopes of reaching out to you. When requested, the apple (a euphimism for evolution) has produced a theory, and supporting evidence - I can examine the seeds of the apple. When requested, the orange (a euphimism for ID) has produced fifteen variations of an Argument from Ignorance, and a claim for acceptance based on revealed faith. Not one iota of evidence has been forthcoming - so, your orange is seedless at this point.

There is little or no difference between the way you, an agnostic, argue and the way a member of a secular religion i.e. athiesm argues.

The requirement of evidence in support of someone's claims, prior to acceptance of validity is not unique to Theists, Atheists or Agnostics. Are you implying that Theists never ask for evidence before accepting a statement as valid? I cannot agree with that position.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Can we try to elevate this discussion beyond this?

And since the title of this thread includes evidence for or against evolution as well as ID, you have no basis for refusing to discuss weaknesses in evolution.

My reason for limiting the discussion is to try to focus this debate on one thing at a time. You have shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever, for the support of ID. I would like to see some. If you wish to start another thread, in which you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution, I'm sure that Ceridwen and Painted Wolf can enlighten you. Then again, you have already shown that you are not going to listen.

You are obviously educated.

Thanks.

But where is your wisdom?

Am I unwise because I demand evidence of ID? Am I unwise because I accept the evidence that scientists have provided in support of Evolution? Or, am I unwise because I do not share your willingness to embrace ID solely for the comfort you find in your belief in God?

Intellect without the balancing influence of wisdom is worse than useless. It's harmful.

I believe you know whereof you speak. Please be careful - it would be a shame if you harmed yourself.

TVOR

 

[Sunstone]

What??!! Did I hear you right, TVOR? You say someone has confused abiogenisis with evolution? But that's impossible. It never happens!

 

[Steve]

Steve,

Give me some evidence FOR ID. In your very next post. Try to refrain from even mentioning the term "Evolution". I am not interested in seeing you attempt to debunk evolution. I want you to write a post that provides evidence FOR ID (only). This has been requested ad nauseum on this and every other thread that discusses ID.

Ill say it again!
"When there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other."
Why should i abandon that logic if its reasonable?
If i use evidence to show that somthing couldnt have arrived at its present state without ID how is that not evidence for ID?
Ive already posted evidences for why i belive that ID is the ONLY option, how is this not evidence FOR ID? If that isnt logical ennough for you then that is your problem, not mine, give me reason why i should abandon that logic just to apease you.

The only responses to this request (to date) fall into one of two categories - arguments against evolution (which are all arguments from ignorance - logically speaking)

arguments from ignorance? explain please how some of my arguments against evolution have come from ignorance.

I am asking you, point blank, to provide me with some concrete examples of intelligence designing a living organism in a vacuum, where the possibility of random chance or extraterestrial interference has been removed. Show me a picture of the organism, describe it to me, or put it on display somewhere.

So what do you want? Me too put an empty Jar somewhere and God or (the Inteligent Designer) to create a new organism in that Jar. Is this the only kind of proof or evidence you would accept?
You seem to accept Evolution and its theories about how life got here and yet where is the concrete proof presented by evolutionists that you demand of Creationist's.

Remember, I'm not looking for the "evolution can't do it either" argument. I'm looking for one thing (only) - positive proof of ID. Once we have that nailed down, then you and I can lead this discussion into the realm of debunking evolution, based on the vast number of flaws that you have identified in it.

I will now await the findings that you are going to present...

I ask why do you only look for one thing? Maybe your lack of demands for Evolution and High demands of the Creation theory show your unwillingness to belive there may be a Creator?
As you have just stated you arnt willing to debunk evolution until your exceding and unrealistic demands about creation are meet, is this a good way to look for the truth objectivly? If there was a Creator would you genuinley want to know? You should realise that if it is true that there is a Creator then you only hurt yourself by being unwilling to apply your own standard to both theories.


Also-
This Thread topic is "Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments", while it dosnt say abiogenisis it donst mean its automatically excluded from this topic and i understand the terms. Heres my reasoning, If it can be shown that Life couldnt have arrived at its present state because right back at the start life needed inteligent input to form, why should that not be considered evidence FOR ID? If the whole evolution theory relies on somthing happening that can be proven to be absurd without Inteligent Input then why shouldnt it be included in this topic? Isnt this good evidence that there is an Inteligent Designer? Afterall if it can be shown that even the first cell of the in evolution theory needed an inteligent designer and that its ilogical to say it didnt isnt that proof there is an ID?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I ask why do you only look for one thing? Maybe your lack of demands for Evolution and High demands of the Creation theory show your unwillingness to belive there may be a Creator?

Er.... He was saying he's looking for one thing to prove it. I don't think that's a high demand, even though I happen to believe in I.D. I can't prove it, but then again, I don't really care either way.

 

[Pah]

Ill say it again!
"When there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other."
Why should i abandon that logic if its reasonable?
If i use evidence to show that somthing couldnt have arrived at its present state without ID how is that not evidence for ID?
Ive already posted evidences for why i belive that ID is the ONLY option, how is this not evidence FOR ID? If that isnt logical ennough for you then that is your problem, not mine, give me reason why i should abandon that logic just to apease you.

I see your point here but heres why i disagree in this case. If i show u a buliding i can conclude that there must be a builder/designer, its logical and we need no further "proof" or "evidence" that there was a builder, but if someone wants to convince me that this building isnt the result of a designer/builder then they need to show how it can happen without the builder/designer.
If there are only 2 options, which there are, created by a creator(ID) or not created by a creator(which evolution is often used to support), then wouldnt showing the flaws in one make the only other option more reasonable?

Many of the points i posted befor evidences for the creation model. They also show that many commonly accepted "proofs" for evolution are flawed.
As has already been pointed out, as quoted by Vash
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vash



when there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other."

There is a problem Steve, in your insistence for a binary solution.
A third scenario is analogous to a car. Who creates the car - the robots on the assembly line? the workers that supply the robots with parts? The assembly line for many, many products creates the products. Your creation story, with your God, could well be the robot on the assembly line. That would be one scenario.

Other scenarios center around a extraterrestial origin could be the beginning of life on earth. Either as a natural product of a natural evolution on another planet, as products of an alien race, or as aliens as agents for a God noit your own.

You can not insist on just the two possible beginings

 

[Steve]

There is a problem Steve, in your insistence for a binary solution.
A third scenario is analogous to a car.

Who creates the car

You say "Who" creates the car? this implies "somone".

the robots on the assembly line?

in this scenario the robots have to be programmed from outside to do there job this implies inteligence.

the workers that supply the robots with parts?

the workers that supply the robots with parts? in this scenario the workers need inteligence to know what the robots need.

Other scenarios center around a extraterrestial origin could be the beginning of life on earth.

Once again implies it took inteligence for life to get here on earth.


In trying to show how there is a 3rd option when looking at the "ID or not ID(evolution)" issue you give an analogy that is full of Inteligent Design.
Your whole car scenario implies it took inteligence to end up with a car.

Are you trying to prove my point that ID is required? I havnt seen your 3rd option yet.

Either as a natural product of a natural evolution on another planet, as products of an alien race, or as aliens as agents for a God noit your own.
You can not insist on just the two possible beginings

So after supporting ID for the most part of your post, your only argument for evolution is that maybe it happened on another planet?

The issue of this Thread isnt so much which Inteligent Designer but WAS there an Inteligent Designer?

 

[Pah]

Workers or robots need no intelligence to supply parts (the slot is empty - fill it) and the robots work on programmed insturction but THEY create the car - the assembly line creates the car with little or no intelligence. You God is analgous to the assembly line in this scenario. In addition to your two stated scenarios this one works with God as a robot that makes three scenarios!!!

Your whole car scenario implies it took inteligence to end up with a car.

Yep!! but not the intelligence of the creator to create a car.

Once again implies it took inteligence for life to get here on earth.

But not the intelligence of your creator creating life on earth. That, by the way, is part of the fourth fifth and sixth scenario. I don't care if an alien race sent your God to earth to create it, there has been no showing that the intelligence you talk about is held by God. There has been no proof that God is the "only" prime mover (I love that contradiction of words to establish a point)

My other point, Steve, is that your binary choice in creation is flawed.

 

[Vash]

the assembly line creates the car with little or no intelligence. You God is analgous to the assembly line in this scenario.

I doubt Eli Whitney would agree with that, lol

 

[Pah]

I doubt Eli Whitney would agree with that, lol

But Ford might. The assemblers certainly didn't create the complexity by adding parts or assembled units.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ill say it again!
"When there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other." Why should i abandon that logic if its reasonable?

Because it isn't reasonable - it's bad (twisted) logic. First, you have no reason to limit the moment that life came to be to two possibilities - abiogenisis or creationism. Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them. If you say it one thousand more times, it will not make it valid - it will only make it repetitive.

If i use evidence to show that somthing couldnt have arrived at its present state without ID how is that not evidence for ID?

This is a perfect example of the argument from ignorance of logical fallacies. Since you demonstrate no knowledge of it, let me provide this:
Taken from Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia:
Argument from ignorance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantium or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that because something is currently inexplicable, it did not happen, or that because one cannot conceive of something, it cannot exist. This assertion is often summed up by the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Some uses of the argument by lack of imagination are considered fallacious. Irving Copi writes that:

The argumentum ad ignorantium [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953) Argument by lack of imagination is sometimes expressed in the form "Y is absurd (because I can not imagine it), therefore it must be untrue." This is sometimes confused with the logically valid method of argument, reductio ad absurdum. A logical argument using reductio ad absurdum would be framed as "X logically leads to a probably impossible (absurd) conclusion, therefore it must be false." In reductio ad absurdum, it is necessary to show that X implies a contradiction (such as "not X", or "Y and not Y" for some other proposition Y). In an argument from ignorance, X implies something which the speaker considers absurd rather than something which the speaker can prove to be a contradiction.

Examples:

• I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work.
• This city can't handle public transportation because we don't have room for any train tracks. (the speaker fails to consider alternative forms of public transportation, such as buses, as well as the city's ability to appropriate land)

Ive already posted evidences for why i belive that ID is the ONLY option, how is this not evidence FOR ID? If that isnt logical ennough for you then that is your problem, not mine, give me reason why i should abandon that logic just to apease you.

Now you know why it is called an argument from ignorance - and in this instance, you compound the problem - you do not understand logic, and you insist on applying your bent version of what you would like for logic to be. Logic does not change for the person involved in the debate, nor the subject matter at hand - regardless of your religious beliefs. Do not frame your position to appease me, better that you would learn how logic works in order to refrain from making fallacious arguments.

arguments from ignorance? explain please how some of my arguments against evolution have come from ignorance.

See above - and take at least an introductory class to logic. It will save us a lot of time.

So what do you want? Me too put an empty Jar somewhere and God or (the Inteligent Designer) to create a new organism in that Jar. Is this the only kind of proof or evidence you would accept?

I don't care how you conduct the experiment. It is your claim that the Theory of Evolution is flawed, and that any and all tests to support it are full of holes. We can argue that evolution is flawed (as I said, PW and Ceridwen should be able to address all of your claims as each arises) for one reason - the Theory has been stated and scientific data is being gathered (on a daily basis). We cannot argue Intelligent Design because it is simply a claim, with no evidence (other than your misapplied attempts to rebuke Evolution). Pah has repeatedly asked for evidence FOR ID. We are all still waiting. Construct your hypothesis, make some predictions, conduct the experiment, give us the data. Of course, since you adhere to the scientific method, I'm sure you'll be willing to modify your theory (hypothesis) in the face of any evidence that goes against your original predictions...

You seem to accept Evolution and its theories about how life got here and yet where is the concrete proof presented by evolutionists that you demand of Creationist's.

If you can read, and digest them, please check any of the thousand or so posts put forth by PW and Ceridwen. Check out the book The Descent of Man or any of the hundreds of books that have been written to explain the engine that drives evolution (natural selection). Here's a radical idea - throw off the yoke of your religiously based bias, and actually take a Biology class at a local university - one that will specifically address the Theory of Evolution. Check your dogma at the door, and you might learn something before posting on here again about how little evidence there is to support evolution. While you're doing that, I'll be scouring the listing of classes at my local university, looking for a class on Intelligent Design. My guess is that you will have a much easier time finding your course than I will finding mine.

I ask why do you only look for one thing? Maybe your lack of demands for Evolution and High demands of the Creation theory show your unwillingness to belive there may be a Creator?

Exactly. You make my point for me. Your entire basis for belief in ID comes not from knowledge, evidence, or data, it comes from your faith in God. Nothing wrong with that - just be honest enough with yourself to admit that you make decisions about abiogenisis, creationism, evolution, and ID based on revealed faith and not on rational thought, scientific data, or a logically derived thought process. Feathers in Hair just told you that she believes in ID even though she can't prove it - but the lack of proof is immaterial to her. It is immaterial because she has FAITH that it is correct. See how that works? She believes in ID, based on FAITH. The only difference between her position and yours is that she is not trying to twist logic, misapply scientific evidence, or argue from ignorance. She takes her position on FAITH.

If there was a Creator would you genuinley want to know? You should realise that if it is true that there is a Creator then you only hurt yourself by being unwilling to apply your own standard to both theories.

If God exists, I'm pretty sure that He will understand why the mind that He endowed me with could not overcome the logic that He has seen fit to give me. If He exists and does not understand my dilemna, then I doubt that I have much to fear from Him. If He does not exist, your simplistic version of Pascal's wager is meaningless.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Vash]

you have no reason to limit the moment that life came to be to two possibilities - abiogenisis or creationism. Other possibilities may exist. Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them.

other possibilites, yes. but we aren't talking about other possibilites. we are talking about currently accepted models for the origin of life, and which model is more likely.

an imaginitive possibility doth not a model make :tsk: so we cant play the infinite possibility card.

and like it or not, ID is listed as a currently accepted model. deal with ID on those terms. as much as you would like to reduce it in status it does deserve the same consideration as any other model.

 

[Yerda]

an imaginitive possibility doth not a model make :tsk: so we cant play the infinite possibility card.

and like it or not, ID is listed as a currently accepted model.

That these two statements inhabit the same post is enough to entertain me. Thanks buddy.

 

[Vash]

That these two statements inhabit the same post is enough to entertain me. Thanks buddy.

YW!! Lol, anything for a fellow truth seeker !!

 

[Pah]

other possibilites, yes. but we aren't talking about other possibilites. we are talking about currently accepted models for the origin of life, and which model is more likely.

an imaginitive possibility doth not a model make :tsk: so we cant play the infinite possibility card.

and like it or not, ID is listed as a currently accepted model. deal with ID on those terms. as much as you would like to reduce it in status it does deserve the same consideration as any other model.

If anyone says that ID is right because evolution is wrong just on the basis of finding fault in evolution and where NO evidence is present FOR ID, then the possibility that other scenarios are just as valid as ID is disctinct. You peg your whole argument around an undefined intelligence and/or creator and expect THAT to be taken as something scientific.

You would have some validity in your quoted post argument IF you had scientific evidence FOR ID. Acceptance of ID as a model is highly charged with religious bias and is not an "accepted" model in science or teaching without that bias.

 

[Vash]

If anyone says that ID is right because evolution is wrong just on the basis of finding fault in evolution and where NO evidence is present FOR ID, then the possibility that other scenarios are just as valid as ID is disctinct. You peg your whole argument around an undefined intelligence and/or creator and expect THAT to be taken as something scientific.

You would have some validity in your quoted post argument IF you had scientific evidence FOR ID. Acceptance of ID as a model is highly charged with religious bias and is not an "accepted" model in science or teaching without that bias.

speaking for myself, if i found evolution lacking i might (and do) explore other possibilities. i dont look at possibilites as right or wrong...i look at them as likely or unlikely. i also try not to make up my mind before hand. sorry to say but it does seem as though people on both sides have made up thier minds before posting here.

i wish i had the math skill to understand this part of the mathematical basis for ID, but i have a friend who does and when i see him this summer ill ask him to take a looksee.

 

[Pah]

speaking for myself, if i found evolution lacking i might (and do) explore other possibilities. i dont look at possibilites as right or wrong...i look at them as likely or unlikely. i also try not to make up my mind before hand. sorry to say but it does seem as though people have made up thier minds before posting here.

i wish i had the math skill to understand this part of the mathematical basis for ID, but i have a friend who does and when i see him this summer ill ask him to take a looksee.

William A. Dembski, in your reference, is a leading proponent of ID but this article seems to be a basis for pure scholarship.

I have always been amused in the propbalities that Demski puts out - they are widely quoted in ID circles. But nowhere do I find probabilities given for ID or Creationism. It seems to be, to this discerning mind, that an argument should have evidence of the same nature on both sides of the question. And I have the knowledge that probabilty is calculated at 1.0 for actual realization of the event. To me God, in any form of the genesis question, seems to have less chance of reaching 1.0

I would ask Demski what are the probabilities for the mechanisms that facilitate ID

 

[The Voice of Reason]

other possibilites, yes. but we aren't talking about other possibilites. we are talking about currently accepted models for the origin of life, and which model is more likely.

My fault. I should have realized that without specifically addressing my prior post to you, you would be unable to read and digest it. Try reading it again - and this time, go very slowly over the part about an argument from ignorance. Your statement demonstrates an uncanny ability to not digest what you have just read (if you bothered to read it at all).
Truthseekingsoul has pointed out the irony in your last post, so I will bow to his response.

an imaginitive possibility doth not a model make, so we cant play the infinite possibility card.

And yet, Intelligent Design is just that - an imaginitive possibility. If, and when, someone can produce evidence that supports it, we will be able to move it into the debate of possibilities that are testable and falsifiable.

and like it or not, ID is listed as a currently accepted model.

ID is only currently accepted as a model by people of FAITH (and now, those that can twist logic and rational thought).

deal with ID on those terms. as much as you would like to reduce it in status it does deserve the same consideration as any other model.

No - it doesn't. It deserves the same consideration that any model that is based on a revealed faith, but it is not on the same playing field with Evolution - a scientific theory that is testable and falsifiable. Your claims to the contrary nothwithstanding, ID is a belief based on faith - in the case of some, it would appear to be a shaky faith that needs to be bolstered by unrealistic claims of scientific approval (which is not forthcoming).

speaking for myself, if i found evolution lacking i might (and do) explore other possibilities. i dont look at possibilites as right or wrong...i look at them as likely or unlikely.

Excellent. I hope you find the answers you search for.

i also try not to make up my mind before hand.

Great - then you'll be rejecting ID, unless you are telling me that you accept it on FAITH. Is that what I'm hearing?

sorry to say but it does seem as though people have made up thier minds before posting here.

You are correct again. Until I have a second hypothesis (that is testable and falsifiable) to compare with Evolution, I will admit to having made up my mind. While I'm on this point, where is that evidence that you all keep promising for ID? I must be missing those posts - all I seem to find are the ones where you try to falsify evolution.

i wish i had the math skill to understand this part of the mathematical basis for ID, but i have a friend who does and when i see him this summer ill ask him to take a looksee.

I'm guessing the answer will not be a mathematical basis FOR ID, rather, it will be a jewel of conjecture that will try to prove that Evolution is mathematically impossible. Once again, you will resort to an argument from ignorance, and will do so with the firm conviction that you are arguing FOR ID. Of course, you won't be, but you won't see it that way - until you master the concepts of logic.

Thanks,
TVOR