Re: Neither Intelligent nor Designed

Corinthian, you keep ignoring my questions. You repeatedly fail to answer even a single question I pose, then fault me as if I'm ignorant by trying to overwhelm me with irrelevant data.

Sometimes you are so intellectually dishonest that it's embarassing to watch, but we proved awhile ago that you have no shame when it comes to advancing your beliefs.

Evolutionists insist that all life derived from non-life -- evolution depends on abiogenesis. Sure, we can break them apart and pretend they're different, but as evolution is simply an unbroken chain from now backwards in time as life forms changed over time, it necessarily finds itself back at the first cell. I'm sorry that it's uncomfortable for you to take it back to its logical beginning (since you cannot answer my questions), but that's what you need to do. Stop looking at how many ways you can make butterflies become "different species" and start looking at the big picture through time all the way to the beginning, where the real ORIGIN of species (and life) happened, and these questions still require answering.

No one argues that life forms can change and adapt (based on environmental stimuli, maybe other factors). Even supersport will grant you that. But that's all you have to argue from, that's what you continue to argue from, that's what all your fossils show and have ever shown, but they haven't done a particularly good job of it. I've granted you the argument that, at the rather ambiguous level of "species", "evolution" happens. Point conceded. You can stop arguing it now! Really. Repeating it won't make me concede it to you any more than "fully conceded". Yes, different "species" as you define them come from other "species" as you define them. Got it. Can we move on now?

You still haven't shown evolution actually happening. You still haven't shown what brought about mammals, or how T rex became chickens, or how orders evolved, or how plants grew legs or fins, or.... You haven't once touched my questions about humans from apes, in particular the various data I pointed out about the startling changes in going from ape DNA to human DNA. [And, for the record, it very much does look like human DNA came from ape DNA, but how that was possible is the great mystery.] You dismiss the questions of abiogenesis by trying to compartmentalize evolutionary theory from abiogenesis, and yet the whole attack on creationism is that creationism says that abiogenesis did not happen (Intelligent Design -- God set evolution in motion), whereas evolution insists that it was simply mechanical. So you're not fooling anyone but yourself by trying to argue that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. Unless... are you trying to say that you believe that Jesus created DNA? I know you've argued that some Christians accept evolution that way. But that's not real evolution, is it?

As for chemistry and physics, no, a model works as long as a model works, and they still do. When NASA sends a probe careening into an asteroid, what physics are they using to calculate the effect of the impact? It doesn't take Einstein when F=ma will do. When probes are given gravity assists, which physics is involved? When the shuttle is launched, which physics are being used to compute how much fuel is going to be used? But you just said that I should reject the models?

And your argument about Shoemaker-Levy 9? Oh please. Like we haven't been studying the orbits of planets and comets for centuries. The impact was new. Everything else was just orbital motion and gravity, and the older models for those didn't stop working just because the comet crashed into Jupiter.

One specious reply after another. Actually, "specious" gives you too much credit. Do you have any integrity at all?