Evidence to expect given a designer

This does not mean anything, but if it did, it would probably be wrong.What you seem to be trying to say (in some jargon of your own with a vague resemblance to English) is that having a vast amount of evidence for something is not a reason to believe it.Yes it is. And if I show you hominids over a longer period, then there has been movement, and if I show you a primitive frog, then there has again been change. Uh, no. I have to show that small changes can add up to big changes. This is obvious. And the evidence is correspondingly vast. The whole of the fossil record, of molecular phylogeny, of biogeography, of comparative morphology, of behavioral ecology ... you could spend a lifetime and not learn more than a fraction of the evidence. And some evolution is directly observable. The amount of evolution that takes millions of years is not directly observable, which is another successful prediction of the theory of evolution. Which is why I referred you to the actual evidence for macroevolution, which you are ignoring. If this has a meaning, it is known only to you and God.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Really? You know a lot more about magic then most of us. Can you tell us how you came by this knowledge?

But this is nonsense which we have already kicked to pieces.Real scientists do not, and indeed could not, detect design with reference to your vague waffle about specificity. I have told you how they do it. I have also pointed out about a zillion times that archaeologists do not put the remains of living creatures in the same class as clay pots and flint arrowheads, they stick 'em in the "natural" pile. Either they are not detecting design when they look at the stuff they dig up, or they are coming to the exact opposite conclusion to the one you want them to and so are not using any method that you'd endorse. You are telling us falsehoods about what our arguments are. Which I guess is easier than refuting those arguments, but I can't imagine it gives you the same sense of satisfaction. The genetic code has been observed to evolve into new and different codes.I'd ask if you've ever observed a code being brought into existence by supernatural means, only I know the answer. No it isn't. It's actually like saying: "The "parameters" of any planet will always be exactly right for everything that is part of the planet. What else would you expect?"Would you like to argue with that? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So much for the Christian doctrine of ex nihilo creation. Will you tell the Pope or shall I?

I too am educated, but I would hesitate to call what you are doing "communicating".

Don't you ever tell the truth?

Then perhaps you should post less often.

Who designed the antenna?

PaulK said that Berlinski had no qualifications in biology, and you haven't controverted him as such; though noting that he has worked for a biologist is something to be said for him.

The things we have observed.If we base it on the things we have observed, then we would estimate that over 10% of planets have life, based on the sample we have. Perhaps this would be a little naive, but at least it would be based on observation.Instead, you based your argument on something we haven't observed, i.e. the imagined lifelessness of planets that we haven't actually checked for life.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I picked it up from the things they say about fossils. Perhaps I'm more perceptive than you.For example, here's what Darwin had to say on the subject: What have scientists subsequently said about fossils that led you to think differently? Perhaps you could quote some paleontologist saying something along the lines of : "Since we've found every fossil there is, there's really no point in anyone funding any further field expeditions"? Or perhaps we don't live in Opposite World.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The gradual evolution of hard-bodied creatures over a period of millions of years supports a dogma which invariably denies evolution and usually denies the millions of years?Apparently we are in Opposite World.

You what?This conveys paranoia but not much else. Try my thread on The Scientific Method For Beginners.

Again it seems that your desire to say something outreaches your command of the English language.Start by looking up "strawman". A "strawman" is when you misrepresent someone else's argument, as in the bizarre phrase: "To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period ..."

It's not actually our fault you can't find anything that falsifies evolution. It's 'cos of it not actually being false. Go and yell at reality and see if it cares.