But, just the same, if you are really, truly interested in why I think the whole of scientific data in general suggests a creator, I am willing to post an abbreviated statement here.
I for one am really truly interested in why you think this. However, I am unwilling to accept "general" or "abbreviated" statements in defense of your position. This is
precisely the game creationists are ALWAYS playing. No, if you want to be convincing, let's do some specific examples - not vague generalities. I'm not looking for some bizarre metaphysical philosophical discussion. I personally find those as unutterably boring as watching paint crack and as intellectually fulfilling as clipping my dog's toenails. You want to argue science, then let's get to it.
I would like to draw your attention to
this post wherein I lay out some of the basic lines of evidence for evolution drawn from biogeography. Please take either the specific examples from that post, or the examples mentioned in post 123 of that thread, and discuss - in detail and with specifics - why recourse to a supernatural provides a better explanation than evolution. I won't even require you to have "scientific papers" to support your claims - I know there aren't any. However, you must address the specific examples, and in sufficient depth so that your argument is at least logically tenable.
™ Version 4.2
