https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/in-debate-on-intelligent-design-critic-cites-dragon-legend-to-justify-evolutions-failures/

All the ID perps seem to want to discuss is denial. Is there anything
left about the ID scam that any ex IDiots, who dropped out of the ID
scam when the Top Six were given to them, think is still worth
discussing. There is still the second rate creationist denial that
didn't make it into the Top Six, and creationists like Tour and MarkE
still think that it is worth lying to themselves about individual topics
of the Top Six even though they do not want to believe in the designer responsible for them. Really, the designer of life around 3.8 billion
years ago under the conditions that existed at that time is never going
to be accepted as the Biblical god by the vast majority of IDiotic type creationists. Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Beleive
can't deal with that designer because they need the first lifeforms to
be land plants that obviously evolved long after there were sea
creatures that were supposed to have been created after land plants, and
there is nothing in the Bible about billions of years of microbial life
before multicellular plants and animals evolved.

Is there anything positive about the creationist ID scam that is still
worth discussing?

Apparently Michael Ruse is still willing to discuss the subject, but
there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Behe has been an ID perp from
the start, and all of his junk has failed. How many IDiot type Biblical creationists want to believe in the designer responsible for evolving
the bacterial flagellum (#4 of the Top Six) over a billion years ago
when all life forms were restricted to being microbial?

An ex IDiot like Kalkidas should put up some things that are still worth discussing since he now claims that the best that the IDiots ever had
are of little interest to him since he claims to have abandoned the
creationist ID scam in response to the Top Six being presented in the
order in which they must have occurred. He is obviously still a
Biblical creationists, so what is there left to discuss about any
possible IDiotic science that the ID perps might still do something about?

There just isn't any creation science that most if the IDiots in
existence ever wanted the ID perps to accomplish. Science is just the
best way we have for understanding nature, but it turned out that nature
isn't Biblical enough for IDiots to want to understand much about it.
Behe and Denton warned the IDiots, decades ago, that they could not
expect any ID science to change very much about what we understand about
nature (their Biblical creation). Behe has claimed that evolution
happened, but it wasn't totally by "Darwinian" processes. He has always claimed that there were some bits about nature that his intelligent
designer (his Biblical god) needed to be involved with. The issue has
always been the fact that most IDiots are YEC and anti evolution, so
Behe's designer was never the one that they wanted to demonstrate
exists. If Behe had ever been successful in finding his 3 neutral
mutations that occurred in some part of the flagellum to produce a new
function over a billion years ago, that would have just been more
science for IDiots to deny.

So what is there worth discussing about any IDiotic science at this time?

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)