Posts by inrainbows

168

Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one in

jw
friends

how can one be considered an athiest?

athiest means you believe god does not exist.

agnostic means you don't know if god really exist.

I'd love to see the reaction a fundy Muslim spouting stuff like "Everyone knows about Allah" would get. Those doing it about Bible god seem totally blinkered to how partial and limited their idea of god is, and how many other believers in other conceptions of god.

Arrogance is never attractive, something I should mumble under my breath before I post, LOL.

The whole atheist/agnostic/theist question is meaningless until you define theos.

Atheist is also an uncomfortable label; most adults don't believe in Santa, but wouldn't call themselves asantaists. Why should you define yourself by something you don't believe in? It's like saying Democrats are arepublicanists

As already noted, many Christian theists are, from the point of view of some atheists, just sloppy inconsistent atheists. For exactly the same reasons that some atheists don't believe in ANY god, many Christian theists don't believe in all gods BUT one. That one god they don't apply the same reasoning to that leads them not to believe in all the others.

Leolalia makes a good point but it is possibly an unneccesary coinage as the word 'secular/ist/ism' was coined to describe precisely what she wants a non-oppostional word for. I assume in this a link between belief in god and religion, although accept this is not neccesarily automatic.

This lack of linkage is something held true by those who might describe themselves as an irreligious theist, religious skeptic or infidel. Freethinkers and secular humanists can also arguably have some form of theos in their concept of reality. Freethinkers like 'brights' is a bit uncomfortable term as it defines by exclusion other forms of thought in an unfavourable (but quite possibly true) light.

48

Flood? World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

by skyking in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm.

the world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the dalarna province of sweden.

the spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.

inrainbows

Perry

Inrainbows, some people take the tack to assume God is wrong first and then go on to learn about one thing or another.

Yes, well, assuming that the Bible is true and the Qu'ran and Bhagadvita are not is presuppositonalistic. Science requires proof before something is accepted as right, be it Einstein's gravtitatinal lensing, Darwin's theory, Cold Fusion, etc..

Christians take the opposite route; they assume God is right first and then go on to learn one thing or another.

No YOU do that. Your defintions of belief are not the sole possible reresentations of Christianity. But any Christian who does that is by definition a presuppositonalistic. Next thing you're going to tell me is you're a member of the elect. LOL.

It doesn't mean that I don't accept clear evidence of things that on first glance appears to be contrary to a literal reading of God's word.

Yes you do, time and time again. Tell me, where is the Bible non-literal and how do you know?

The Flood?
Locusts with sulphur coloured breast-plates?
Isrealite soldiers taking virgin girls as war booty?

Has it ever occured to you that this is the identical experience of born again Christians? They have personal knowledge of God and discount all other sources to one degree or another. It sounds like we are in agreement with this most basic process for determining truth.

Yes Perry, but other religious people have contradictory personal experiences of various ideations of god, even of your own ideation of god, and you want me to believe you are right and they are wrong based upon nothing more than your say-so.

Nice try, you still fail to differentiate yourself from the guy in a loin-cloth and a bone through his nose worshipping a rock because his personal experience of the divine leads him to do so.

So, the University of Georgia is technically wrong and "other" sources are right. Thanks for clearing that up. I will fire off an email to the University of Georgia and ask for a clarification.

Way to go at missing the point entirely. They are right for a given SIMPLIFIED value of right. Just like pi at 3.1415 is right for a given simplified value of right.

I'm curious, why is being this important to you?

Where did I say that it was important to me? Again, you are beign a presupposuitionalist.

Why don't you expalin it, just a few words would do.

Because my point is not teaching you. All I have to do is look at past posts and I see that there is no point. My point is illustrating the ignorent and arrogant approach you take to declaring modern science wrong and the 'goat-herder's digest' right. I'm illustrating the pathology of your thinking, not really trying to correct you as I do not believe you will ever change your beliefs.

Have you ever seen the extent that a single mom will go to to keep her job and support her children? It is quite amazing. She ain't stupid.

I love it. Now you're attacking another Christian. Go for it Perry! Why not just call her a liar? Show me how little you think of anyone who disagrees with you, to the extent that even if they are sincere committed Christians you will attack them over their scientific interpretation when you TIME AND TIME AGAIN show how little you know of science.

I'll say. But, may I point out the the word "fossil" will need revising as well to make it fit.

Is there no beginging to your knowledge?

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. (Wiki)

No revison of definition needed. You prove again you fail to do the most elementary of research and have the most slight understanding of what you potificate over.

Did you miss the bit about research into the contents of these cracked open bones has confirmed the theories that dinosaurs have more in common with birds than with reptiles? Why, yes, of course you did... LOL

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

It's a simple question I've asked you, but then key to your position is the avoidance of the same.

In your cut and paste description what do you understand by 'observations'?

If you understand observations to mean something like 'golly that okapi that landed in my lap is a funny colour and has a long neck', then you know perfectly well that you can hold on to your position as long as you like, as speciation does not happen like that in terms of interspecies transitions, interspecies differentiation (you want a new species to be grossly different, subtle changes are not enough) and typical time scales.

The above understanding of observations where;

Ring species where interbreeding occurs at the ends of a ring is rare are not good enough as there is some gene flow.
New species of (e.g.) fertile plant that are not fertile with the originating species of plant/s are not good enough, as the differences are too subtle for your definition even though there is no gene flow.
Your refusal to accept the reasonable modern understanding of species (scientific species names are place markers of note, not the beginings of new chapters) or to 'join the dots' and see the implication of what we can observe over longer time scales.

... means you can maintain the pretence of having a reasonable position to your heart's content.

However, such a position does not preclude macroevolution from being a fact; it is a 'pyrrhic victory', if you like. You make yourself right by defintion, but actually miss how wrong you might be. Slight of hand, not impressive, not that you should try to impress anyone but are you actually kidding yourself?

If by observation one allows fossil evidence, extrapolation of events observable in human time-scales, genetic evidence, etc., then your refusal to see the slow gradual change between grossly different forms is not really tenable.

So, am I right about you having a 'in front of my eyes' (or something close to it) defintion of observable?

Now, back to the bits you are ignoring as you can't answer them to any level of satisfaction and keep your ID hypothesis credible.

ID requires the designer to pop up at various points since life began to introduce new species. Thus it is required to be explained IN the hypothesis. Go on then.
Atavisms such as dolphin limbs and human tails are not explicable as 'inbuilt design variation'. Humans have no conceivable use for tails; if they do, please let me in on your insight. Likewise, non-functional limbs are a useless design variation to cope with environmental stress for dolphins, and a decent designer could make 'inbuilt design variation' produce usable features within one generation.
Genetic evidence points to lines of descent due to the unique 'finger print' of an endoviral infection event being inexplicable by other means; you can't credibly say 'oh, each species caught the endovirus independently' as the genetic evidence of this would be different from that we find in (e.g.) chimps and humans.
Why do you limit the power of the designer? You seem to believe that a designer of the ilk you speculate is limited to producing a range of 'cars' that can modify themselves to suit 'market forces', but will always remain a Ford Taurus/Dodge Viper etc., and never become a bus, a tractor-trailer, etc. Why can the designer not have the design savvey to set up the very rules so the OUTPUT of the system is what it wanted based upon an initial single design event?

17

BRING BACK HANGING

by The Nothing Man in

jw
friends

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/04/25/call-this-justice-89520-20393945/ .

this little bastard destroyed her life.

he stands to inherit 130 million.

inrainbows

Nothing Man

Personally I would torture them to death so they die slow.

And this would prove what about YOU?

That you would deliberately and methodically inflict pain on another human being. Wow. Nice. You should be locked up for life if you'd actually do that.

Do you think the opinion of someone as angry and distressed as you obviously (and understandably ) are is the sound basis of a JUDICIAL system. Blind bloody vengence, maybe. Calm down.

joebin

Actually, the head lives for an appreciable amount of time. If you are telling me having your head cut off doesn't hurt I don't believe you.

I suggest you volunteer; with an air pump and a vibrator we could give your still living head the ability to articulate enough to ascertain the level of pain.

But if killing people is wrong, then killing people in a fairly clean and effective fashion is just a sop to the sqeamish, not a way of making something wrong right.

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

Nice one serotonin.

Isn't it funny how the exact same set of evidence (soft tissues from fossils) that Creationists assume discredits evolution actually increases the level of proof?

Of course, no doubt some farsical explanation for why the 'genetic design tool kit' for T-Rex is of greater similarity to chickens than to alligators will be attempted, and the fact that this result is exactly the result most evolutionists have theorised over the past couple of decades will be ignored.

Maybe someone will claim that T-Rex subjected to environmental stress become chickens? Or that you could breed a chicken with a T-Rex?

I hope the above isn't true; I have a broody hen sitting on some eggs at the moment. I'm now going to be especially careful about the environmental stress that takes place. Last thing I want is being killed in my sleep by a freshly hatched veolociraptor...

(note, the above is a farce or paradoy and is not meant to be taken literally. No one would expect a chicken egg to produce velociraptors.)

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

So, nothing further to say about your 'attempt' to explain dolphin atavisms using ID. You just repeat what you said before really.

I think we can assume you know when you are backing a losing eohippus, but rather than concede your error, you ignore your error and carry on attacking a theory leaving the burning hulks of your supposed defences of ID behind you without a backward glance or by simply recapitulating inadequate arguments and not answering questions as regards their validity.

Holding onto your opinions is so easy when you ignore all the times they are shown to be unsuportable.

Sea levels are rising; why would environmental stress make a dolphin sprout atavistic limbs? Besides, what environmental stress would make a human be born with an atavistic tail? Why would THAT variation be built into the genome?

Are you claiming elephants have sufficient design variation built into become sea-going? And then mate with land-going elephants? You've not answered the question about whether your land-going dolphins could breed with their aqautic cousins. Or indicated ANY form of proof of such a postulation.

And doesn't it occur to you that (useless) atavistic hind limbs are NOT a survival trait.

You believe in intelligent design? Then the designs are not very good for something designed by an intelligence as distinct from a process. What do I mean?

A decent designer who could design an organsism with sufficient genetic flexibility to chnage in the manner you describe could also design it so this flexibility could happen far more quickly than the slow slow process of evolution.

If the data is there and the triggers for expressing that data are there then it would be possible to design dolphins that (for example) when kept in a small shallow water tank with a beach would have babies with usable legs.

This is of course nonsense, as is your hypothesis.

Proving WHO designed life intelligently is no more a task of ID than is proving abiogenesis a task of evolution.

Wrong. Evolution explains HOW species come about. Not how life came about.

You need to explain how your designer came about as your designer is required for how life came about AND how species come about.

You say you don't hold with special design, but unfortunately for you (unless you throw out all dating methods) species have arisen in the past few hundred million years that would EITHER require macro-evolution or a new special design, because they were not about before.

It is incredibly hypocritical to hold me to a standard you don't even aspire to acheive. On this thread I have not suggested WHO designed anything, have I?

No, because you know your whole pretence at having anything approaching a credible theory falls into ashes if you do.

I have never stated that I believe in special design of each kind of life.

No, but as noted above you still need the designer producing new 'kinds' at various points OR to believe in macro-evolution.

Any answer to the point about how little your faith is? Why cannot the designer be brilliant enough to make it all happen with a single throw of the dice? Why do you limit the power of the designer and reduce it to a thing spinning plates?

And nothing on ERV's I see.

TopHat

I am so happy you've found your level.

48

Flood? World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

by skyking in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm.

the world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the dalarna province of sweden.

the spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.

inrainbows

Perry

Of course I don't, that's why I asked to explain it since the statement seems to be in conflict with the statement from the University of Georgia above.

Well, why not read some more? You see, in all your discussions on the subject you come over as a presuppositionalist; someone who will do anything to avoid accepting scientific evidence if it disagrees with a book that is only acceptable as the absolute 'truth' if you presuppose it is.

So, why I or anyone else should pander to you by discussing a subject you have simply not bothered to research properly because you've already decided it is wrong I don't know.

What you have here is a failure that you will make time and time again doing what you do; looking for stuff that seems to support your argument without any underlying knowledge or in-depth examination.

For example, if you're sat in a basic Chemistry class at some point you will be taught there are three states of matter. This is rubbish. There are five states of matter. However, the teacher is not lying to you. They are simplifying the subject to make it easier to teach and understand.

You are not likely to encounter plasma or Bose-Einstein condensates on a regular basis or have to deal with them in basic chemistry, so it doesn;t really matter. If you study chemistry at a higher level then you learn the details.

Look here;

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/atoms/states.html

Three states of matter!

I personally loathe this, and have attracted annoyed stares from lecturers quite a few times in my academic career by pointing out these educational simplifications in class. I'm a cocky bastard in lectures as well as online. Some educators or resources phrase things better by saying 'main states of matter' or 'normal states of matter'. But anyone doing more than the barest minimum of research will find out that it is no secret thre are five states of matter.

Now, if you did more than the barest minimum of research you'd find out all the details of C14 dating and how it is calibrated. But your objective is NOT a real understanding of it. All you want are what you think are lose threads you can pick at so you can retain your beliefs and posture as though this was in anyway crediblle. You assume there is disagreement when all there is is a simple explanation and a complicated one.

That answers question 1.

2. Do you think that the premises of the U of G and the other sources than I'm sure you'll find that disagree would sometimes produce a different result from each other in their C 14 tests?

Rephrase this in grammatical English. Once it is a understandable sentence I think you'll find the above explains it.

3. For the sources that claim that calibration is needed, do you think that their preconceived notions of age affect the calibration process?

No. If you did proper research so would understand this, but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.

4. Why do C14 labs ask the ones submitting samples to tell them the "expected" age?

If you did proper research you would know this. Instead you use your superficial knowleedge (and probably cribbing from some Creationist site) to beg the question and create the impression of deceit. If you try to find out why and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.

5. Can you explain the 'science" behind the calibration process?

Yes. If you did proper research so could you but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.

6. Do you think that the scientists in charge of the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones in the video clip I presented above, would ever in a "million years" allow that soft tissue to be C14 dated in blind tests? Or, would hell freeze over first?

Here you beg the question again. You probably know that C14 only works back to 50,000 bp. You also probably know that the samples were recovered from inside bones that are dated to around 65 million years from the rock they were discovered in. Thus your question is idiotic.

You probably don't know the scientist who discovered them has condemed attempts by YEC's et.al. to use this to back their supersticious beliefs.

You probably don't know that rather than disproving evolution or dating techniques, all this is is a discovery that scientists have something else to understand, which they have immediately set about doing. At the end of the day it means the understanding of fossilisation was wrong, not that T-Rex was around a few tens-of-thousands of years ago.

Instead you try to make it look like they would avoid making a (pointless) test on something that is undatable by C14 in order to deceive people.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html

Again, I'm not a scientist. I have learned to question those who claim to have some sort of title deed to truth apart from God's Word though.

See? You have no proof that God's word is the truth but assume it is. How scientific you are NOT.

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

I deeply regret your lack of honesty. You can't even accept you went off on one at comments that were not even directed at you.

I haven't done so since and doubt seriously whether I will ever again on this subject, in future.

And? Sorry, colour me unimpressed.

What I want is something we can empirically prove and reproduce which can no longer mate with either its ancestor or empirically known common descendant to produce offspring. To my knowledge (and possibly due to the rarity of okapi) no one has ever attempted to cross-breed an okapi and a giraffe. I have emailed to ask a noted zoologist whether this has been attempted and will be happy to share any reply I receive.

My stab at humour/thought experiment/example of unreasonableness seems to miss you entirely, and maybe that is my fault so I will explain what I mean.

First of all if is lampooning your position somewhat. The reasons why I think your postion is lampoonable has already been explained.

Second, even given the apparently not so obvious hyperbolic elements integral to the lampoon, I am not talking about interspecies fertility using that example, I am talking about one animal giving birth to one different enough to meet your apparent standards of speciation not by means of hybridisation but by means of a large single generation genetic shift. This would not be a white-head gull/finch/salamandar variants that rarely interbreed, but something that might meet your requirements

However inane your insistence that my standard is unreasonable, until that is accomplished you haven't got a proven case.

I haven't got a proven case to you. Others differ. And my opinion of your standard being unreasonable is mine. You don't have to share it. However, I know that the godless conspiarcy of evolutionary scientists who know far more than you or I ever will about the subject would agree with me. And whilst that argument may approach fallacy, if you said take medicine A and those who'd studied medicine said take medicine B, I'd follow their advice unless you had a far far better argument than you do.

I would recommend selecting something with a much faster life cycle and much larger populations to accomplish the feat.

So, you haven't read up on those easily found Talk Origin examples, or do they look too much alike to meet your standards even though they are not interfertile. Which one is it?

Your cute 'okapi' comment is not a very practical expectation at all, on either count, especially considering the low fertility rates among okapi due to widely divergent haploid variations.

As explained, this attempt at lampooning failed entirely as you missed it. It wasn't mean to be practical, it's mean to illustrate how unreasonable you are.

Variation allowed for within the coding itself.

I am tempted to follow Burn's lead and go blah blah blah at that. That's not an explanation of WHY, it's you desperately clutching at straws.

If (as you seem to allege) there is design required, then why would that design allow a dolphin to sprout atavistic legs? Why would that be required genetic variation? In case the dolphin wanted to pop down to the shops?

Is the designer a fan of those little transformer toys? He likes his designs to morph from fish to terrestial terapod, maybe even to avian?

Come off it. And you think evolution is unbelievable.

Can you explain why evolutionists insist that intentionally engineered adaptability to environmental stressors within a given range would be a poor design model?

So, you are saying, if I can follow your argument, that dolphins have the ability to develop legs due to environmental stress? But that if they did so they would still be dolphins and interfertile with aqautic dolphins going back to when the design was made? Please confirm, this is great.

And biomorphic variation (which exists) is different from speciation, although one might lead to another given seperation of gene pools.

I might not be able to prove to you specifically who intelligently designed life,

So, you don't have a theory. I obviously have to say it for you as you won't come out with it.

but humans can consistently reproduce intelligently designed life that is speciated, can't we, inrainbows?

Is this the god as spaceman lark?

Glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants come to mind, somehow. And the things we have done with various grasses? Oh my.
Oddly, we don't have to actually start from scratch.

Yeah, we've been GM'ing before genetics. This is not a proof of ID. And you know it is not a proof of ID.

Can you consistently reproduce such speciation by generational separation and random mutation?

You haven't read those links on Talk Origins, have you? The answer is 'yes, but not to the macro extent you seem to require given your refusal to give a clear descriptor of what would prove it to you'.

Burn

You said;

We need proof

... and thus associated yourself with the level of proof I was discussing.

If I was wrong and you didn't mean that, fine, but I thought you were supporting that level of proof as that's what you seemed to say.

And whilst I wouldn't support 'argue', I do wish someone from that camp would have a real go at it. Discussion like this is fun. I can't believe the avenue Auld's trying but maybe his clarification will adjust my mirth co-efficient.

Now, I'm running late for the train, I need to fly. Obviously I have the genes for that somewhere but (pats pockets)

(PS Auld, yes, I am not serious, I know you're not saying things can just sprout wings, you're saying under the right environmental stress their babies can, I think, hopefully you'll clarify).)

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

Burn

The level of proof you require is so high that if applied to the hypotheses of Creationism or ID, it makes them unprovable. Thus proponents of such hypotheses requiring a level of proof they cannot provide for their own beliefs are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. A great big fat double standard.

Not that they'll admit it.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones.

But go on, for a laugh, explain away a dolphins with atavistic rear limb/fins. To me the only rational explanation is evolutionary theory, and that it validates macroevolution.

What's your take on it? Other than disappearing from the converastion or avoiding answering it or intellectual dishonesty? Not that you'd do any of that.

What I find enormously funny is that those partaking in such empty posturing are doing so out of a wish to insist in some 'greater power/god/designer'. And that if they had enough faith, then their belief in such an entity doing things using natural selection would be quite possible.

Science gets the stick from believers who don't have enough faith to believe their entity of choice can make the Universe just by blowing on the dice the right way.

Isn't that ironic?

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

Your idea of respect diverges quite a lot from mine. Divergent evolution prehaps? What use is mouthing respect if those you mouth it at don't feel it?

As I have conceded the points about ring species, your lack of conceding you made a non-comparable comparison is really illustrative.

You refuse to define ("set goal posts") a speciation event yourself, and thus predictably avoid ever having to accept one ever happened.

Instead you ask me to show an example of what I mentioned (evolutionary divergence over time resulting in infertiltity). You are asking for a proof that is not obtainable in observable time scales. I assume in saying this that by "empirical" you mean 'observable by the senses', and are excluding the many examples of similar species that cannot interbreed any persual of Talk Origins/a Univerisity library/Google can give you.

In effect you DO want to have an okapi give birth to a giraffe in your lap.

I predicted that you would either refuse to set goal-posts or set unreasonable standards. I never dreamed I would get both predictions right.

We mustn't miss out you ignoring the holes in the hypotheses competing with modern evolutionary theory. This is typical behaviour of the ID/creationist group, as previously commented. I am however, no prophet (there's no money in it, ho ho), I've just seen it all before.

Have you looked at the ERV information refered to by Gallileo yet?

Can you explain how dolphins with atavistic rear limbs fit ID/Creationism? This alone is a proof of macroevolution as it is consistent with evolutionary theory and inexplicable by ID/Creationism.

Any comment about the stunning "Marsupial 'world'", "Lemur 'world'" and "Bird 'world'" evolutionary examples that ID/Creationism cannot explain?

Rather than trying to satisfy your increasingly unreasonable standards of proof;

What EMPIRICAL proof do you have that an ass bred to hyracotherium or to megahippus would be an infertile breeding?

(pats pockets looking for time machine)

... I think it's time you shored up the holes in your own hypothesis.

ERV. Dolphin atavism. Australia/Madagasgar/New Zealand; explain.

You don't have to, of course, but you seem to want to be taken seriously. So, step up...