Ah, hooberus... I won't bother asking you for your promised rebuttal of dendrochronolgy which (unless you can rebutt it) proves quite catagorically that the Flood was not global, and thus proves your key presupposition (the accuracy and literal nature of the Bible) is false.
You will simply make one of a variety of excuses, normally trying to blame me for your inability to rebutt critical evidence against your beliefs.
Having said that let us see what aspect of evolutionary science you're tilting at today; although you have no compettive theory and cannot even defend the hypothesis you do have, it doesn't stop your continual attack on one type of scientist (whilst benefiting from all the other types of scientist)...
Oh... you can't be bothered to argue your point but instead refer us to a book; are you incapable of putting the argument in your own words, lazy, or just trolling creationist-ID claptrap with no genine interest in a discussion?
Well, I'll be just a lazy; ReMine didn't understand how the software he was using worked and limited the population size to 6. There's more faults, here's some URL's;
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html
Don't bother quoting ReMines rebuttal; he ignores the error he made regaring the software and does not even respond to it being pointed out in criticism. Is your failure to respond to criticism of your beliefs based upon trying to emulate such a person? Maybe he figures he'll stop selling those books if he admits they are fataly flawed... funny how unprofessional behaviour and profit so often feature (as I have pointed out in previous discussion with you) in the lives of those people you choose to support to defend your beliefs.
As for your attempt to make this a discussion about logical consistency;
"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." The Biotic Message page. 40
Are you serious? You need to prove the statement before anything else. Just like you need to rebutt dendrochronology's refutation of Biblical accuracy before going on with your slavish devotion to Creationistic opinion.
You also have to prove your own statement;
It should be noted that the above theory deals specifically with life that has an origin from non-life, and thus there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).
There is a difference between TYPING STUFF and making a decent argument.
I know you will grab at whatever straws you can in shoring up your belief sturcture but don't you think you need to address the faults in your belief structure that are pointed out to you in EVERY thread you come up with Creationist-ID claims?
At the very most you are phrasing the watchmaker argument in a way that suits you, and of course the wachmaker argument refutes itself, as does ID.
If complex things need designers, and designers are complex, designers need designers reducio ad absurdio...
But this has all been pointed out to your already...
Doesn't it strike you as strange your beliefs can only sound vaugely sensible if you ignore sound refutations or create very narrow hypothetical statements that unravel the minute someone looks at them?