hooberus
I am not 'dropping the qualifying charaters', I am saying the qualifying characters are essentially Creationists and IDots (or is it IDites?) saying "but in this case our postulated designer doesn't need a designer because we say so".
Did you not see I was already catering for your predictable protestation in the way that I phrased my initial comment to you?
It is still a form of special pleading; without any evidence what-so-ever such people make the implict claim that intelligent non-biological entities either generate sponataneously in some undescribed fashion, or are external to space and time.
Both are just based on the say-so of you and your chums... and given the lack of ability to show me how greviously wrong dendrochronology is (as you have claimed), , the tendancy to quote from websites I have shown you on multiple previous occasions to be repositories and examples of bad science who pay their chief executives disporportionate salries for the csharitable sector, and as you decietfully or ignorantly mention IDot doctrines like 'irreducable complexity' that have been refuted with no mention of their refutation, the say-so of you and your chums is worth nothing to me.
Go and prove something, eh? I will not indulge you in your arrogant insistence that you are right (without a gramme of evidence to prove it) and the seas of evidence produce by modren science are wrong.
hillary_step
Thank you, that really made me laugh
TopHat
You need to know about a subject you argue against. You've yet to demonstrate any 'accurate knowedge' of the subject. Keep the pretty pictures up if they make you feel happy, but neither they or the text you accompany them with do anything other than show you need to learn more about evolution before you can discuss it without making silly mistakes.
If I were to try to give an example of how little I would need to know about theology to argue about theology as embaressingly as you do about evolution, I'd need to make claims like 'God is a Pizza'.