oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
gpuccio | Quote | | First life was obviously designed, but I am not sure we can say much more than that. |
Obviously.
Clive, in the previous comment:
| Quote | | Darwinists believe that the first living things were cells, just as complex as modern cells. |
It's funny how a single story can convince Clive of X when there are much more detailed accounts out there that support the dreaded "Darwinism" in one way or another. Why does he not believe those also to the same depth, deep enough to now think he's got a new weapon in the arsenal by the sounds of it? Calculate the CSi/FSCI/dFSCI/dFCIS in that first cell please.
So c'mon Clive. You can't possibly be picking and choosing amongst the available evidence for scraps that support your POV?
Well, you can can't you Clive because that's all ID is.
dFSCI/? can only be calculated once the entire proposed evolutionary account is known and provided step by step but at the same time it's very existence proves ID?
bwhahah.
And notice the way Clive breathlessly says
| Quote | | Darwinists believe... |
No Clive, you've got that wrong. You and gpuccio the people doing the believing. You believe that "first life" was obviously designed, but can't say why it's obvious. It just is.
ID is true because ID is true.
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
