['And since the therapsid jawbones did in fact evolve into mammalian ear bones, you are dead wrong on your second point.']
You are making this WAY too easy. If it functioned, then it is not considered IC. If we found evidence of a developing ear in the fossil record, and knew that it would did not work until it developed further, that is NOT evidence for darwinism. That is evidence of something forming in anticipation of a FUTURE benefit. Blind forces do not anticipate future benefits. Anyway, you're too ignorant of ID. You dno't seem to get it. Maybe you can follow my debates with other peolpe and catch on later.
11 comments
Point of correction:
Machine translations are imperfect. Single tired person translations may be equally flawed. Fundiebabble-English translator now active.
“You are making this WAY too easy.”
“If it functioned, then it is not considered IC.”
“ If we found evidence of a developing ear in the fossil record, and knew that it would did not work until it developed further, that is NOT evidence for darwinism.”
“ That is evidence of something forming in anticipation of a FUTURE benefit.”
“Blind forces do not anticipate future benefits.”
“Anyway, you're too ignorant of ID. You dno't seem to get it. Maybe you can follow my debates with other peolpe and catch on later.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
