- You said you do have evidence, and again accused me of being in denial about this. This would've been the perfect opportunity to present the best evidence you have. And you chose to just vaguely point me to the beginning of the Bible, as if I've never heard of that before and as if no skeptic has ever commented on the unreliability of the Bible (never mind that I've read the whole thing cover-to-cover myself, and I've watched dozens or hundreds of hours of discussion and debate on the topic).

.

It goes on for quite a while longer. But I thought I'd just summarise where the discussion started going off the rails here, comment by comment, for any passerby, so they can judge for themselves who is being unreasonable here, and easily refer back to the original comments for reference..

Feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies above, but I assume you won't be able to keep your opinion about what I am or am not denying out of your analysis. And even if you make some attempt now to justify me denying something, that wouldn't change any of what's been said above and how you failed to justify any assertions and accusations you made (the opportunity to justify your accusation of my denying facts was 20-ish comments ago, when you made the accusation).

And passersby can also judge for themselves who, of the two of us, actually tried to contribute something useful to the discussion, and who just repeated the same accusation over and over again, with no attempt to actually make any sort of argument or offer any sort of justification.

@NotThatGuy I've repeatedly tried to point you to evidence. You've repeatedly either ignored it outright, or insisted on your interpretation of that evidence despite your interpretation being less likely. And apparently the reason you engage in these arguments is for the sheer pleasure of smacking down other people?

Combine that with your use of profanity and name-calling, and it's no wonder my opinion of you would be hard-pressed to get any lower. Do you even realize how you come across? (Seriously; I'd like an answer.)

@NotThatGuy You also have yet to demonstrate that you actually understand ID's arguments. Thus far, honestly, it seems you are only capable of parroting the propaganda you've been fed.

@Matthew Which part of the summary I provided above is not factual?

As to "not giving evidence", what about philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99684/…?

Your "response" to that was "we have no evidence of anything designing biology" (the basic premise of ID is that this is false) and "our reasons for saying designed things are designed wouldn't apply to biology" (likewise). No justification for these statements, just assertions.

Real-life experiements have failed to produce the sort of "improvements" needed for CD. Real life observations suggest that any change requiring more than two simultaneous mutations is effectively impossible. CD has no coherent explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. CD is based on unprovable assumptions.

I'm not even getting into the various timing problems, nor evidences that Earth hasn't been around for the supposed billions of years (without which CD is DOA).

Then there's the problem that observations strongly suggest that entropy does, indeed, apply to genetics.

Plus, for ID to be false, you also need abiogenesis, and that has mountains of problems.

@Matthew Now you're back to actually presenting arguments. But that doesn't change the fact that you spent 20+ comments simply accusing me of denying facts with no justification. I don't have much inclination of actually arguing with you if you're just going to do that again. So, I ask again: Which part of the summary I provided above is not factual? Do you accept that as a factual description of what happened in this discussion?

Do you have any interest in having a productive discussion? Or do you only care about scoring points?

It takes time and effort to present a coherent argument. Time and effort I've spent on previous conversations with negative results. I don't care to expend that time when all evidence suggests you're a) not going to pay any attention, and b) not going to understand ID's arguments anyway.

Thus, I invited you to give some indication that you understand ID's position. You've repeatedly refused to do so. As far as I can tell, your only motivation is to "win" an argument. If that's the case, why should I waste my time?

BTW, I notice you didn't include me resorting to profanity or overt name-calling in your summary. Why is that?

@Matthew I don't have much inclination to engage with your arguments if you're just going to fall back into bad-faith and counter-productive tactics such as those detailed above (which has happened roughly every time I have tried to have a discussion with you). So acknowledge that I accurately detailed your bad-faith tactics, or don't. It doesn't matter much to me. I just posted that for the record.

@NotThatGuy Right; I'll take that as "no, and yes, respectively".

As far as I can tell, you don't have much inclination to engage with ID's arguments, period.

...but plenty of interesting in being able to say, "see, I win!".

I repeat/rephrase an earlier question: is that your only motivation for arguing with ID proponents?