Anti-IDist chooses the "Momma's boy" approach to the debate
So let's look at what Jimmy said before he ran away:
1) He says I "appeal to authority"
Reality demonstrates I appeal to scientific data. But perhaps Jimmy can tell me what authority I appeal to.
2) "Arguments from personal incredulity"
I take it this means that his arguments are from personal credulity. If they weren't then all he has to do is provide the data. Real data refutes beliefs. So why doesn't Jimmy presnt any real data?
That one is all yours James.
4. "Strawman building"
Again that one is all yours. But I would love to hear about the alleged "strawman" I have built. However I also understand that your "Mamma's boy" tatic doesn't afford that luxury.
5) A profound ignorance of the science he criticizes.
Based on what? IF I am ignorant of the theory of evolution or biology it is the fault of evolutionitwits. They are who I read to find out about the theory. I learned about biology through them.
However I will gladly test my knowledge against Jimmy's.
You know Jim, we do have something in common- I understand ID and you can spell ID.
I will take this moment to include that Jimmy, instead of actually having an original thought, actually parroted Dawkins from "The Blind Watchmaker" in saying the theory of evolution can be falsified by finding a fossilized rabbit in the pre-cambrian. Jimmy should have noticed that Dawkins never substantiated that claim. He didn't because he couldn't. That is one of the stupidest claims I have ever read and it demonstrates that Jimmy doesn't understand the science or for that matter science in general.
The best that finding a pre-cam fossilized rabbit could do is to falsify the current history of life- which every eductaed person understands is not the same as the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not say "we will not find a pre-cam rabbit."