Elizabeth Liddle- Still Clueless WRT Science
Poor little Lizzie Liddle doesn't understand science. She doesn't understand how CSI can be a design indicator. It's like this Lizzie- every time we have observed CSI and knew the origin, it has ALWAYS been via agency involvement- ALWAYS, 100% of the time. We have NEVER observed blind and undirected processes producing CSI- NEVER, 0% of the time.
That means when we observe CSI and do NOT know its origins, it is safe to infer some agency was involved.
The only hope for ID, IMO, is to demonstrate that some feature of the simplest possible common ancestor of modern living things is still too complicated to have arisen through chemistry.No Lizzie, it is up to YOU to show that chemistry and physics can produce a replicator and that replicator can then go on to become a living cell. YOUR position needs positive evidence, Lizzie, and to date it doesn't have any.
IOW if neither CSI nor ID existed, your position still wouldn't have anything.
"Non-design null"? Your position doesn't even have that and you don't even realize that it is up to you to provide it!
Darwinian evolution has neither Positive Predictive Validity nor Negative Predictive Validity- it has nothing but losers like you struggling with science.