Gday
"Brad H" writes:
The explanation is just as I explained. That being, if the series is NOT evidence of human progression as touted, then ID has no need to "explain" anything concerning alleged additions of genetic material.
Brad's point seems to be -
If evolution is not true, then he doesn't have to explain ANYTHING.
And, he does believe evolution is not true, so therefore he doesn't have to explain anything because ID has automatically won because evolution is not true.
The idea that one should use ID to EXPLAIN the observations seems foreign to IDists.
Brad, please -
the idea is to see whose EXPLANATION is the best (ID explanation or Evo explanation) - in this case, the best explanation for the chronological sequence of skulls shown in that photo.
We know what the evolutionary explanation is,
now we are hoping to hear from an IDist what the ID explanation is,
for this chronological sequence of skulls that we observe in nature.
Will you tell us please ?
K.
™ Version 4.2