Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

You don't have to be very smart to be smarter than someone who thinks life started all by itself, as atheists do.And you don't have to be very smart to be smarter than someone who thinks Darwinian theory adequately explains the history of life on earth, as per atheist folklore.

Please be advised that a software "engineer" is not a true engineer, but just a geeky nerd ... who knows precious little about maths and physics. Which "interview"? A citation please.Or are just making things up (again)? ... which proves MD is an honest and brilliant thinker.

There, you see ... it wasn't that hard to think clearly and honestly now, was it?But be very careful ... that sort of talk could get you expelled from the cult, banished to the outer darkness forever, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Oh, the irony! You are the one erecting a strawman - I didn't say anything about atheists not knowing "how life started".No wonder you don't understand what Kleinman is saying ... you don't even understand what I'm saying! [qs=Dredge]And you don't have to be very smart to be smarter than someone who thinks Darwinian theory adequately explains the history of life on earth, as per atheist folklore.]/qs]
What? You haven't yet noticed that Darwinian theory does a lousy job of explaining the history of life on earth. How old are you - ten?The following site does a good job of exposing the inadequacies of Darwinian theory:
Evolution News | Reporting on intelligent design and evolution

Investing everything in an atheist fable like UCD probably isn't the best way to approach medical science.

Why let the mathematical and empirical facts of life ruin a perfectly good fable?

It's tough trying to reason with people who are clinically delusional and/or intellectually dishonest.

A tried and true method ... that's how they got brainwashed with said garbage in the first place.But some folks aren't so malleable and so easily fooled ...

So they abandoned one error (six literal days of creation), only to fall victim to a worse error (Darwinism and UCD)?That doesn't say much for their credibility.

I learnt Calculus by catching butterflies.

You've noticed that too?

No. I made those comments in jest. Only an idiot would take them seriously.

[unwise1]The academic training for a traditional engineer in the USA is very rigorous.[/qs] So it is in Australia. Engineering courses are considered the most difficult at university (which perhaps explains why they're relatively easy to enroll in).My father was a civil engineer. He had his own consulting business that employed 120 people in the 1970s. His company specialised in roads and bridges. I used to work in his "soil lab" in the school holidays.I studied engineering (Bachelor of Engineering, University of Central Queensland) for one year, but my heart wasn't in it. I wanted to study Physics but my father reckoned it would only lead to a teaching job, so he urged me to study engineering instead.I passed every subject except the computer programming course. That course assumed prior study of BASIC at highschool, but there was no computer subject when I did highschool. I was clueless about computers - I had to get someone just to show me how to turn one on ... and then I couldn't log on with my name and student number coz I didn't know you had to press the "enter" key to input information.But my money ran out after one year and I switched to studying Physics externally (aka, by correspondence), with the intention of pursuing a career in geophysics. I got 1/3 of the way through that Physics degree when "the disasters" caught up with me, which put an end to my studies.

So it is in Australia. Engineering courses are considered the most difficult at university (which perhaps explains why they're relatively easy to enroll in).My father was a civil engineer. He had his own consulting business that employed 120 people in the 1970s. His company specialised in roads and bridges. I used to work in his "soil lab" in the school holidays.I studied engineering (Bachelor of Engineering, University of Central Queensland) for one year, but my heart wasn't in it. I wanted to study Physics but my father reckoned it would only lead to a teaching job, so he urged me to study engineering instead.I passed every subject except the computer programming course. That course assumed prior study of BASIC at highschool, but there was no computer subject when I did highschool. I was clueless about computers - I had to get someone just to show me how to turn one on ... and then I couldn't log on with my name and student number coz I didn't know you had to press the "enter" key to input information.But my money ran out after one year and I switched to studying Physics externally (aka, by correspondence), with the intention of pursuing a career in geophysics. I got 1/3 of the way through that Physics degree when "the disasters" caught up with me, which put an end to my studies.

You forgot to mention the fact that nested hierarchies exist only within Phyla - there is no fossil evidence linking the various Phyla, such that they form a nested hierarchy. That is the smoking gun that shoots down the theory of UCD.Contrary to Darwinist folklore, the fossil evidence doesn't reveal a single "tree" of descent, as predicted by the theory of UCD ... rather, it reveals an orchard of separate trees.But Darwinists get around this inconvenient truth by appealing to genetics - all Phyla form a nested hierarchy due to the simple fact that the genomes of all organisms on earth are based on DNA. Thus, Darwinists can claim, for example, that organisms as disparate as humans and lettuce form part of a nested hierarchy bcoz they both contain DNA.