Quote
I wonder if you would kindly try writing a post to me which isn't full of derision; it would make a nice change. Who are "you people"? Why is it necessary for you to tell me I'm lying, playing word games, whatever else, when you don't agree with something I say? Do you really think my raison d'etre is evolution and that I'm just the same as the other "evos" . . . insert whatever stereotype takes your fancy? How about a reminder of a good debate strategy: attack the message, not the messenger.

Your example of the sticks shows that it's difficult, if not impossible, to illustrate a 4-dimensional model in 3-dimensional space, though I daresay if you Googled this you'd find some better attempts by mathematicians. You accept the other 3 dimensions, yes? So how do you think something living on a 2-dimensional plane would be able to understand the third dimension? To it, a third dimension would seem impossible. And maybe it would then be saying "You lying scientists, always making stuff up -- well, I don't believe it!"
This might be true if there were 1D or 2D entities. But there is no 1D or 2D space for them to occupy. Anything other than 3D is imaginary. Call it "conceptual". The smallest subatomic particle is 3D. Even light moves in 3D - always.

1D, 2D, 4D, all are imaginary. The only space available in the physical world is 3D. The capacity to mathematically map a thing doesn't make that thing real. If that were true, space would have to be simultaneously euclidian and reimannian; but the two are mutually exclusive. If anything we imagine becomes reality, what does that make us?

Quote
Using observed evidence to draw conclusions about something which cannot be seen might lead to scientific knowledge; but how does that translate into evidence for a god, or for creation?
This is a question you should ask yourself. There are thousands of evidences people have observed, but in most cases they were actually searching, or at least open to the discovery.

Maybe someone else will have some suggestions. I don't seem to have much luck.
Quote
When an evolutionist says that a tree exists because it evolved from other species of trees and plants, this can be seen in the fossil record and possibly in its genetic makeup.
So we're told. Why then cannot homology be applied without double standards? Because it doesn't fit! Eyes are said to have evolved independently up to 40 times. Oops! Invoking the luck god or the natural selection god doesn't solve this if you bother to examine the actual powers of these gods. You must instead assume they did the job - it's your only choice. Unless you count abandoning the faith as an option.

Quote
Where is the scientific evidence that God created that tree just how it is? I think you're trying to re-hash the ID idea that we must conclude there is a designing god because things are irreducibly complex.
That would be one reason. Another would be just plain too complex, even if the complexity can be explained by a highly improbable just-so story. God did give us common sense.

Quote
You're back at the negative argument, which is essentially the argument from incredulity again: "I don't believe these things could have evolved." And yet scientists are pretty good at explaining how things could have evolved, using the evidence at their disposal.
You're advocating evolutionism again. And imagination's not evidence. That may be your biggest stumbling block. Just because one can imagine something doesn't make it so. But if I point this out, you dismiss it as an "argument from incredulity". Which is just telling me I need to have more faith in imaginary stuff.

Quote
ID is going to need a better test for creation than this. What's more, if someone weren't approaching a problem with the predetermined notion that "this organism must have been created by God, therefore I must prove it", they might actually come to other conclusions, even if they are simply, "I don't understand this, so I'm going to investigate further and see what I can find out."
More hype. Neither ID nor creationists have ever said "Give up science". Didn't happen. Nor is there any reason it should happen. And every time you repeat this hype, expect me to point out your support of those who are trying to prevent scientists from doing science.

You don't like me exposing this lie you picked up from your clergy? Stop repeating it.

Now if you watched Bex's recent video link, you may have noted that a man discovered how to make opals. I haven't googled it yet, but the lesson is clear. He put aside the evodoctrine that said it would be impossible. He did a little science, and got results.

Oh why not? Googling... please stand by...
http://www.rainbowroomvt.com/opals.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/opals.asp

Creation science in action.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson