Today we have seen several cases of Darwinist Derangement Syndrome (DDS) at the “Yes, KN. It is a Literal Code” post. I invite you to peruse the combox to that thread and see:
Jerad copying only half a definition and saying it lacks “rigor” when the rigor is in the half he left out.
Kantian Naturalist: Language means nothing or, better yet, it means anything I want it to mean, so I can always argue something is ambiguous.
Reciprocating Bill: “This doesn’t accomplish what you want it to accomplish, because the conclusion turns on what we know.” Whaaazat? My conclusion turns on what we know? Well, yes, guilty as charged.
Mark Frank misrepresenting the definition of CSI.
Alan Fox’s ravings that are too numerous to detail. I’ll just use one as an example: Complex specificity has no meaning. Uh, did it have no meaning when world famous Darwinist Leslie Orgel coined it?
Here’s my theory to account for the DDS in this thread. The ID argument based on the presence of a digital code in the cell is unanswerable (or at least it has never been answered). And this drives Darwinists especially nuts. And this in turn leads to outbursts of DDS. Lurkers can judge for themselves.