You really are fairly “steeped” in arguing, aren’t cha?
I said to @Faizal_Ali that making no special discussion dismissing the relative value of Inductive reasoning leaves us sounding weak and unconvincing. [[ We end up saying things like “Well, that’s not how science works.” and then change the subject.]]
In response, YOU said "Speak for yourself… implying that you think your responses have historically been much more convincing.
This view is not only lacking in humility, it is also not true. I.D. proponents, and even people curious about I.D. haven’t found anything you’ve said to be particularly compelling.
In contrast, @Dan_Eastwood has just contributed to these discussions with this posting [click to see his cartoon!]:
.
.
.
@Rumraket
If you think you have a winning counter-argument, pitch it again here (or on the thread that has Eastwood’s posting)… and we can compare.