And now you are making a dishonest and unreasonable argument from ignorance.
You can assert that, it doesn’t make it true.
It isn’t my responsibility to provide evidence to support the other guy. If Marty hasn’t demonstrated that his assertion constitutes evidence, it isn’t evidence.
No, you have made baseless assertions. You have provided no evidence.
I’ll make you a deal: You stop making posts that are obviously either wrong or dishonest in a public forum, and I’ll stop calling you out for it. You don’t get to say silly things and then demand other people ignore it.
And yet you provide no evidence.
And again you repeat an assertion that is false IMO. Do you think reasonable people agree that the existence of life is not evidence of a creator. Who do you think you are kidding?
And yet you still present no evidence. You claim to have evidence, and yet everything you’ve ever presented has been clinically dissected by myself or others in this thread or others. You have nothing but your dishonest insistence on keeping your fingers pressed as tightly as possible in your ears. You are welcome to stop lying at any time, but you’ve demonstrated you lack the capacity.
The claim of no evidence is a non starter for me as it is false IMO. You are simply repeating a false claim.
No evidence is an assertion you are making because you have a weak argument. The weak argument does not come from your debating skill but from a false worldview IMO. There is no reasonable explanation for the universe we are living in short of a creator. The only choice you have is be an evidence denier.
You are in the minority here so even your ad populum fallacy fails.
I do not disagree that Bill’s arguments on these various points have been clinically dissected, and found to be as useful as a dead parrot. But I will add that there is something in the drama of these failures which the term “clinical dissection” does not capture. In each and every case when Bill raises the “sequence problem” or the “waiting time problem” or the “problem problem” or the “problem I can’t even coherently state problem,” the end looks less like a dissection and more like a rail car, fully engulfed in flames, derailing from its path, rolling down a hill, taking out a few cottages along the way, and then plunging off a cliff. And the astonishing thing is that Bill can never remember it happening, or at least would like everyone to think he doesn’t remember it happening, and so it keeps happening, over and over again. Sometimes it’s short and sweet, with a huge explosion and little follow-on drama. Sometimes it’s a kind of long, drawn out catastrophe with all manner of minor sub-catastrophes along the way. But the end is more or less the same, each time, and each time, it is not remembered and the whole sordid thing has to start over again.
And so while I do not dissent from the term “clinical dissection,” I do note that that is an exceptionally kind and generous way to describe the hideous spectacle which each and every iteration of this sad tale represents.
We are all very well aware that your opinions have no connection to reality.
No, it is a fact that has been demonstrated in countless threads.
I respectfully disagree. Thanks for the conversation.
Stricken, in its entirety, as non-reponsive!
I did not ask “please Bill Cole regurgitate yet again your vacuous laundry list of falacious ‘problems’”.
I asked for three “events”. Even if your “problems” were real (hint: they’re not), this reply would not be a valid response to my inquiry.
From your non-responsive reply, it is obvious that your statement that:
There are millions of origin events that are not explained by the known laws of physics and chemistry.
… is indeed nothing more than empty rhetoric, untethered to any actual scientific research.
That shouldn’t surprise me, as that description can be aptly applied to the whole Intelligent Design project.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. – Harlan Ellison
Just because you do not understand the problems does not make the problems go away. Take chromosome counts for instance:
How do you reconcile it with the tree of life? Which of these organisms share a common ancestor? On what basis would you make this claim with mismatched chromosomes? Mammals have a range of 7 to over 100 chromosome pairs. Matched chromosomes are critical for reproduction but rare among mammals. We’re looking at many origin events for mammals alone.
Chromosomes split and fuse all the time without causing complete reproductive isolation. This has been explained to you before.
Billy: nobody outside the ID echo-chamber accepts these vacuous ‘problems’ of yours.
Further, these ‘problems’ have been explicitly rejected by a number of biologists on this forum who have far greater understanding than your own (vestigial) level.
Finally you have completely **failed to address my point that:
This is nothing but a blatant argument from ignorance – Bill Cole, who knows next to nothing about Biology, does not understand how this could happen – so it couldn’t have happened.
This is a perfect example why I, and all the biologists on this forum, regard your ‘problems’ as fallacious, and thus worthless.
Again you offer no explanation for this divergence from the tree of life. Saying biologists disagree is not an argument. Can you defend this claim yourself?.
The burden is on biology to reconcile the chromosome pattern with the tree. This is an extension of the gene patterns not following the tree. Harshman tried to do this with gene exceptions but had to invoke explaining how the genes changed (gain and loss) and could not address the waiting time problem.
The chromosome patterns don’t follow the tree. They also don’t appear to follow the gene patterns or the gene sequences. This claim of a consistent nested hierarchy is not materializing.
@Tim does this response give you confidence that @CrisprCAS9 has a handle on this issue. Chromosome splits and fuse all the time. 
This is one of the biologists you trust?
Don’t just tag Tim, tag whoever you want. Let’s see who you can find on this forum that trusts your grasp of biology over mine.