Actually they are metaphysical questions. Let me explain. You asked: “Why do embryonic whales have four limbs and two nostrils?” This is classic evolutionary thinking. Rhetorical questions such as this run all through the literature. I’ll give just a few exemplary quotes from the literature:
There are, of course, many more examples where these came from. This is not a positivistic argument. In other words, there is no compelling explanation given for how whales or rhinoceroses could have arisen from chance events and natural law–because there is none.
The form of the argument is contrastive. This is well understood. The point is that there are no good alternative explanations. Whatever weaknesses there are in evolution, they pale in comparison to the alternative. That’s why you ask me what my explanation is. This is all contrastive. It is a powerful argument, but truth claims about God are religious. For you to casually pass this off as not at all metaphysical is simply to be in denial of your own position.
The only way for you to defend your claim would be to, once again, say “I was of course referring to strictly scientific/naturalistic explanations–I of course agree God can do anything.” But that, of course, would defeat the entire point you were making. You intended no such thing. Evolutionists never did. You were asserting the veracity of evolution / common descent against against an IDer. As it stands, you are simply in denial of your own position. This is a great example of cognitive dissonance and internal contradiction.
No Dennis, I’m not the one “simply asserting” things. I provided links to the falsified predictions. Fundamental predictions. So far all I’ve heard is that I’ve provided no evidence, or they don’t count, or some such–bare assertions. So it’s really not me who is the one making bald assertions here. I can understand disagreement, but you are simply in denial here. I’m not the one “simply asserting” things.