Proof of evolution!!!

That is quite true. For example, how about
THE PEOPLE IN THE VATICAN!
(not yelling at you, just saying it really loud) They are about as devout as one can get and they also say ID is not a science.(btw: I just went here http:///WebPages/GettingStarted.html
to see how to format bold large text instead of all caps and got page not founds. Where is a good example when you need it?>

The 9+2 formation of microtubules within the rods and cones of the eye point to spirochete insertion. (Microcosmos--Margulis)

This fact just tends to re-enforce for the descendants of the Puritans that, like they always said, Popery is the home of the AntiChrist.

Let's get this straight. Let's make this point absolutely crystal clear:You started an entire thread in order to show how 'assumptions' have blighted the ToE. You use an argument based on hypothetical situation that you not only knew was a poor analogy for the theory of evolution and it's intellectiual development, but you wanted it to be a poor analogy!It's a novel approach, I'll give you that. And as always - it comes down to personal incredulity. You don't believe it so it can't be true. How very scientific and falsifiable of you. You, like so many other ID proponents, want us to treat ID as a scientific approach just like the ToE, but without playing by the rules that every other scientific discipline has to. Try ID.

Sure it is. This you assert, but without proof. It remains uncertain. Sure it is evidence. It is not proof, and I never claimed that it is proof. It is evidence, but rather weak evidence. You have eliminated yourself as a possible designer.In your statement about cells, I took you as implicitly saying that no person can design a cell. That eliminated a lot of possible designers, so it was stronger evidence. I'll grant that it was not conclusive. But it does indicate that you were appealing to an unknown designer, so it makes it that much harder for you to demonstrate design.

I agree with that. The feeling is probably mutual. Now we should examine the situation. Here we have two mutually exclusive and irreconcilable positions. They both cannot be right. At most, one can be right.To expand, there are hundreds of religions, all of which are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. At most, how many are right? The apparent answer is one. The real answer: None.

Let's keep our views of the pope out of this thread.

---

There is not one example of evolution in your post. All I see here is adaptation and survival of the fittest but not one creature evolving into a different kind.Breeding animals does not prove evolution, it proves you can breed animals to get the most out of both of them together.In addition, things which may not be are possible. For example, it is possible that we can populate other planets, and hopefully we will, but it may not be. Computers can now simulate a limitate kind of robotic evolution. Just because things can be demonstrated in simulation or shown to be possible, does not mean that it actually ever happened.

Uh.... right. If any physical construct exists, and there is a God, then God can create that physical construct, for God is all knowing and all powerful. Therefore, any physical construct can be designed. I guess it can be considered evidence, but I wouldn't rely on it.Think about it, along time ago, we couldn't make air planes, televisions, computers, etc. Yet, they were possible and designable. I personally know the designer and his name is Jesus Christ, the son of God, and God himself.God spoke, and Jesus created.

Yet, at the same time we were making babies but not designing them, animals were making baby animals but not designing them. The babies differed a little from their parents. So evolution seemed to be going on without requiring a designer. That's okay. Many people, including many evolutionists, agree with that.The argument isn't over whether we are designed. The argument is over whether ID is science.However your argument, the argument for this thread, is over whether we are designed, and so far you haven't provided any persuasive evidence.

OK, well close this topic because I just got a nutso crazy wac idea that I am about to post in the proposed new topics.I would prefer that you don't close the topic so we could continue, but if you truly wish to close it, then o well.

We can leave the thread open, in case you decide to come back to it.

Perhaps ramoss knows nothing about the intelligent designer! I said that I questioned my "knowing" God and was honest to bkelly. I can tell ya, Guido, that I believe in my heart that I know God, and I have had several experiences in life which verify that claim and I can explain this to you because you are a Christian, right? I do not know where bkelly is coming from, however, so I can't just tell him that I "know the designer"...when he himself may not know what I mean! The Two Theory peoples?? its a paintball war, YO! Some of us are eggheads (with mucho educated wisdom) Guido....answer Jars question...because I am not as smart as you guys and I need to follow the debates in order to learn anything! (Yes...even at age 46 I still learn a lot from bright young minds like Guido and from old bright minds such as Jar.)By the way, Guido....read my thread below this one....This message has been edited by Phat, 12-02-2005 05:04 AM

quote:

---

Because it is.

---

What that translates to is "Anything that I don't understand about nature couldn't have happened naturally."That is the God of the Gaps fallacy.How do we tell the difference between a system that has been intelligently designed and a natural one that we1) haven't figured out yet but will in the future, or2) don't have the ability, for whatever reason, to ever firgure out?

quote:

---

All I see here is adaptation and survival of the fittest but not one creature evolving into a different kind.

---

What is a kind?What criterion do I use to determine one kind of organism from another?Also, do you accept the validity and accuracy of DNA tests as they pertain to relatedness between individuals?