Good thing Evolution was patient enough to wait enough billions of
years for "us" to develop *two* eyes before letting us rely on them for
survival.

It was your insinuation of a flaw that I was referencing. You can't have it both ways. You cannot point out something as a shortcoming in one breath while then promoting an intelligent design in the next. Of course, I'm assuming you're an IDer ... I gather that from your past posts in other topics, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.

And evolution admits many flaws in biology. It's what evolution is - change over time. Changes caused by mutations, or flaws, in genes. Good flaws increase species survivability while bad flaws tend...

Good thing Evolution was patient enough to wait enough billions of
years for "us" to develop *two* eyes before letting us rely on them for
survival.

It was your insinuation of a flaw that I was referencing. You can't have it both ways. You cannot point out something as a shortcoming in one breath while then promoting an intelligent design in the next. Of course, I'm assuming you're an IDer ... I gather that from your past posts in other topics, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.

And evolution admits many flaws in biology. It's what evolution is - change over time. Changes caused by mutations, or flaws, in genes. Good flaws increase species survivability while bad flaws tend to weaken them and make them less able to survive and adapt.

And, while another assumption on my part, I'm going to guess your intended use of "theory" was to suggest that "evolutional theory" is simply an idea or hypothesis - to which I would like to point out you'd be wrong. Evolution is fact. Evolution theory is simply our best understanding of that fact. If its ever proven wrong science will simply redefine it and incorperate the new knowledge to make the understanding even better than before.

You have failed to "point out" that I'm wrong, and have only succeeded in underscoring your own faith commitment to the idea of a materialistic universe, a faith commitment that is as irrational as it is unevidenced by the scientific data.

I'm not an ID'er, actually. I believe in a creation by a personal God, the Christian God who reveals Himself verbally in the Bible.

ID'er's are more lenient on the identity of the Intelligenc.

The concept of a flaw assumes an ideal from which the flaw deviates. The concept of an ideal is in its essence the concept of a perfect...design--something not possible in evolutionary theory.

"Good" and "bad" likewise are impossible on your theory. On what...

You have failed to "point out" that I'm wrong, and have only succeeded in underscoring your own faith commitment to the idea of a materialistic universe, a faith commitment that is as irrational as it is unevidenced by the scientific data.

I'm not an ID'er, actually. I believe in a creation by a personal God, the Christian God who reveals Himself verbally in the Bible.

ID'er's are more lenient on the identity of the Intelligenc.

The concept of a flaw assumes an ideal from which the flaw deviates. The concept of an ideal is in its essence the concept of a perfect...design--something not possible in evolutionary theory.

"Good" and "bad" likewise are impossible on your theory. On what grounds is species survivability "good?" The value assignment is entirely arbitrary, and, I might add, unverifiable by the empirical evidence.

No one denies that things change. To assert that as the position of those rejecting evolutionary theory is either ignorant or fraudulent. The former is the morally superior position.

The logical/scientific rejection is really twofold at its core: 1) The extent of change, which is related to 2) the ability to look at what is and thereby arrive at what must always have been.

This theory is untested and untestable, which means, therefore, it is unscientific, and therefore a theory incapable of verification on its own terms. Self-contradictory, in other words

That some things change somewhat by no means supports the ridiculous idea that an amino acid is my granddaddy.

Of course, the dating problem is a biggie, too. Isn't it obvious that a creation would necessarily have the appearance of age without the actuall accrual of years?

The philosophic rejection is of evolutionary theory's precommitment to an essentially materialistic universe (apologies to the Material Girl). What is perhaps the height of irony is that a materialistic philosophy claims knowledge of that the nonexistence of which its own premises presume!

It must be very convenient to swap between ideals when it suits you. On the one hand you proclaim god as a creator, while on the other you deny ID. They are both the same thing. I'm guessing you just don't like that other religions can lay claim to ID as well as yours?

The concept of a flaw assumes an ideal from which the flaw deviates.
The concept of an ideal is in its essence the concept of a
perfect...design--something not possible in evolutionary theory.

The concept of a perfect design falls to creationists and their belief that everything today is as god created it. I made no such claim of perfect design. The scope of my statement encompassed the ability of an organism to ...

It must be very convenient to swap between ideals when it suits you. On the one hand you proclaim god as a creator, while on the other you deny ID. They are both the same thing. I'm guessing you just don't like that other religions can lay claim to ID as well as yours?

The concept of a flaw assumes an ideal from which the flaw deviates.
The concept of an ideal is in its essence the concept of a
perfect...design--something not possible in evolutionary theory.

The concept of a perfect design falls to creationists and their belief that everything today is as god created it. I made no such claim of perfect design. The scope of my statement encompassed the ability of an organism to succeed or fail depending on how well any changes in its genetic makeup played out. The ability to adapt. I tried to simplify it for you with terms of "good" and "bad" but see that didn't work. "Good" means any changes where benificial and helped it survive over other organisms. Bad meant the change actually hindered its ability to survive. I'd explain "neutral" changes, but really, is it worth the effort?

This theory is untested and untestable

I'll present this link at Talk Origins for you to explore at in your spare time. 29+ evidences for macroevolution. There is literally mountains of proof. But if you simply refuse to believe because you don't want to then your ideal shifts from "faith" to "delusion".

About the only comment I can make about the rest of your post is that I'm suprised that you didn't exclaim directly "no ape was my grandad!" so at least that's something new.

Your quibble is with ID'ers more than me. Obviously, I believe God's design is intelligent. ID'er's, however, do not necessarily believe in the biblical account of creation, or even God. They're all over the map.

Intelligent Design, as a distinct school of thought, was formed to distinguish itself. Obviously, some basic principles are shared...that's not flip-flopping ideals, but recognizing distinctions.

Your semantic shift does not aid you with regard to good and bad, but thank you for condescending to stoop to my level.

You see, you still haven't resolved the problem of why you call species survival "success" or species extinction "failure." You can't even form the idea without aban...

Your quibble is with ID'ers more than me. Obviously, I believe God's design is intelligent. ID'er's, however, do not necessarily believe in the biblical account of creation, or even God. They're all over the map.

Intelligent Design, as a distinct school of thought, was formed to distinguish itself. Obviously, some basic principles are shared...that's not flip-flopping ideals, but recognizing distinctions.

Your semantic shift does not aid you with regard to good and bad, but thank you for condescending to stoop to my level.

You see, you still haven't resolved the problem of why you call species survival "success" or species extinction "failure." You can't even form the idea without abandoning your position.

"Survival = Success" is a value judgment that in your system of thought has no possible objective referent, and therefore cannot be empirically proven or falsified.

In a thought system which has at its core the belief that matter is all there is, this is a real problem.

Why is it successful to survive? How do you answer that? That's what I was driving at, whether you use the word "good" or not. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm glad I could surprise you...I like to keep it interesting. Did you like that I denied familial ties to amino acid?

Do you admit that I could examine your evidences and not share your conclusions for reasons other than delusion? Is that even a possibility for you?