[This_person]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a muddled hypothesis (God fills in the gaps). It has no means of falsification, has no means of experiment, has no research, scientific study or support from any other science. It claims only a few mathematical formulas, debated ones at that, as part of the overall theory and has yet to produce one iota of useful data. Creationism cannot even claim to be a hypothesis. It has no method or testability. It claims it all happened in such a way that is beyond our understanding of the natural universe.

That's much of what evolution claims, as well. It is impossible to test evolution as it relates to humans. There is no equation or any testable data as it relates to humans. If that's your definition of no hypothesis, then evolution is not even a hypothesis for humans, either. Humans are clearly a different animal than any other on the planet, so testing evolution with mosquitos is not the same in any way.

Actually, all living things don't all breath air/oxygen. In fact, at one time most living things didn't.

I was referring to your stunning proof that a problem with vitamin C compares us to other primates. I was answering your claim, not making one of my own. It was a joke.

So this is the level of proof you want? The entire history of evolution, billions of evolutionary changes and adaptations spelled out to you in some kind of web link? I see how your victory works, demand the universe in a bottle then cheer when your opponent balks.

I don't want proof. I don't need proof. My point (as repeatedly shown here) is to show you you have NO more proof for your faith in science than I do for my faith in God. You tell me about testable theories, and yet you cannot test evolution on humans. You cannot show a common ancestor for a human with any other species. You guess and ponder and pontificate, but you've got nothing more than I do - an earnest belief in something that has nothing but empiracle data.

What exactly are you looking for? One fossil? It probably doesn't exist as the breaks between primates and other mammals was not the same for bats or whales. There is an excellent record of horse evolution back to a common ancestor to whales, show me and some excellent whale transitional fossils. Genetic connections fill in some of the gaps, but eventually it becomes impossible to undo the destruction of time. Want more? Take a college biology course.

I've taken some. Guesses due to genetic similarities has as much scientific validity in filling in the gaps as God does.

By creationism's claim all those creatures evolved into existence from some early "kind" sometime after the flood then died. It demands a rate of evolution that is ridiculous, one which would still be seen rocketing along today. Intelligent Design either demands a God that twiddles with the gears every few thousand years or who destroys a species and replaces it with a similar, but not exactly the same species. This God sounds like my uncle working on his muscle car in the garage. A new carb here, a new exhaust there, never satisfied, never perfect.

And?

I've claimed nothing. I've provided some generalized information to answer the original question, expanded it to answer your basic question and asked what YOU wanted as proof. I then proposed what I considered overwhelming evidence and moved on.

You provided guesses, just as I did. Your evidence was as overwhelmingly FOR intelligent design as for evolution (which, by the way, are not necessarily different).

I'm sorry, you provided something in this thread approaching proof? I've seen nothing from you except repeated claims of victory and dismissal of science.

I've provided no proof. That was the point of the comment.

But, I do not dismiss science. I trust it will one day prove intelligent design (probably the creationism version of it) true one day.

Yes, science is rarely sure of things because the universe doesn't seem to work that way. Being "unsure" is not, however, the same as "guessing". A scientific theory is a widely supported description of how a process works, see gravity and electromagnetism and thermodynamics for other examples. Under a theory there are mathematical laws, scientific proofs and mechanics to test and study.

And, under creationism, there's a proof too. See procreation for one example. Saying it's not the same as guessing does not make that a true statement. Guessing is, at it's nature, providing an answer of which you are unsure. Providing proof of parts of the guess makes it a good guess, but a guess nonetheless.

Based upon my experiences, I'm guessing I'm right. I can prove creation by seeing that there is a world, heavens and stars and other creatures. So far, my guess is proven correct, but it's still a guess. One in which I have great faith. So much so that I'm offended when people call it just a guess. Sound familiar?