[Dimensio]

Sorry but I have zero intention of making my beliefs line up with others simply because they say they believe in ID.

Ah, so you have the one true ID belief, and all of the others are imposters?

Just like with the evolutionists, there may be lots of dissenting views and variations as to the details - or are you telling me that the evolution pushers DO get their story straight?

I'm saying that the disagreements amongst evolution supporters are nowhere near the magnitude of the disagreement between the claim that ID makes no claims regarding the nature of the Designer and the claim that ID speaks of a perfect, divine Designer.

My Bible says in several places that the creation was 'very good' - since this was in a pre-fallen world, that would mean perfect in my books.

What is "perfect", anyway? Could you explain what exactly is meant by "perfect"? It's a nice description for the unattainable, but when it comes to defining something that actually qualifies as "perfect", specifics get lacking.

Who's thoughts on this are you specifically referring to?

Yours. You claim that the world was "perfect" pre-fall. I'd like to know on what evidence you base that assumption -- beyond that of a 3000+ year-old religious story. I can look up the creation myths of popular religions on my own.

Nope, can't do it.

So you don't actually have any evidence. Thus it's not really something that science can explain. Of course, you left the realm of science by introducing a divine element into the mix in the first place, admitting up front that your version of ID has absolutely no place in school science classrooms.

However, there is tons and tons of evidence of a very different world that existed between the time of the 'perfect' world and the time of the flood and it was obviously very different from ours - but at what level of degradation creation had suffered by that point is an unknown.

Okay. Present some of this evidence, as it would likely turn a number of sciences on their heads.

This past weekend I had the opportunity to meet a fellow named John Mackay from Creation Research. He does digs all around the world - some of the fossils he has unearthed are absolutely stunning in their detail. Interesting thing is that many of the ones he showed are exact replicas of plants and animals that exist today - the big exception is that they are usually much much larger - a dragonfly with a wingspan of a metre, a horsetail plant which would have been over 10 metres high and so on.

Got a reference for his work? I'd love to see this.

Now, what is your one biggest single proof of evolution - take your best shot at the one thing you absolutely know to be true.

Sorry, science doesn't deal in "proofs", it deals in evidence. Nothing in science is ever "proven", and nothing can be said to be "absolutely known to be true".

[Junior]

The largest dragonflies had wingspans of about 60 centimeters -- a far cry from the meter your opponent claims. There were also 20-cm long cockroaches and some fairly big beetles.

You might mention the reason for gigantism among ancient insects had to do with a slightly higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere; proof positive that environments change.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

What is "perfect", anyway? Could you explain what exactly is meant by "perfect"? It's a nice description for the unattainable, but when it comes to defining something that actually qualifies as "perfect", specifics get lacking.

Perfect means without flaws and won't die. However, man failed to live up to his part of the bargain and that was the end of perfection - and the introduction of death into the picture. Don't you know anything about Genesis?

I'd like to know on what evidence you base that assumption -- beyond that of a 3000+ year-old religious story. I can look up the creation myths of popular religions on my own.

As I said, there is none - that world has been destroyed. I believe it because the Bible has proved itself to be an absolutely trustworthy and consistent record. By the way, I didn't hear a peep out of you as to accepting my challenge (in post 651) on how creation can easily be disproved.

Okay. Present some of this evidence, as it would likely turn a number of sciences on their heads.

Sure well you can easily approach John Mackay on your own - his website is http://www.creationresearch.net/ and he seems like quite an approachable fellow.

Of course, you left the realm of science by introducing a divine element into the mix in the first place, admitting up front that your version of ID has absolutely no place in school science classrooms.

Exactly, I have no problem with creation science or ID or whatever you would like to call it having no place in the classroom. I just happen to think that no other faith based junk 'science' like evolution has a place in the classroom either. It's not even a good theory since it can't come close to passing the scientific test.