[whispering out loud]

Don't talk of intelligence when you have still shown me none, any moron can rip apart someone Else's values system. My point in all this debate, is that Darwin's theory is just that, a theory. If one theory is to be presented, then other valid options should as well be presented. Also, I was not the first one to shift the burden of proof, read my first post, I asked for proof, and still have been presented with none, all you have done is attempt, and a feeble one at that to rip apart my beliefs system. A cowards tact.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My point in all this debate, is that Darwin's theory is just that, a theory."

And that puts in the same company as every other theory in science. You say *just a theory* as if there is something higher for it to become.

"If one theory is to be presented, then other valid options should as well be presented."

Only if they are scientific theories. ID doesn't cut it.

"Also, I was not the first one to shift the burden of proof, read my first post, I asked for proof, and still have been presented with none,..."

You will find proof for NO theories in science. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

[RunningWolf]

This linkage of evo to other 'scientific theories' is false of course.

Theory's attempt to explain or address phenomena in the physical world, say gravity for instance. Even then these theories are incomplete and incorrect to varying degrees, and only address the phenomena within a certain scope. This is why the theory fall apart at their ends, and must be replaced or tied together with yet more theory.

evo on the other hand is about life processes. And it in turn is based on many many many theories within each science, each of which has its own problems that are plain to see by all except those in the cult, I mean academia.

The theory of flight for instance was originally incorrect in that it gave to much weight to Bernoulli's principle, and yet somehow aircraft were designed and flown, although I suggest that these designs deviated from strict adherence to the flawed theory.

Advances can be made on flawed theories this is true. But contemporary scientists do not give their cause much credibility when they insist their theories carry the weight of fact.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Don't talk of intelligence when you have still shown me none,

Bitter at having your logical fallacies, I see.

My point in all this debate, is that Darwin's theory is just that, a theory.

And that you think that this makes a sound argument against evolution you only demonstrate that you don't know the significance of "theory" in the context of science. Theories in science do not become anything more than "theory". "Theory" is the highest level that a scientific explanation can reach.

[RunningWolf]

You will never get anything but that you already have from that source, just a monotrone there.

The base case against the cult of cosmo-evo is to see the products of its ideology, a demented circular sort of thing that never really has any viable answers as you have experienced.

This is a good reason we need to get the judiciary back to a more strict construcionst place again. Because the judiciary where some of the greatest damage to our nation has happened in the last 30 years. Agree?

Wolf