[ndt]

"Yeah it does- it HAS to if it’s going ot argue everythign has a natural explanation"

The ToE does not argue that "everythign has a natural explanation". It argues that living organisms of different species share common ancestors and that the different species are the result of natural selection working on inherent variations within population.

That's pretty much it, the rest are details.

"this merrygoround of symantics"

It's not a marry go round, you just don't understand what you think you understand. I assume people keep pointing that out to you so you've heard this before.

"the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species"

The ToE needs to explain the Origin of Life no more then Atomic Theory needs to explain the big bang. You are trying to broaden the ToE beyond what it ever was intended to cover and in so doing, you end up arguing against the wrong thing.

"Plenty, scientific forensics, geology, medical etc. many fields look for design because design is an intergral part of their study to determine outcomes."

Really? Give me an example of a geologist looking for intelligent design by looking for complexity. I can see where an archaeologist might look for intelligent design in topography but he would be looking for simplicity, like straight lines, not complexity.

[CottShop]

[[The ToE does not argue that “everythign has a natural explanation”. It argues that living organisms of different species share common ancestors and that the different species are the result of natural selection working on inherent variations within population.]]

Fancy speak for eveythign has a natural explanation

[[It’s not a marry go round, you just don’t understand what you think you understand. I assume people keep pointing that out to you so you’ve heard this before.]]

Nope- just the game players that duck the problems do.

[[”the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species”]]

no sir- I’m pointing out hte obvious, and that is that because the begginings are so problematic, the evo side is trying to shorten their responsibilities- and they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Special creation isn’t a necessity to evos, and as such, everything must therefore have a naturalistic explanation

[[Give me an example of a geologist looking for intelligent design]]

I’m sorry- I meant archeologist, not geologist- good catch- it’s late, you’re typing too fast, and I’m tired

[CottShop]

definition of evolution 1:any process of formation or growth; development: 2. a product of such development; something evolved: 6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: If evolution doesn't study the patterns of life from it's earliest beginnings, the formation or growth of life, incliding hte beginnings, the developments of life from the start, then someone has changed the definition of evolution along the way- shortened it to include a definition that is inconsistent with the word evolution itself. From the american Heritage Science Dictionary: evolution (ěv'ə-l'shən) Pronunciation Key 1: The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. 2: A process of development and change from one state to another, as of the universe in its development through time.