I'll tell you a secret! if your female, look down to your you-know-what.
There is something there that PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT WE WERE CREATED!
It's called a HYMEN, it's sole function is as a chastity detector!
It is debatable whether it it fool-proof, but it's reliability is astronomical!
Also, there is NO OTHER ANIMAL ON THIS PLANET WITH ONE!
Think about it.
If anyone can PROVE ME WRONG, I WILL RELENT AND WILL GIVE EVOLUTION A CHANCE, until then, CASE CLOSED!
And please tell everyone this, and maybe we can end this stupid debate.

I take one look at the humans/animals on this planet and i am amazed, how can something so perfect and so well balanced be regarded as a creation? in my eyes it simply can't be a creation! since the records began so much has changed, anyone can predict but no one can KNOW what the future brings. So why are we still alive? we have adapted/evolved to everything that had potential to hamper our way of life and that my friend is called evolution... i.e. changing/adapting/evolving to live with something you cannot change.

Many of you guys/girls think humans are influencing global climate change, LOL please back it up with PROOF... and sorry YouTube is not proof and nor is the bible… please prove to me that this not NOT the natural life cycle of a planet…. Global warming or not we will live on, I live in New Zealand and where I live the temperatures range from – 20c to +30c, I hate the heat and am comfortable around the 10c mark, if the planet warmed to a general temp of 40c – 50c I would adapt to that temperature and given 1000 years that adaption would be know as evolution.

To me Evolution is a beautiful and flawless thing….

Hello all, while I don't think that evolution and ID are necessarily mutually exclusive, I want to know, just what exactly is the proof for species to species evolution?

As far as proof for ID, just what exactly should be considered proof? Supposed that one considers all events that don't seem to fit with our "known common sense" as proof of ID, then is the fact that "matter curves space" proof? What about the fact that this universe started out as an "infinitely hot" atom? What about an event that is too statistically impossible to happen by chance? If the only proof acceptable is the physical representation of God, then really, nothing can be proven. I mean, you could show me all the fossils in the world, with all the intermediate fossils required, but without making an inference that the fossils represent successive species, then I can just simply ask, so how do you know that these species, which you have never seen, are derived from that one? Unless you can teleport me back in time, send me to the scene to show two animals of a species having sex and conceive another species, then there's no proof. Eventually, you have to make inferences based on certain observations, and to me, to conclude that an event is too impossible to happen by chance, therefore it must be by ID, is as good any.

Actually, it's said that nothing in science is really proven, and indeed, what we see is what our eyes and brains have developed to interpret, when in fact, there may simply be nothing around us. To me(and as someone pointed out), science is logic. So to me, proof is pretty much limited to what "sounds logical"(with our "known" or previously accepted common sense of course.)

Mostly they claim Intelligent Design (ID) isn't science, because it is a thinly disguised attempt to force the Bible's version of creation onto schoolchildren. There is no scientific evidence to back up the claims of ID. There are some philosophical ones, true. The Universe is a complex place, far more complicated than a watch. How could this Universe exist, through blind chance? Just as you don't find a watch lying around that just randomly came into being, how could the Universe, and life itself, come into being randomly? No Watchmaker, no watch.

I sympathize with that sentiment to a certain degree. I'm not convinced that Darwin's theory is quite correct. However, that theory - with modifications introduced as new facts were learned - covers the facts better than any other theory. It certainly isn't perfect. It has plenty of holes. However, it has fewer holes, and requires less special pleading, than any other theory. It also doesn't require the intervention of an otherwise unknown, undetected Watchmaker or Intelligence to explain things.

Another reason why ID isn't considered scientific is that it doesn't offer any way of testing the idea. The Intelligence made things as they are. No reason, no explanation, that's just the way He did it. This doesn't make ID untrue or incorrect. It simply removes it from the realm of science. Science requires that a theory be testable, at least in theory. ID doesn't do this.

There is even a philosophical reason to object to the ID notion. If, as they claim, the Universe is too marvelous to have been blindly created by chance, then what of the creating Intelligence? How was that Intelligence created? Would It not also be to marvelous to have arisen through chance? Would not there need to be another Intelligence, even greater, to have made the One Who made us?

You can't evade this by claiming that this first Intelligence has always existed. If that is true, then why couldn't the Universe have always existed, without the Intelligence?

Also, his idea of "step-down" creation or thoughts can create reality is pretty similar to the Vertical Theory of quantum physics, which says that there are an infinite "layers" of universes, and that a universe is merely a thought from someone from a "higher" dimension. Someone said that we could just be a computer game, I wouldn't rule that out actually.