Proof of evolution!!!

If Lam wants to teach, or Crash for that matter, then they'll need to learn not to act like students firstly, wouldn't you say?If a student gets something wrong, the teacher doesn't partake in derision and curse at the student.IMHO, C and L's comments are unnecessary in this thread and are turning it into a fun-fest.The claimant still mentioned some valid factors that are at play. Such as hinderance of the capacity of being able to infer an intelligent agency. Perhaps a flaw in our own rules. Maybe it could be discussed instead of chastising the claimant.

BUT, in general, rather than the specific analogy, there is an automatic hinderance of an intelligence via the God of the Gaps. The point remains even if the analogy isn't the best of analogies. It seems simple ofcourse.There are no known instances of evolution except for on earth, but do you reject life on other worlds?Surely you don't apply this logic pertaining to other universes? I'm sure you see them as possible. Is it fair to see a mind as possible rather than rejecting him?In each case we have one case. One example of a designer. One example of a universe. One example of evolution.See the problem if you look at this from a Columbo-perspective? Do you apply a double standard when it comes to the mind.(P.S. I'n not entirely in disagreement with you, I just thought ppl were ganging up on Guidobaba).This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-29-2005 09:38 PM

Sorry Crash and Lam if my comments were unnecessary. As I said, I only made the post because I thought people were ganging up on the young lad. Nothing personal ofcourse, as I don't partake in such things.Holmes, I am not suggesting assuming design.I infact said a hinderance of inference. Would you agree there's a difference?I wrote a topic on the problem. ColumboIt was a while ago, the topic.I'd like to know how somebody could infer design, without adding biased qualifiers. What objectively, could allow such an inference, if it is allowed at all?