What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

Okay I read most of what is in this "debate." It occurred to me that I would like to make two interjections.1) Since there is nothing anywhere which shows, proves or in any way demonstrates anything in microevolution ever pushing through to macroevolution (which I KNOW nobody wants that word [macroevolution] used) this leads me to believe that even though a God could allow or even make (macro)evolution happen, it likely didn't. and,2) I have proven to my own satisfaction (knowing) through my own experimentation (four successfully and dramatically answered requests) that God actually does exist, therefore I accept His claim to have created everything and I am convinced that evolution only occurs within a species (or whatever you would choose to call it) and does not ever make (for instance) a dog become anything else but a dog.I know this is slightly different to the standard "debate" entry and probably "against the rules" but I thought it needed to be said.Also, I would like to recommend to all "scientists" that they try for themselves to make contact with God, it does take some humility and sincerity, but it is worth finding out for sure.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Was 1 paragraph. Broke up and added blank lines.

Yep, knew all that, thanks.

I accomplished my objective in my post. Thanks.

Okay, didn't mean to be dismissive, but I can see how that looked now. What I meant by my reply was that I understood what you were saying and I accept that I can't convince you otherwise. The rules in use for what you are seeking are proper and they work. For example you cannot detect the spirit, so for you it does not exist. You really only focus on what you can detect physically, which makes perfect sense. I accept these things and I don't have an issue with them. You and many others choose to infer this or that from the physical evidence which usually appears to disagree with "creation science" if I can call it that. That is not really a thing that I can sink my teeth into either (creation science), because, at this point it doesn't have the foundation it needs yet to be leading the pack. And of course this is troubling because it could have had that foundation had there not been many misteachings in the past (for example, the earth is flat, everything orbits earth, etc.) and all those things aren't even in the scriptures. I can't prove what I have claimed, I know that. I have not given details on these experiences and don't need to, I'm not trying to use personal experience as a model. I was not proselytizing nor trying to insult anyone. I haven't mentioned my religion or a thousand things about myself. If this angers you I am willing to take the blame and you can have one of the controllers "throw me out" that is always an option. I am not worried about that.
All these things I am learning (and some of them from this website) have all strengthened what I already believe and I have accepted things I never thought about and some things that I would never have considered. Many of the inferences that are made by you, or by those whose teachings you accept, are unprovable, I will agree that a lot of them are plausible and I actually agree with many of them, however, when you make an inference, whether backed up by evidence or not, when you can't show it happening to me but can only say, basically you think this is what happened, then you are dealing with belief and that makes you as guilty as I, if you want to look at it that way (that I am guilty of something - say, stupidity).
The first time I ran into this was in a college class where the professor starting talking about the changes that would have had to happen in the womb of an ape (well maybe it was a chimp I can't remember) so that the head of a human infant could fit through. (This was many years ago). I said, "Sir, this kind of thing makes me feel like it couldn't have happened. I mean the womb had to migrate to a different capacity and then the changes in the fetus (well all the way down to the code) had to take place. It seems pretty farfetched." That guy wouldn't talk to me anymore (on a personal level) and was so offended that I was very sorry I had made the remark.
I am sorry if I have offended you, that was not my purpose.

There was one thing in your thread you said that I thought you might want to comment on further you said "You can complain all you like about the alleged lack of evidence for macroevolution (something that you are quite mistaken about I assure you), but none of that amounts to positive evidence in favour of design."
I recently read an interesting document by a scientist who has your opinion of things. At a midpoint in his writing he said that whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open. Okay, so the EVIDENCE is there, BUT, it is obviously still open to varying intrepretations. (And yes, I note he did not use the word evidence).
Maybe what he was writing was just old stuff (2007). But I get the impression that the jury is still out on this.
There are so many bridges that are not built to prove what you believe (and to prove what I believe). The proof just ain't there, some things may be very convincing for you to feel more certain of what you believe, but whenever I get the FACTS in my hands I also always feel very comfortable with them.
Now, I am not into the insult side of this website, so you won't see me going there. But if you have a comment on this I would be glad to review it and I will actually be looking for something that I might learn.

About 21 years old. You might be talking about the Mark 45 which is a five inch gun. I did not serve on this ship, but I really like the picture of the missile that is being fired.