Intelligent Design explains many follies

Unfortunately the analogies you provide are a little off.First, jigsaw puzzle pieces don't combine as easily as amino acids. They aren't subject to reacting in different ways under different temperatures, dehydration, etc.I'd like to see a jigsaw puzzle that assembles itself in some order in high temperature in water, then forms structures which can then 'eat' and reproduce new puzzles, and so on. Computer components are the same.One thing about a completed jigsaw puzzle and a computer: We know how they were put together. We know the mechanics of the building. This is where ID and evolution differ. ToE can explain the design process, the work that goes into it, the forces that drive it etc.

The only ones that claim to know this in precise terms are the religious ones. If you care to stroll over to Big Bang and Cosmology you'll see that the scientists are saying that we don't know precisely how the universe etc came to be. If you want to discuss the science side of the universe, ask some questions over there. Unfortunately your idea of what science is is a little dated. Cause and effect have blurred considerably these days. You are in the Intelligent Design forum where the ID side puts its position forward. Cosmology gets the same treatment in Big Bang and Cosmology, evolution in Biological Evolution, dating methods in Dates and Dating, geology in Geology and the Great Flood and abiogenesis in Origin of Life. If that is all it wants, then mission successful. Perhaps they will stop trying to get it discussed in science classes then, since they are only asking that it be considered as a possibility rather than a scientific theory...it gets ranked alongside the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Creationism. Where proof = evidence then other positions have it in abundance. Anyone can provide logical argumentation for any position that can be conceived. The problem is that the premises can be shown to be flawed.

Regardless of various criticisms about what you think science is the study of - Evolution does do this. The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution. What caused the change in life on earth over time?

That is how it was presented to me, as someone who took time to read what Evolulution is actually saying - rather than the streamlined version they are forced (by time and skill set) to teach in high school and on TV Documentaries. Sounds more like creationism justified through ID to me. There are plenty of IDers out there (eg Behe) who think life has changed an awful lot, but believe some aspects of life must have had intelligent intervention to get started. Are you saying that if we start at pre-Cambrian and then look at today, you don't think that life on earth has changed a great deal? It's fine that you think the theories are bizarre, but they are perfectly straightforward to me. If you want to engage me on this, we should take it to the Biological Evolution forum.

As I said way back in Message 72, you are in the Intelligent Design forum where the ID side puts its position forward (and attempts to support it). It is also where people post their criticisms of ID. Cosmology gets the same treatment in Big Bang and Cosmology, evolution in Biological Evolution, dating methods in Dates and Dating, geology in Geology and the Great Flood and abiogenesis in Origin of Life.If you want the other side to support their position with evidence, take your concerns to those forums.

Unfortunately this line of reasoning positively screams begging the question. If I stood up in court and the prosecution showed a line of reasoning with the conclusion "The chances that he is not guilty based on the forensics, is 1 in 10⁷⁵. This well beyond reasonable doubt. In order for him not to be guilty somebody with the same fingerprints, blood type and tested DNA sequence would also need to have a suitable motive to commit the crime."Then me retorting "But the proof that I am not guilty is that the scenario you described happened, so the probability is 1"The line of reasoning you are using has validity in certain circumstances, but I don't think so in this one. For example if the chances of two people having the same DNA sequence is 1 in a million, and a DNA test of a random sample comes back with me as a suspect I can reasonably say that the 1 in a million is meaningless, that has now happened (the odds of it coming back with me as a suspect are now 1) and the chances of the DNA sample actually being mine is something like 6000-1 against (there are about 6,000 million people on the earth, so (with a couple of assumptions) about 6,000 other people will have this same sequence of DNA).

The lottery here is 1 to play and you win say 8million.My chances of winning are 50% - I either win or I don't. Therefore, with an investment of just 10 I am likely to win the lottery and become a millionaire.Oh wait, listing the possibilities and assigning each possibility as having equal probability isn't how it works.