too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

those species face extinction. those who end up not adapting quickly enough to meet changing environments, or those who adapt slower than others and find their niche overtaken tend towards extinction. this is something we can't really predict (as far as I know).

good for you. but you're playing with the big boys here, and you're bound to get hurt. you have some grave misunderstandings (typical of infants), and we're just trying to teach you some things.your tinker toy picture is not a better analogy then the penny one--you only think so because you still don't understand it (the penny analogy).but hey, what can I do? you're an infant and proud of it. you claim to be a christian, right? aren't you guys supposed to be humble?my last warning--you're playing with the big boys (and girls). you will get hurt, but if you manage to stick around and actually open your ears you might just learn a thing or two.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

rather, there is no physical evidence that something else besides naturalistic causes is operating. this means that the simplest explanation, and the one supported by the evidence, is that natural causes is what is operating. you don't understand correctly. there is no evidence for ID--and you think it is the more reasonable conclusion? the reasonable conclusion would be that which is supported by the evidence and/or logic. Logic never leaves the picture. ID just is not supportable as a logical or reasonable conclusion.and here's one to ponder one: the universe has a sum of zero mass and energy.

there's not too much of a difference between philosophical and scientific evidence. the difference lies in that scientific evidence lies in what is, whereas philosophical evidence is more free to explore what could be.In my opinion though, the best evidence lies in what is.as to the sum of mass and energy, get cavediver or songoku (or someone like those two) to explain it. all I know is that it has to deal with dark mass and dark energy balancing out energy and mass. I do not know how or why.