Hiya Mike,

>>I wonder how many seminars those flowers went to to decide what colors they should all use.
>
>Thats not what evolution/natural selection says.

Sure it does. Maybe not so bluntly but if you will take the time to really examone the presentations and so forth I can guarantee you that at some point you will observe the introduction of some form of outside intelligence. That's the flaw; there's always at some point this notion. Call it what you will but utter and complete chaos simply has never been shown to introduce order.

Evolution absolutely depends upon the notion of absolute chaos. That is, complete randomness. Anything else introduces inteligence and intelligence ultimately must lead to God.


>Take a program for example, that can loop through combinations and create every animal concievable. Even a cat-dog. Now imagine you could plot these animals an sort of... an animal space. Where two species of flies are close to each other in the space, but a fly and an elephant are not. Now imagine you ran this program to start cranking out animals. We are several hundred million years along this program, but animals that the program have are not in existence. Why is that? Because if there is an animal that can survive much better than a cat-dog can, the cat-dog will eventually leave no direct decendents. Also imagine millions of types of flowers. Bright beautiful ones, and brown ugly ones. Depending on the conditions, only certains flowers will be pollinated. The flowers you see today are the ones that have been the most successful.

Look at the words, concepts and phrases you yourself just used. The entire paragraph is absolutelt laced with intelligent, outside intervention starting with a program. Programs are (in most cases <g>) the absolutel antithesis of chaos. A program presumes intelligence-based order. You use the word 'plot'. To plot something is intervention by an outsode intelligence.

The other problem above is this: Where are all of the inter-flower (in your example) flowers? Or, did the evolutionary 'process' suddenly stop... If it didn't then there would be all these processes currently taking place.

Too much time you say.. Ok, then why have all the 'great' evolutionary minds essentially abandoned thise theory in favor of the 'spurt' theory where every so often there are sudden changes? They did so, as a result of the overwhelming evidence (or lack thereof) of their prior theories. The (just) lat Dr. Gould was one such proponent. He 'changed sides' so to speak. Why? Well, he finally admitted the flaws in his prior position - the one you now espouse.

>
>They didn't "try" to evolve, or move along any specific "evolution path", they just did, and the ones that worked still exist.

Chaos does not produce order Mike. Show me where this happens without outside intervention. It just does not. Neither in nature or your bedroom growing up. You had to pick up your own socks. They didn't just wash and fold themselves and place themselves in adrawer - something far far simpler than any single piece of DNA. <g>

>
>>If you look carefully many of these features require intelligence. Intelligence far beyond that of the flower. Not only that you presume outside influence.
>
>Intelligence? I wouldn't say that. Some simple rules can create very intelligent and complex structures. Check out cellular automata. ITs not that difficult.

Sorry. Doesn't wash. And, how can you say it's not that difficult? How would you know or are you saying that there are patterns in evolution?Patterns come from 'laws'. Laws, at their fundamental core, follow defined 'rules' and rules, by their very nature instruct us that they are not chaotic - the very opposite of what you need to believe evolution. There is simply too much order in the universe for only chance.

>
>>So.. Demonstrate for me one inter-species bit of evidence. That is, (in so many words) show me a cat-dog.
>
>Mules.

And how many mules make more mules was that again?

>But in any case just because they don't exist in the wild doesn't mean anything other than the fact that either they have not achieved that mutation, or that they would have except an animal with the requirements of a cat and a dog would be competeing head on with not just cats, not just dog, but both and whatever cats and dogs compete with. The chances of such an ineffecient beast surviving are very slim.

Where is the physical evidence then?

>
>>There is absolutely no inter-species evidence whatsoever.
>
>Sure there is. Look at an orangatan. They share alot between humans and monkeys. Or a mule.

None of which are able to mate with non-orangutang. Now.. It could very well be that at some point there were fewer differences between the different lines of monkeys but like dogs there is simply no evidence whatsoever anywhere that demonstrates where a dog was anything but as dog. Or a monkey other than anmonkey. Daschunds and great danes would certaily have trouble mating but they are still dogs, not cats.

>
>>Sure, lots of guesses and so forth but how is it that a worm has a more complex DNA structure than man. Are worms more evolved? <g>
>
>The complexity of DNA really doesn't prove points in this context; especially when a worm relies on DNA to do everything for it in order for the worm to survive, where we only rely on DNA to build us, and let our special cereberal cortex's do the heavy stuff. Because of our brain, we can get by with alot less specific intrusction in our genes. You are only proving genetics to have a stronger case in this instance.

Well, then it's the evolutionists who are arguing with themselves. Oh, wait.. I know.. They've all thrown out Darwin's theories. I forgot. About the only thing I've ever seen about evolution that's constantly changed is the theory of the week. And yet, even in all of this there's still a sort of outside intelligence <g> though not very compelling I must admit. There sure are a lot of people who are going to a lot of trouble to explain away the simple evidence...

>
>>>Then you haven't been there :-)
>>Well, yes, I have.
>>Let me just say that there's a huge difference between happiness and joy. <s>
>
>Whatever. If you think you're better and happier than everyone else, thats cool. I just think you're delusional.

You know, I don't really know how many times I'm going to have to say this to you for it to sink in but your constant attempt to try and cast me in a negative light that you are defining and trying to use to justify your response of false indignation but I'll keep trying....

I do not think of myself as 'better' than anyone else. I also do not think of myself as 'happier' either. I know a lot of happy idiots.

Let me state once again: There is a real difference between 'happpiness' and 'joy'. Happiness is based upon circumstances of life. I've had some pretty crappy ones candidly. It's no fun to bury an only child whom you love with all of your heart. I cannot express for you the deep deep ache of the loss. But, none of that took away my joy. Unhappy at times? Sure, you bet but joy was always available - not because I'm anything but because, simply, it's available.

I doublt that you'll 'get it' this time but I'll keep trying. <s>

My wife probably things I'm delusional too but that's a different topic. <g>

>
>>No, but if you cannot define truth how then can you ever know something is true?
>
>Good question. I don't know. But whats your point? Does that somehow lead to the fact that there is a God? I don't see how it does. I think you're just changing the subject, like I said you would.

My point is this: How can you know that what you think you believe is true is actually so? Actually, I'm not changing the subkect; I'm trying to get you to see that the words you seem to find so easy to type have real meaning in the real world. As such you cannot simply make a statement that soemthing is fact when there's nothing behind it. Or, the reverse. You cannot make a statement that there is no truth unless you're prepared to accept the fundamental notion that somewhere, womehow 'truth' exists. IOW, at this point of the discussion it's not what the content of this truth may or may not be but that it simply exists. The minute you or I say something is true or not true then we are accepting the notiong that a) there is truth and b) it can be known.

That's all I'm trying to get you to see. The definition goes both way IOW. If, at some point, you accept the notion there ahere are truths then you also muct accept the notion that there is truth. Something that just does not change. It's true. period.

This, my friend, when discovered in its purest form is a part of the definition (historically) of the nature of God. Then there's the notion of personality and so forth. But that's a different discussion for another time. <s>

You have the scaffolding and you need to understand that at some point it must rest on solid ground. So to speak. <g>