>>>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.

Observe the introduction? You are ruling out the possibility that the same intelligence could have set everything in motion and run unaided. Which leads to the possibility that we were created, coincididently after millions of years of mutations. Assuming your observations that intelligence is unavoidable, you have no reason to exclude the deist approach to the universe.

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

Lol.

>Programs are (in most cases <g>) the absolutel antithesis of chaos.

Not necessarily. Check out cellular automata.

>The other problem above is this: Where are all of the inter-flower (in your example) flowers?

How is this a problem?

>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.

Yes. You are doing nothing here but admitting that what most evolutionists now believe is more reasonable than what those that came before thought. Are you aware of how bizzare this is for someone aruging against evolution?

>Chaos does not produce order Mike.

You're assuming that we live in a perfect order. Where the West Nile disease is jumping from critter to critter. Where millions upon millions of people die every year of AIDS. Where earthquakes rumble, tornados turn, and hurricans blow. Where suns explode and planets collide. Nothing about our life is "perfectly ordered". But... most evolutionists agree with you, what you see today exists only because the universe favors stable entities. When stable entities (not 100% stable, mind you) are introduced in the cosmos, whether thats a helium atom, a planetary system, a molecule, or a gene, they tend to stick around alot longer than unstable beings.

>Show me where this happens without outside intervention.

Play the game of life, or "Go", that one John Nash was playing at the beginning of A Beautiful Mind. Watch how the games unfold and try to uncover the complexity of it. Is there outside intervention between the game and the opponents. Of course not, its simple Game Theory. How much have you read about Game Theory, by the way?

>Check out cellular automata. ITs not that difficult.
>Sorry. Doesn't wash. And, how can you say it's not that difficult?

So you have checked out cellular automata? Can you explain why it doesn't wash for you?

>>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?

The above paragraph explains why there is no physical evidence. If you have a stable ESS (look it up if you're unfamiliar), introducing a species into that ESS that had absolutely no genetic advantages over two of the existing species, but had the same survival requirements as the existing creatures of the ESS, this animal would never survive, assuming it was even allowed to evolve to that point. By the same argument that it would fail to survive, it would never be allowed to evolve. Why? Because evolution isn't a simple mating. When two creatures mate, their genes are not passed on 100% to their child. And if they were, how would you even know? Do you have some childish fantasy of what a cat dog would look like? If you think that because there is no creature with a head of an eagle and body of a lion this is evidence enough that evolution does not exist, you have aboslutely no concept of what genetics, evolution, and natural selection are.

>Daschunds and great danes would certaily have trouble mating but they are still dogs, not cats.

Excellent biology lesson. How does this relate to genetics?

Quick question, say there was a species that could mate with anyone, not just its own species. How long do you think it would leave accurate decendents around compared to mutated decendents that don't accurately carry on the genes? In an ESS that included such a creature would find itself without decendents of such a creature very quickly, proving you right, that such a strategy is not a successful one. And another quick question, say you found the fossils of such a creature, are you telling me that from its bones, you are going to know for sure what other animals at the time it could mate with? For all we know, several million years ago, we could assume that a TRex could have mated with a prehistoric chip munk, couldn't we? There is no evidence that suggests its not possible, correct? Your arguments in this respect have not been very well thought out.

>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.

Adhominum attacks. Didn't you just claim that evolutionists typically resort to personal attacks? Wow. THat didn't last long.

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

I keep saying the same thing to myself about you.

>My point is this: How can you know that what you think you believe is true is actually so?

I can't. That doesn't mean I'm going to the supernatural for answers when there still are enough in the world that we percieve as natural.

>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.

When I say something is true, I say it is true within the reality that we share. Whether or not our reality is true itself is a totally different question. Please stay on topic.

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

It doesn't have to. Why does it have to? You cannot start at the beginning and work your here to where we are. We have to go backwards for this to make sense.