Evolution: Pick One

Pro stated that I said that I opposed speciation connected to MaE. Actually, yes I do because we have not witnessed speciation lead to MaE yet. It is known that MiE takes place and it has speciation. Were jumping into predicting from assumptions and there is no doubt about that. As Pro said, "there is no reason to limit ourselves to just direct observations," but lets predict billions of years? Let's not forget that a myth as defined is a 'invented concept, story, or idea'. The story we get from MaE is without a doubt a myth and my opponent clearly says this. [Pro's argument]- I understand the error by my opponent and accept it as that. I thank him for more clarification. (1) True(2) There is no way of knowing that both MiE and MaE use the same mechanism. And this evidence leans towards I. D. as well. (3) My opponent has shown no evidence that the earth is old. The I. D. and creationist models show that the earth is too young for MaE to occur. (4) This leaves us in faith that MaE is occurred. By the same evidence my opponent shown here also ties into I. D. and creationism eccept old earth. Therefore it is reasonable to believe MaE has not and will not occur. How would new genes come into the gene pool for current species to evolve? Does MaE involve species breeding with species? Why should I have to prove that accumulations in MiE do not occur or do not cause MaE? I have already said they do and we have never seen MaE take place. My opponent must show that MaE has took place by accumulating MiE which has not yet been done by science. It can only ever be MiE taking place! We have not and will not ever see MaE take place that is why it is still a myth. My opponent asserts that a Concept 'such as MaE' should be a given. That because it has never been disproved that it could not of happened that it DID but I do not think intelligence works this way. By this logic anyone with any theory can justify himself as fact because his theory can not be tested nor disproved. Even if there is tons of evidence in his way it does not mean it is a fact. It is funny that a massive evolution that is thought to have took place has left us with no live transitional life forms. The idea of MaE is a possibility but has not been verified to date. I remind readers that just because MaE is a possibility is not enough to claim it as 'fact' and therefore is a modern myth. Common descent-The scientific data indicates that MiE is a genuine product, but it does not constitute MaE- that is a morphological change that is within the taxonomic ranks. It is very reasonable for others as creationists to interpret this data as diversification sometime after the flood. This type of change can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist alike. As far as the terms in the origins debate this is neutral. The definitions and classifications we give for our taxonomic ranks are subjective and possibly incorrect classification. There is a fine line between adaptation and MaE. The definition of adapt is; to adjust or modify fittingly, though the definition of evolution is; any formation or growth. These are not the same thing and are in fact alot different. This is saying that adaptation happens to modify and could lead to MaE but equally does not have to lead to MaE. This is a coin toss. Nobody knows for certain as why the fossils are found in patterns - was it because of the naturalistic model of long ages or was it by equally natural causes by a flood? The other alternatives my opponent seeks answers for have been provided for years and are as equally scientifically proven. Between hundreds of scientific descriptions of fossils, diverse chronological patterns, even evolutionist own dating methods, all this does not match our record more accurately than creationism. If such transitional fossils really existed, there should be billions of them in number and variety but that is not what is seen. In the origin of species, Darwin explained, "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed. " Though there is no such record and the MaE models are fit to adjust to the new found evidence. Not to look for a alternative but just a theory adjustment. Evolutionist have been digging and searching for almost two hundred years. Despite lots of money and effort they have yet to find a adequate fossil. The fossil record shows on every occasion that living things did not evolve from primitive to complex but instead emerged in a perfect state. I. D. claims that only intelligent causes can adequately explain our information-rich biology in life and that these causes are detectable. [Con's argument]- The I. D. argument is the best explanation of our complex bodies and our superior intelligence. MaE requires billions of years of life from that hundreds of other questions evolve. What caused the Big Bang? Why did it explode? How did space and dimensions exist? We could go on and on. .but these basic questions have not been answered. Thus, like any true scientific theory, intelligent design theory begins with empirical observations from our natural world. Even Richard Dawkins said, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," Intelligent design directly challenges MaE and other naturalistic approaches to our origin. The specified complexity is a very reliable empirical marker of intelligence in the same way that fingerprints are a reliable empirical marker of a person's identification. The best known design argument is by William Paley. According to Paley, "If one finds a watch in a field (and thus lacks all knowledge of how the watch arose), the adaptation of the watches parts to telling time ensures that it is the product of an intelligence. So too, according to Paley, the marvelous adaptations of means to ends in organisms ensures that organisms are the product of intelligence". It is logically possible that a God created this world and provided no evidence for it. Though there can be for those that look plenty of reasons why the this world is designed. (C1) Speciation only occurs at the species taxon level- My opponent basically ignored my entire argument and problem. He instead converts that MaE stops any given time it needs to. (C2) Horizontal/Vertical evolution- In this contention I was hinting to there being dramatic crosses in the fossil record from genetics of life forms. As for the complexity always increases there are many examples for say different as- parasitic protozoa that lack vaccuoles, Cestodes lack guts and have reduced sense organs and Mycobacterium Leprae which has lost somewhere in the order of 2000 genes. {TO CLOSE}- We can not rely on scientific methods alone. To this point the data is consistent with the I. D. and Creationist models. Studies have never falsified the creationist or I. D. models though Evolutionist models are ever changing. SOURCES . http://www.ideacenter.org... . http://www.arn.org... . http://dmnp.chemnetbase.com... . http://www.truth-seeker.info... . http://elibrary.unm.edu... . http://www.ucg.org...