I will wait for you, Gyrostarr, even if it takes me all summer!UltimateXShadow

Exactly! I bet the servers will bog down from all of the people downloading Gyrostarr on day 1 of its release.

Does anyone have any idea of Gyrostarr's release date? Even, say, which quarter?

DeeJayInphinity, you make some very erroneous judgements. Did you not catch the part when I mentioned that I am minoring in biological sciences? That means that I have taken many classes involving biology, and some in chemistry and physics and a few other areas of science. If you would sit next to me in my Human Diseases class, you would see how devestating genetic mutations are to us, and how the slightest change in DNA sequencing leads to enormous problems (cancer is a great example for this).

Oh, and you said something about passing on genetic traits? Well, those traits already exist in the parents, so how do new species arise from this? Natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it...it all uses pre-existing genes and traits. As Dr. Jackson said in a response to a person's question on natural selection:

"'Survival of the fittest' is true -- it's always the sick and old that the predator gets. But Hugo DeVries said in 1905, 'Natural selection may be able to explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.' Natural selection cannot help [evolutionists] explain how species got here in the first place!"

Oh, look! I quoted a credible source! Just like I mentioned before, along with the other credible sources for information that I provided earlier. Why do you just glance over that? Because you don't want to believe that there are credible sources out there for information on alternatives to Evolution?

And of course Dr. Dawkins would whine about Expelled! It goes against his very beliefs. But to say that he was "tricked" is pretty steep, considering interviews like the ones done in Expelled can't happen without documentation. And wouldn't Dawkins and the other scientists sue the makers of the movie for false representation if they were tricked as badly as they said they were? You don't have to try and justify them, because nobody knows why. I don't know why. But I have my sneaky suspicions that it's because Dawkins & Co. weren't duped.

I'm sure that many of you will be glad to hear this, but this is my last post on this forum. Anyone can continue to ask me for "credible sources" and say that need to take a high-school biology course, in addition to any other blatantly wrong statements that come to mind. Instead of saying "show me! show me! show me," why don't you go look at the sources I provided? And maybe even submit some smart questions to Dr. Jackson (email and website provided in an earlier post)?

And, as a final sidenote, I am glad to see that a discussion like this is occuring on a gaming website. It draws a very mult-cultural group of people together, which is a great step to opening the communication door among vastly different peoples.

So, basically, all I'm seeing is the same ol' bias, summed up in many different ways.

foxhound_fox, you had many points that are quite debatable. But the most laugh-out-loud comment was your post on credibility. The last time I checked, credibility is a GOOD thing...in fact, I'm in an Argumentation and Debate class right now, and providing your own credentials, as well as the credentials of your sources, is one of the BEST things to do (it's called "ethos"). I think that you're arguing against credibility because you want to continue citing YouTube videos.

You want to know where I first heard about macro- and micro-evolution? In a biology classroom, in a secular, public school. And I've heard about them and their differences all the way through college, where I gained a minor in biological sciences. I've been exposed to Evolution AND evolution for many, many years, and I have held a great interest in the topic.

Now, do you want to know why there aren't very many peer-reviewed, scientific articles published from universities about ID? Then WATCH the MOVIE. One of the secular scientists even had a peer-reviewed article about ID ready to be published, when it was shut down by the university.

And do you want to argue directly against ID? Then READ some INFORMATION about it. STUDY it some. If what you Evolutionists say is true, then you should be able to read every book on ID and walk away more firmly grounded in Evolution; so, what do you have to lose?

It kind of makes you think about the harshness and severity by which Evolutionists condemn ID material. They don't even want people to go watch a movie that simply suggests that Darwinian Evolution isn't enough, and that there needs to be more freedom in the scientific community. It's almost like they're scared of exploring the questions that Evolution doesn't dare try to answer. I mean, for a theory that likes to explore further and further into the history of life on Earth, you'd think that they might want to explain how life started?

I provided you with very credible resources to peruse at your liesure. (The Victor Reppert book may be a bit heavy, not to insult you, but just as a fair warning). You refused to even touch any of these. And these are just the tip of the iceberg, and I think they are good starting points for a study into alternatives to Evolution. C. S. Lewis? He was an athiest, so he understands that viewpoint very well. Lee Strobel? He was an athiest who ardently believed in Evolution, until he started asking questions that Evolutionists didn't like to answer. These guys aren't ignorant of the opposition. They know both sides well.

I even gave you the name of a REAL SCIENTIST who actually ANSWERS QUESTIONS, if you'd take the time to contact him. His whole life is dedicated to this very topic, just like Dawkins. Go to www.pointsoforigins.com to see his website, or email him at drjackson@pointsoforigins.com.

I am not going to spoon-feed you information. You wouldn't take it seriously from me, so I really hope that all of you would please take the time to check out some of the resources that I provided. If you really care about your stance, you should take the time to read up on alternatives.

"New species," as stated by the article, are STERILE. It means that they CAN'T reproduce. Ever. For example, look at the mule: it is a new species that doesn't occur naturally (humans created it), but it's sterile.

Okay, I'm serious this time, I'm really going to c*lass.

foxhound_fox, I read some of the articles. I would like to read all of them right now, but, unfortunately, I do have ****to attend. However, the ones I did check either:

1. Show evidence for micro-evolution, or

2. Theorize about Evolution by using evidence for micro-evolution.

Your first article about "speciation" requires close reading. If you notice, all of the mutations were, first of all, experiments. Furthermore, when a new "species" arises is extremely debatable, and whenever the article touted the discovery of a mutated new species, they were not able to reproduce. How, then, those mutated species thrive?

If you want to take the time to read some scientific stuff from the other side of the fence, you should try:

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

The G.O.D. Experiments by Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D.

C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (concerning Naturalism) by Victor Reppert

And those are books that I have thoroughly checked. Also, for an ID scientist that you can email with questions, go to

www.pointsoforigins.com and look up Dr. G. C. Jackson. It'd really be worth your time.

Thank you, rinkegekido2110, for basically summing up the average anti-ID flamer, claiming that ID has "no evidence." I liked your sources, because they were all...

YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

Talk about credible sources! Is this where you're getting your information? And besides, I checked them all, and none of them had any good information...they were all just making fun of ID's or Creationists.

Now, here's a tip. If you want good resources, do what I do; I read science journals, and science catalogs, and scientific books and essays that are all authored by notable scientists of both camps (Evolution and ID). Those are what we call "credible sources."

So you want to say that ID is not science, and Evolution is? That's a laugh, because the Evolution does not even fit the fundamental criteria for "science," which means that it has to be observable and testable.

ID is observable. Oh yes, it is. If you'd watch the movie, Dawkins even admits that there are structures that point to an intelligent designer. Observable evidence for Evolution, on the other hand, is always "theorized" processes that involve the evidence for micro-evolution.

Neither ID nor Evolution are testable. So they'll both just stay as theories, because both require belief, or faith as others would say. Remember, they're both models that try to fit the evidence. Now, what evidence is there of Evolution? Seriously, I'd like to see some hard evidence. Post it here! Really! I want to see it. Because if everyone is going to say that Evolution has "all of the evidence," then I want someone to back it up.

Oh! And don't forget the rules: it can't be evidence for micro-evolution. Micro-evolution doesn't prove macro-evolution.