What?
4 paragraphs of unaccountable opinion. Don't take your lame arguments against evolution up with me, take it up with the scientists in the life sciences, cause you are saying they are all wrong, and you and bob the plumber at church are the real science experts.
The AAAS and NAS have less than subtle online statements regarding their position on evolution AND ID. I feel no need to defend evolution when the actual scientific community goes out of its way to publically defend it.
"If created...it must be sustained by principle and law. If laws...those laws could be found out, tested and retested by man. Man could then build technologies based on those laws."
You realize none of this logic follows right? If created, it must be sustained by principle and law? You are talking about magic man!
"Almost back to the belief that life spontaneously arises from dirt. That rotting meat turns into worms. (But those clever evolutionists are pretty sly about that claim. They disguise the life from dirt fable by cloaking it in the magician's scarf of lots of time...lots and lots of time.)"
What are you talking about??? Are you some young earth creationist with wild regurgitated arguments and no understanding of science? Cause nothing in this paragraph makes sense! Rotting meat turn into worms... WHAT!?!?!
"Too bad evolution cannot be tested, and no discernible laws or principles appear on the horizon to describe the (forces? force? Gaia? Tinkerbelle? Magical inherent properties of insensate matter?)"
Evolution CAN be tested, where do you anti-evolutionists get off making wild claims like this, over, and over. Everytime a fossil is found, evolution is tested. If a horse skeleton was found in a layer of rock 1 billion years old, evolution would be canned. Evolution has predictive power, and everytime those predictions are tested, evolution is tested. You have no idea how science works. Just because we cannot see something happening does not mean it is untestable by science.
All your lame points are moot. Whether evolution is testable, and qualifies as science is a decision for the people who practice science, and they say evolution is by far the best explanatory model we have.
Strange I don't see the militant campaign against germ theory... oh wait, it doesn't conflict with your antiquated dogma!
You'll see the same charicatures of the TOE repeated, refuted, and repeated again as if they were still valid. You'll see creationists post PAGES of spam, Bible passages, and ranting sermons and call it an "argument". You'll see them accuse evolutionists of everything from Soccatry-In-Fief to Barratry-On-The-High-Seas, then whine of "anti-Christianism" when called on it.
How many times on THIS VERY THREAD has it been repeated that evolution does NOT deal with abiogenesis? How often has it been ignored?