Stopper

Flacco

Kyle Orton is the greatest quarterback in Denver Broncos history!!!!!111one111!!!

Perhaps I will! Thanks heaps for the discussion.

Fair enough. The next step would be to propose a hypothesis by which ID as a mechanism for evolution could be tested.

Here's a better explanation than I could slap together: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

How does one measure design?

I'm forced to agree with you in a dictionary sense, but I'm perhaps more guilty of oversimplification than pulling a "Crawfish," if you will. What definition of "theory" shall we be using, then? Theory as the best explanation for observable phenomena?

A designer isn't necessary, as positing the existence of one adds nothing to the science. As LaPlace said to Napoleon, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

I'm afraid I don't get the "Crawfish" reference. When a hypothesis is accepted as true, it becomes theory and treated as fact. However, science must always be open to further evidence which may prove a previously accepted theory incorrect. So, I guess my answer is you prove a fact wrong by discovering further evidence which does so, and then it's back to the drawing board using the scientific method.

Evolution is observable in the reproductive cycles of bacteria, who are capable of "generating" within a matter of days or weeks (I forget which). Evolution has been observed. One of the most informative sites on the web about evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html "Evolution has never been observed" is just a short scroll down the page.

You're inferring that since science is wrong about man-made global warming, they're also wrong about evolution. The reality is that evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in the history of science. And of course, it must be said that science could certainly be wrong about evolution, but it won't be religion who'll prove evolution wrong, it'll be science.

Your inferometer is quite obviously broken. Made in China, perhaps?

Yes it is.

In a scientific context, the word "theory" is interchangeable with the word "fact." As someone explained above, the common usage of "theory" does not. Creationists often employ the common usage when saying, "Evolution is only a theory," but in a scientific context that's like saying a basketball is "only a sphere." There are plenty of lines of evidence for evolution: Fossil, molecular, and DNA come to mind immediately. Though he is anathema in discussions like these, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is a good read on this subject, as I understand his The Selfish Gene is, too (though I haven't read this one). I could also recommend Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Donald Prothero's What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters.

Pascal's Wager for the...no. The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion to the positive. You claim that your god exists; it's up to you to prove it, not up to the non-believer to disprove it.