Then it would be intelligent design if God has created the laws that create the species.
...
Yep, and for us thats God. So it would be intelligent design if God created the laws, yes?
From intelligentdesign.org:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
So, if God designed the natural laws, including those that gave rise to natural selection, that is not intelligent design, because ID specifically states that such things are not sufficient.
Absolutely, but so is evolution apart from God.
No, because evolution itself is a process, not an intelligent agency.
That is the point, the fossil and dating evidence just shows the progressive complexity of life forms, that it is intelligent design or evolution by whatever other factor is philosophy.
Actually, the progressive complexity contraindicates ID because if ID were the case, new things would just pop up, with no precursors, or progress up to it, or whatever.
Yes I agree. Many times we hear the philosophy presented as the science itself.
No. The science is that X happened. The philosophy is that X happened with/without God. The philosophy is not taught in science classes, even if it is spread by the likes of Dawkins and AIG and such.
I never expected they would, but I asked about the evolutionary evidence of Kingdoms not species.
Then tell us what would satisfy you so it can be presented.
The rise of new species doesn’t demonstrate the rise of new Kingdoms, that is still the assumption being challenged.
So, again, what would satisfy you? Fossilized life that doesn’t fit into any kingdoms present prior to life that does, as evidence of differentiation? Or what?
Now you are asking me a question in response to my question. My response is what evolution?
No, but if Tikaalic didint evolve we have no trasitional fossil evidence for evolution.
The scientific theory of evolution. If it is claimed that a law prevents it, the law preventing it must be prevented. 
And tiktaalik is not the only transitional, ever. Try doing a google search for it, or looking on talk.origins (and then going to the sources it lists if you don’t like compliations.) Go to ACTUAL sources, not just AIG or ICR or other dishonest creationist organizations.
or it must have been created.
When? By what or whom? What evidence would show that?
But that is what is being challenged from the evidence.
What evidence challenges that NONE of it happened? Religious texts aren’t evidence, by the way.
Not near enough to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists. Even if there were one hundred supposed transition forms demonstrating the T Rex to Tweety evolution, that would mean that there would only be one fossil every 600,000 years if we just went back to the very tail end of the dinosaur reign. But we don't have one hundred. We don't have ten transitional fossils. We also know that the good ol' archeopteryx existed as far back as 150,000,000 years ago. So now we have a problem. Because archeopteryx has more features in common with birds than that of dinosaurs, we must push the dates back farther from 60,000,000 to 150,000,000 and earlier. If true birds had already evolved by 150,000,000 years ago, then their evolution must be before that time. We could go back a maximum of 100,000,000 more years to the beginning of the Triassic at 248,000,000ya. So now we have to have birds evolving in a time before the supposed birdlike dinosaurs even existed according to evolution. Birds apparently had to evolve from these early dinos, long before any of the feathered dinosaurs would appear ( in the lower Cretacious period some 150 million years later). And though there were raptors (Eoraptor), these raptors share similarities with modern lizards- not modern birds. Where are we then? The archeopteryx had to have evolved in a time before it's supposed feathered dinosaur ancestors even appeared on the scene. Yeah, that works great for you.
SO, no matter what, you have made up your mind that there will never be enough, and your preconceived notion that you will refuse to change is that there aren’t any, and will never be enough. Is that right?
How do you know that no living species is evolving into another living species? Perhaps those evolving into another are doing so because the defense mechanism in the other is better than that of their current one? And I thought evolution is always happening and that is was happening at such a slow rate of time that "we" couldn't see it. I guess that's more of the pick and choose philosophy of evolution.
New species are evolving, today, yes. Current species are evolving into new species, not other existing ones. Fruit bats are not turning into vampire bats, or Canada geese evolving into grey geese, and so on. Yes, evolution is always happening. The moment of speciation is difficult to pinpoint but I KNOW the 29+ evidences of macroevolution link has been posted before in this thread that shows 29+ observed instances of speciation is around. The evolution that is ‘too slow to observe’ is in species with very long generations (like whales), very large populations with a lot of gene flow (like humans), and at higher levels (like family). No pick and choose about it.
Could you please list those six fossils again and the times that each were have supposed to live? Thank you very much.
Genus: Pedopenna, 168-140 million years ago
Genus: Anchiornis,~155 MYA
Genus: Scansoriopteryx, 164-158 MYA
Genus: Archaopteryx, 150-145 MYA
Genus: Confuciusornis, 120MYA
Genus: Eoalulavis, 115 MYA
Genus: Ichtyornis, 93-75 MYA
Heck, I’ll even toss in a few primitive birds for you:
Genus: Waimanu, 60-58 MYA, earliest known penguin
Genus: Colymboides, ~37 MYA? (couldn’t find much on the date), loon
Genus:Mopsitta, 55-48 MYA, psittacine
Genus: Primapus, 50 MYA, apodiform (the order than includes the hummingbird family
Hope that helps.
Flight doesn't need to be on the list to be a bird. There are many birds that are flightless or near flightless but yet they are birds.
Exactly. And flight wasn’t on the list of features archaeopteryx has different from birds. So I was asking why you brought it up.
I don't know, it shares a lot of the features of a duck (as offered above), yet not all. I think that is proof positive that the platypus is turning into a duck.
But, again, it is the differences. What it is made of, how much of it is bone, the openings in it, sensory organs it contains, et cetera. So, no, it isn’t.
And all of those are set up with designs to utilize that light. Not one of those decided one day to just use the sunlight for an energy source. And yes, I have seen sunburnt plants. My hoya plant will burn up if it's exposed to direct sunlight. My grass has burnt up because of all the sunshine and not enough rain. My beans didn't get enough sunlight while my corn got too much. Shall I go on?
Ah, so the goalposts get moved. Yes, sunlight can provide energy to reactions, but they’re all DESIGNED, so it doesn’t count. There are a lot of chemical reactions, such as bromination of alkanes, that rely on light to get the started. Hoya plants don’t prefer direct sunlight, but do need light, yes, that is true. But what kind of plant are they? They’re climbers, right? So it would make sense they’d get used to shade and not direct sunlight from the trees and such they are growing on.
And your grass got burnt because of too much sun AND NO RAIN. So, the sun can’t provide energy because a combined drought killed your grass? Really?
So, in it's disorganizing, it's organizing?
It is providing usable energy. Kind of the opposite of entropy. I’ll get back to this.
Once again you have listed things and animals that already have designs in place to utilize the wind. Not one of these decided one day to just start using the wind. I mean, what if I used a slingshot to chuck woodchucks into the air? (would this make them airchucks?) Would they all of a sudden use the wind? Maybe til they went splat. Birds are already designed to use air and wind. You have presented a non-argument.
So, again, the goalposts get moved. Yes, there are things designed to use the wind, SO IT DOESN”T COUNT.
Again, a non argument. Yes, extremophiles live there because they are designed to live there. We as humans are the most adaptable creatures on the planet, yet if we were to put a colony of humans down along those hot vents they would explode from the great pressures before they had a chance to aclimate to hundreds of degrees living.
Same thing. OH, things are designed to be there, SO IT DOESN”T COUNT. Moving the goalposts AGAIN.
I thought one popular opinion was that a volcanic eruption caused the extinction of the dinosaurs when it made huge clouds that blocked out the sun and cooled the earth? Does the volcano give life giving energy or does it take it away?
Misunderstanding entropy again. I’ll come to that later, as I said earlier. And just because it CAN interfere with existing life doesn’t mean it can’t provide anything. Wind can interfere with life but you already acknowledge various animals and plants use it. Same with water/floods, and sunlight, and so on.
Glass isn't living. Remember, it can't make it's own stained glass window?
Yet glass is more organized than sand. So you just toss out a red herring and MOVE THE GOALPOSTS AGAIN. Not only does it need to produce more order, it needs to instantly produce life now? Really?
That experiment was flawed from the beginning. They controlled everything. The fact that there were two intelligent beings controlling the types and amounts of chemicals in the experiment and they controlled the energies put into it is more of a case for God creating everything than it is for evolution.
So did it or did it not show that amino acids can form without life?
And no, it isn’t a case for creating. Two people tried to figure out what the environment was like before life, recreated it, and simulated a natural event. What you are saying is a gross misunderstanding of... well... everything.
I understand. If we describe the mud puddle as a chemical beaker of life giving goodies it sounds more believeable than just a mud puddle with a mixed up conglomeration of dirt.
How about because JUST DIRT doesn’t have all the building blocks for life? So the JUST DIRT in a muddle puddle wouldn’t work? And since it wouldn’t have been JUST DIRT, your argument falls flat on its face.
Now, I said I’d explain about entropy again, and I will. The second law of thermodynamics refers to a specific TYPE of disorder: entropy, which is defined as the amount of usable energy in a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy will stay constant or increase. We’ve both already established that the surface of the earth is NOT a closed system, so the SLoT does not apply to reactions on the surface of the earth, as energy can come in to them from elsewhere.
According to
NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Sun , question number 15, the sun fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen per second. That entropy gain is FAR FAR FAR more than any entropy loss caused by the ordering of life on earth.
The wind and the rain provide kinetic energy to what they blow and fall on, which can be usable. Lightning provides a sudden burst of energy which can cause reactions (chemical or physical) that increase entropy. Sand glass on a beach is much less disordered than free sand, despite your blatant goal-post moving. Meteors give heat energy into the air and bring in new compounds that can react from space. Volcanoes and deep sea vents add matter and heat energy from inside the earth, while light adds photons and heat energy from outside the earth.
The SLoT argument is bunk. You’ve used it wrong, you’ve moved the goalposts when presented with evidence, you haven’t even argued using the right definition of disorder. It is your argument that have failed under scrutiny.
And by the way... how does any of this help put creationism in classrooms? You see, science is not a winner take all match, like a Olympic hockey game (I specifically use this because in case of a tie they go to shootout, if I remember rightly, specifically so there can be no tie). If evolution is shot down, creationism will NOT automatically go into the science textbooks. You have provided zero positive evidence for creationism. All you have done is attempt to show negative evidence for evolution. Show your positive evidence for creationism, instead of trying to argue your failed negative points.
Metherion