Hi Xchange
The problem about debating Evolution is you are arguing the process and you get into circular arguments.
I agree. Circular arguments are tiring and unnecessary.
It's like looking at how a car engine works and saying it made itself,
Maybe you misunderstand the theory of evolution or haven't done enough research on it. No problems if you haven't, there is a lot of information to wade through.
intelligent design says there was a maker.
Not sure of this statement. I agree that the car engine had designers. No one is saying otherwise.
Calling someone a Darwinist is pegging them down to their belief that we came from some kind of random survival of the fittest type process (despite the fact few of Darwins explanations have suvived they have been replaced by a multitude of apparently reasonable theories of how you can get from sludge to man in a billion years without intervention from another source)
You do realize that science is a process of adding/building knowledge to previous knowledge. Should I call you a Russellite despite the fact few of Russells' explanations have survived they have been replaced by a multitude of apparently reasonable explanations?
For me Darwinism fails because it uses time as a plaster to solve the problem that things (while adapting) basically still remain true to type from current observation from the world around us.
Ok. At least I can understand where you are coming from.
Genesis 1:21 (New International Version)
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Not sure of the scripture inclusion here. Is this your evidence for intelligent design? If so, how can I trust this statement? Who wrote this statement? Did they observe God creating these great creatures? Did God tell the writer to pen this?