Numbat, inter-dependency does not violate the theory of evolution. You are arguing a simplistic version of the irreducible complexity argument: this argument has so far proven to be a deadend for ID proponents.

What you need to prove is that particular structure for a particular species is used for the *exclusive* good of another species.

So, for example, does the croc use his teeth for anything or are they useful only as cleaning surfaces used by birds?

For how long will you continue your appeal to authority? "Even X doesn't think ¬Y" is no more valid an argument than "X thought Y".

"Virtual particles are generated from a quantum energy field. This is not nothing."
Yes, even in a pure vacuum there is still some energy. I'm no quantum physicist, but my understanding is that said energy is itself, or is a result of, the creation and destruction of those particles, as such if they are generated from the field it is still spontaneous as there is still no external cause. If the field of a pure vacuum isn't a good enough "nothing", then I hardly consider it necessary to show things can come from nothing, since a field would have been at the first instant.

"I understand you have no interest in justifying any of your points."
Correct, I will defend them but I will not otherwise justify them. (My points don't even claim that evolution is true.) The least you could do is state which ones you disagree with, but I expect you to say why. I'm happy to continue on the spontaneous creation part if necessary, and any disputes on the relevant part of my list, but otherwise I'm done here.

"I made a specific claim about your understanding of IC in that you made an untested claim about evolution to refute IC."
Specific? You said my understanding was badly skewed. (General.) And then you said "it has not been shown that IC systems can arise by evolution" and went on about induction, no mention of any claim by me. In that post I gave arguments for how evolution could explain IC, and stated that IC is basically normal in evolution; nothing that required testing.

"it is an INDUCTION to generalise this to biological life"
Yes, but that's not what you had written, which was of the form ¬Y=>X. Inductive reasoning is of course, not foolproof. (Hence basic point #1) The fact that all non-biological forms of IC (ignoring gene-tech) fall into a group which has vastly different characteristics doesn't help.

Kenny, you’re right.

Extreme creationists** want to rip up the science textbooks. They want to take out physics, biology and geology and put Genesis in our science classes. They want to teach that the stars and planets are about 6,000 years old, because that their interpretation of the Bible. They want to teach that dinosaurs and people lived together, like in the Flintstones. They want to teach that all geology is a hoax. Respected scientific organisations are in on the plot.

(** I say “extreme” because there are a number of people here who believe strongly in God’s role in creation and our lives, but generally supportive of science. My critical remarks don’t apply to them at all.)

If anyone wants to verify misquoting, use the FIND command and type “lower apes”, where Grey misquotes and Big Al responds thinking it’s a real quote. Can anyone verify Grey’s misquote allegations?

“I have never claimed that nobody else is properly arguing” denies Grey (27/10).

Really? What about “You need to actually make an argument” and “make an argument for your position” (24/10) “you have no given any refutation” (25/10) “continuing with assertions but not arguments” (26/10) “unsupported accusations” (27/10)

Grey says he cannot decline to answer an unasked question. “[What are] some of the predictions...? asked Itsnoteasybeing (24/10) as did Deuc. Grey’s response is “Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions...?” (25/10)

Lets discuss Grey hypocritical complaint about comments out of their contexts (Grey 24/10, 25/10, 25/10 again and 27/10)

Did Syliva say “predictions is all that you need to be science”? (Grey 21/10)

No!

Was it me who gave “one prediction that has been successfully made by creation science”? (Grey 27/10)

No, but I am happy to remind everyone that creationists CLAIM that they successfully predicted the magnetic field strength of the planets by using the “evidence” of Genesis 1:1-11, where God turned water into planets. Read verse 14 and you may conclude the theory doesn’t even respect the Bible.

If Grey stopped disguising his assertions as rhetorical complains, his subterfuge would be there for all to see.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and ... the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Saint Augustine
"The Literal Meaning of Genesis"

Taffy,
You make a statement that God is outside the realms of science, True! Quote "My point was that a proper belief in God does not require scientific validation, and in fact science can’t prove or disprove the existence of God because God is outside the realms of science."

Then you state, Quote "And at the end of the day ID is still not science and should be an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person with or without a belief in God."

I ask if God is outside the realms of the physical sciences, then please explain why his metaphysical design involvement in the physical is an insult. Obviously you find the design of our planet insulting

ARJAY
in matters of faith and proof...consider this.

I have a broken arm. (x-rays to prove). I am prayed for, I feel a zinggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg kind of feeling, flooding of incredible release,power,renewal... who can find words for this.
Next thing I know, my arm is now STRONG..... a moment ago, I could not even hold the steering wheel of my car, now, I can throw a shotput :)

Fantasy ? nope.. it really happened, just like that. I know it because it happened to me, like the Blind man of Johns gospel..
"As to where this man (Jesus) came from I don't know, but one thing I know, once I was blind, but now I see"

Now.. as I relate this to you, it is one step removed from what I experienced. It is now a "report", just like the gospels.

The problem comes when 'you' have to decide what my 'report' means.
Is it realllly true ? if true, what would that mean for you ?...
That is the point where one begins the trading off...

If true.. WOW.. but ..wait..what might this mean for my lifestyle, attitudes, ideas... friends... family.....etc...or..even the respected opinion of some non Christian person, who may have been your mentor.

Then there is the 'What's in this for BOAZ'..hmmm he wants me to 'join his church' :).... he want's to grandstand.... have importance etc.....

So the mind plays games with us as we struggle with not so much my story, but the gospels. But it leads to the same place, "If I see it with my own eyes, then I'll believe it"

But the Lord has an answer for this, and he spoke it to Lazerus.

I wont say it here, I'll leave you in suspence :) and give you the link
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=16&version=31

scroll down to verse 19 "The Rich man and Lazarus"

See if u can find His answer... and let me know what u find.

Blessings