Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

Okay, well consider a fictional animal. It is red, small, and has a tail. It is described as being a member of species A. Over a long time species A gradually becomes green to camouflage itself.

Fine, it changes color.

It then gets gradually bigger to... do big things.

Do you have an example of this?

Climate changes then cause it to form a layer of blubber.

What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)

It is no longer species A, it is now called species B.

Whatever, the gigantic extrapolation is unscientific.

This is very loose, but notice that at no point in the chain does it include the step 'changes from species A to species B'.

Remember, the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is also limited by time. (no infinite time trick, even if you just consider the beginning as the big bang)

Only assuming there have been an infinite number of oscillations already... I think...

Remember, this is still assuming that the conservation of energy (mass suddenly dissappearing?) and second law of thermodynamics can be broken. This idea is physically impossible as well, because if you think about it, the only way this would work would be if at least one oscillation took infinite time. The only case that this would happen in would be if matter was completely balanced so that the universe would stop moving at all. If this was the case, however, the universe would have stayed in that state forever.

kinda knew you weren't getting at that, but that is an arguement you seem to be making generally so I used it.

No the argument I propose is.
1. The universe/time had a definite beginning which implies the supernatural.
2. The universe is balanced so perfectly that intelligent design seems to be the only reasonable option.
#1 gives me the base of the argument, #2 is only designed to argue against the supernatural being/object creating universes "accidentally".

But you also also seem to assume 'not understood by science' means 'CAN'T be understood by science'.

I am saying, that unless you discard a great deal of our current scientific laws, it is very hard to conclude that we were not caused by the supernatural. (I define supernatural to be that which does not follow the same rules as our universe, not 'what is not understood by science') Yes, you can say our current rules are wrong, and that we will discover new rules which still work in all cases, but allow time to not have a beginning, but until we do, (if we do, which I doubt) the most reasonable approach is to accept what they imply.