I bought a G4 iMac because the LCD could be tilted and swiveled to suit my needs. This "mock up" lacks any capacity to adjust viewing angles thus lacks the usefulness and versatility I expect from Apple.

Give me an iMac with a sapphire-hard anodized coat and I'll buy it. Keep the iconic white color, but give consumers who want to pay the choice of color, too, but avoid the pastel-colored iPod look.

Bump up the processor and bus speeds and offer 20-inch, 24-inch, and 26-inch LCDs.

dvhell:

The effects of gravity are readily observable, testable, repeatable, and mathematical defined; this is what intelligent people call experimental science. The “processes of evolution” are, as defined, non-observable as they are purported to have occurred over millions of years. It is amazing how this very simple and obvious detail is incomprehensible to you.

Therefore, whatever you happen to believe is a matter of faith rather than fact. Yes, I do think that intelligent design requires faith in a superior being. Alternatively, your faith is in denying His existence. Question is, which requires more faith, belief in God or rejecting the possibility of God? Does your science prove God does not exist? Can your science prove that God does not exist? You know it doesn’t and it can’t. Your decision to exclude God as an explanation for physical reality is not based on scientific evidence, but bias and prejudice against the concept of a superior being. At least be honest and admit it.

We are soon to enter the new culinary age where freshly prepared hot food will be available from vending machines. Eventually, you will be able to order you meals online or mobile phone. Now, if only robots could deliver the food piping hot to your door.

“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…”

Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

Renai:

Imagine that genetic drift (i.e. micro-evolution) is not the same as macro-evolution and you would soon understand that minor phenotypic variations observed in the natural world never comes close to explaining the molecular processes necessary to develop uniquely individual species. Darwin never comprehended the sciences of molecular biology and molecular genetics, yet every evolutionist has attempted to build upon Darwin’s basic assumptions knowing now that Darwin’s theory was based upon profound scientific ignorance. Have you ever imagined why Darwin’s fallacy has never been formally rejected? I’ll answer this rhetorical question for you. The alternative is rejected a priori. So much for open-mindedness when one’s life’s work is spent attempting to prove an invention of pretension.

Brian:

I was writing to the intellect and rationality of my audience (e.g. Mikeyg). I felt compelled to write in terms that he was both familiar with and would understand.

Mikeyg, you are truly deluded. You have stated that the process of evolution is entirely dependent on the influences of random selection. However, that still does not answer the question how intelligent humans designing a mechanical apparatus without the inherent capacity to reproduce is an example of the evolutionary process. This was my original argument and if you wish to use it, you are a fool.

If an ancient aquatic vertebrate can "purposefully" develop little legs to crawl, maybe Mikeyg can explain how humans can "purposefully" develop a super-intelligence. I don't doubt that you've been trying, Mikeyg.

Apparently, some (e.g. Mikeyg) believe that evolution isn’t a “random” process. If “evolution” is systematic, organized, methodical, planned, structured, and purposeful then those who hold this beleif should be able to explain how evolution works without invoking the impersonal influences of probability, chance, coincidence, and accident.

Would someone explain how a purposefully designed robot developed by intelligent persons mirrors the random and indeterminate processes of evolution?