"Pastor Dave"

Who cares what the Pope's opinion is?

About a billion chatolics and some other sectarians...

Who cares what the status quo is?

Sir, I thought you do. Othwerwise why do you write about ID, evolution etc.

It is taught as fact.

OK, if you think so,Please cite at least 1 reference thatit is done so. I do 
not know a signel textbook, a single scientis that would do that.
Not even Dawkins, who is one of eh most fervwent evolutionarist.

And yet, there are no tests, nor observations that you

can make, that will satisfy them ...(evolutionarist to condier the theory 
discredited)

Of course there are.
Show a single system in which the progeny has nothing to do with the 
parents... Or one in which the progeny is an exact copy of the parents.
Both would dicredit the basic tenet of evolution: nonperfect inheritence. 
Whithout that there is no evolution.
Another observation that could discredit evolution if you can find an 
organism survive despite not being "adapted" to the niche it leaves in. For 
example find a a free roaming human survive under water, not unlike 
mermaids. A creator could certainly allow this to happen...
You can list a bunch of miracuoluos events like the one above that could 
totally discredit evolution. If the life form produces behaviour that 
contradict the laws of physics of chemistry.

<every time

you come up with a reason not to believe it, they play
dodge ball. For example, when the fossil record
doesn't demonstrate it, then all of the sudden, it's
the magic "mutations" that do it, even though no one
can demonstrate them. If you show that it could not
happen that quickly, especially since we don't see that happening
today, then it is said that the magic wand of "time" is needed.

I do not think that this is true. Coul dyou tell me an example?
And "time", even geologically long time scales ARE integral part of the 
theory.

Any attempt to invoke a Creator in any hypothesis automatically
renders the hypothesis or theory unscientific,

No, it doesn't. That is what you would like people to believe.

No, it does and it is not matter of belief. It is matter of the basic rules 
of scientific thought.
You are just not taken enough time to really understand it. Please read some 
phylosopy book on the matter, even a simple one can show you that you 
severely misunderstand what is going on.

science does not include, nor exclude the supernatural. Science is a
method, not a conclusion.

Wrong again, pastor Dave.
Science is a ssystematic endavour to collect and organize knowledge abuot 
the physical world by implementing the scientific method.
It is a limited activity, and for one God is NOT subject of science.
That is your refuge. That is why faith does not necessarily in conflict with 
science. They speek over each other, have nothing to do with each other.
You are ruining your faith when keep forgeting this. They do not mix and 
scientist tend to agree on this.
Leave God out of science and there is no problem, you can worship, pray, 
invoke the name of His etc etc. Practice your fait, leave science alone.

If the only logical conclusion is design,
then there must be a designer.

Event this is false since it presupposes the validity of the statement "the 
only logical conclusion". Since science can not prove anything positively 
(only disprove, and that is a costly and time consuming prcedure), one can 
NEVER make that conclusion sound true in science, therefore your argument is 
plainly wrong and invalid. Consequently, your conclusion is invalidated 
instantly.

The fact is, that it
is ridiculous to look at something that is obviously
designed and then claim it happened by accident,
all by itself. That is unscientific.

You see we agree here. It is unscientific to think that something is 
"ovbious". There is nothin' obvious in the phsysical world, there are only 
crippled minds that do not appreciate the complexity of the real physical 
world. For a scientis it is hard enough to find the rules of the physical 
world, and the question, what lays "beyond" it, is too much for sciente. We 
leave that to the theologians.

Best regards: lajos