No, I comparing it to a story in the Bible (Book of Numbers):

Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"  Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now."  The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" "No," he said.

Why does Mitochondria have to be able to live on its own today?  Its been a part of cells for a billion years, so to think that it would still be able to be exist by itself is, well, asking a lot out of it.  Some whales can't use their vestigial hind legs after a few million years in the sea, so imagine what a billion years would do to a Mitochondria's genome.

No, actually I believe the Da Vinci Code to be a big pile of dross (haven't read the book and don't want to). Everything I stated was from established archaelogists (including one who was also a priest). And yes, Christianity was formed due to politics and a way to prevent riots from occuring on  the streets due to conflicting religious tensions. Chritianity, in its different forms was growing in popularity. In fact, prior to the time of Constantine there were many different interpretations of Christianity, not just the current dogma. Many Romans considerred it to be nothing more than upcoming Jewish cults. Constantine HAD to unify the religions creating the current form the New Testament takes for the sake of peace. Whether you believe in god or not, humans had a big hand in forming religion into what it is.

Of course, I have mutiple books and sources rather than a single religious and historical document.

And the effects of the endosymbiotic theory are all around us... we're alive aren't we? Even if you think it's only an educated guess, it's pretty much the best one we have available. It's the only one that makes any sort of logical sense. If any new evidence comes to light, then fine, the theory is open to change, but that's the whole point of science, to disprove current theories. Kinda like how all the religious creation stories have been disproved, yet people still seem to think it's not true.

If you wish to quote the Bible, then so do I:

"But he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with the voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet." - 2 Peter 2:16

Balaam was an arrogant reversionist and demon worshipper who was also quite insane. It's not out of the question for insane people to hear animals talk to them. Also consider that being rebuked by one's donkey is the ultimate insult; God disciplined Balaam for his utter lack of respect for God or God's creation (namely his donkey, whom he had been beating). Please do not quote Bible verses that you do not understand.

@Scoobes

You automatically get a million respect points for not believing an ounce of the bull that is "The Da Vinci Code." Well done! Your argument regarding Christianity and politics is interesting; I would very much like to know where you get your information for such a position. Also, don't forget that the Bible is actually a compilation of many books by many authors, and its historical accuracy amongst other ancient texts is second to none... but that is an entirely different argument.

@Both of you, in regards to Mitochondria

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your mentioning of Endosymbiotic Theory in the first place, as I had never heard of it previously. As for why Mitochondria have to be able to live on their own, it's because that's the only way you could ever get conclusive proof from this theory. If they did at one time, it would have been millions of years ago, and that's the problem. It can't be replicated. This is not  to say that it is a useless theory; clearly these similarities are real, and I actually find them quite interesting myself. All I meant to say is that it is not the be-all end-all theory, which is why I still hold that macro-evolution is no more defensible than Intelligent Design.

Have I already posted in this thread? Is this the old or a new one?

Anyway, not only do I believe in the theory of evolution I don't know of anything else remotely valid to consider at the present time on the available evidence.

Consistent with the scientific process if better evidence comes along I'll gladly go where it points - but right now all the evidence points to evolution.

Perhaps he isn't the only insane person to be regarded as a prophet...

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.  For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

...

There is a plethora evidence for evolution, and there is absolutely none for intelligent design.  To put them on the same level is really an insult to the work of many scientists, and a slap in the face to how their discoveries and technology assist you today.  The very monitor you to read this on is made from the same knowledge that says the world is billions of years old.  To be honest, you say USA-Intelligent Design and it scares me that people in my own country would be so harmful to progress.  I've seen it in my travels abroad, specifically the Middle East where many Muslims are happy to accept the technology that comes from the West but reject the very science behind it, which can only produce a society of thoughtless individuals who are able to reproduce what they have been told but are unable to understand and further advance it.

Are these quotes from the Bible, from which you have removed all context, somehow supposed to support your position? You don't even explain where in the Bible they are from, or by whom they are written, or under what circumstances. Fail.

"The very monitor you use to read this on is made from the same knowledge that says the world is billions of years old." I never said that it wasn't. I'm an Old Earth Creationist, but you didn't care enough to ask and wrongly assumed otherwise. Fail.

Your comment involving Muslims is puzzling. I am not Muslim. Am I supposed to account for them or something, just because I believe that an intelligent creator exists? The lumping together of different groups of theists (and I use that term loosely here) is both ignorant and unfounded. Fail.

"There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, and there is absolutely none for intelligent design." You have made it clear that you aren't interested in healthy debate. It's easy to tell by your word usage following that sentence that you refuse to be convinced to the contrary, regardless of what anyone really says to you. That being said, I will save myself the trouble of continuing this debate. Good job.

The main difference between the theory of evolution and intelligent design in the eyes of science at least is that one is falsifiable.

The theory of evolution can be disproven in many different ways, intelligent design can never be proven wrong. This is why one is considered science and the other one cannot be.

I know this has probably been said 50 different times in this thread but I always like to point it out =P

Theology isn't science.

And a theory that has areas that are impossible to ever measure due to them being theological events isn't a scientific theory. Since the moment theres an unmeasurable component it ceases ot be science.

I think currently Evolution is the most logical scientific way to explain how we became what we are. However I have no problem with theological explanations of the universe for several reasons. Firstly aslong as its defined as theology and not science I couldn't care less. Belief without evidence is exactly what religion is, and aslong as people acknowledge that I don't mind. Secondly making your God a God of the gaps condemns your God to an ever shrinking realm of importance. Which I find amusing.

You believe in a talking snake.  Fail.

Copy and paste will show you those Bible verses in less than two seconds, I dont have to hold your hand here.  Fail.

Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists that resist progress fail.  Fail.

Until you can actually present any evidence for Intelligent Design, I get to denounce it as ridiculous, just as I get to say that flying elephants are ridiculous because I haven't seen any evidence for them either.

I'm at Uni so I don't have the books available to quote, but I'll try and dig them out for you. Some of the information is also from documentries I've watched (which is where the archaelogist/priest came in) so I'm not sure if I'll be able to dig up what the programmes were, but I'll try. To be fair to Dan Brown, I believe he used some of my sources for background info on his books, but then went into overdrive for the sake of his fictional story. The odd titbit of info may have some vague bearing in reality, but the vast majority is dross. My partner did a unit of Religious studies as part of her degree which was also taught by a priest so I'll ask her for some info as well.

Give me a few days, if you haven't heard anything then PM me a reminder as I'm pretty busy at uni at the moment.