1. Why does the complexity of a cell disprove evolution?
2. I also don't see any real problems with the big lines of evolution in the fossil record. I also must admit while talking about the fossil record that evolution is pretty vague on what to expect specifically. The big lines of evolution and what it predicts are clear, the large and small details about macro-evolution are rather vague imo, which is why it allows to be modified according to the findings and not be dismissed right away.
3. What imo, would dismiss evolution clear and simple: limitations to genetic drift because that would prove that you cannot extrapolate micro-evolution to macro-evolution. I'm sure other examples can be found.
4. I disagree that evolution should be classified as pseudo-science but I understand why you say that.
5. What do you mean by 'operated on the inference of design'? I agree that science shouldn't exclude other ideas or people with other beliefs. In fact, I personally welcome people with different ideas and beliefs into science.
6. What is a prerequisite imo is that you should be able to switch your ideas if you are proven wrong. That's more important imo than having ideas that differ. Beliefs on the other hand give you different perspective on life and thus different people with different beliefs will provide science with more possible solutions to the questions left unanswered.
7. I'm not quite sure what is being taught over the ocean but here, in europe, micro-evolution is part of evolution.
8. Afaik macro is an extrapolation of micro over time. It was an hypothesis that has been tested and which has become a theory.
9. Claiming historical science is not actual science does worry me a bit. What is your definition of historical science? How is it applied to non-origin theories for instance?
1. because there is no known mechanism of evolution that accounts for it, that is why. Or do you believe in stuff BEFORE the evidence is given???
2. I'm glad you don't have a problem with...
i) assuming that the fossil you have is an ancestor of another organism
ii) discounting the HUGE gaps
iii) presupposing evolution is true in order to affirm the idea of common descent thus making the prediction of common traits based on this presupposition.
iv) not allowing for affirmation of the assumption that these two fossils are descendants.
Such affirmation would come in the form of (literally thousands) of progressional forms from one state to the other. Just having one or two still means guesses need to be made, (and as we know guesses are not science), hence this progression is vital to affirming that the guesses made are indeed the right ones.
However you having or not having a problem with something doesn't mean that it is or isn't false

3. Limitation =
It occurs in selective breeding programs, whereby a trait is exaggerated to the point that it causes health problems in the animal. See Persian cats (the ones with the squashed noses). Some can barely breathe

The same can be said for any animal. At the farm I used to work at, (we had pigs), more angular legs were a trait that was desired with the pigs, since it gives more spring in their jump for mating. However this trait also made leg problems more prominent as a straighter leg would be more under the bulk of the animal and thus can hold them up better.
The same can be said for attempting to increase the size of the pig. Too long, (more ribs = more meat), and there will be back problems, too large and there will be other problems with their legs due to the weight load of the animal.
So the limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves.
It occurs in selective breeding programs, whereby a trait is exaggerated to the point that it causes health problems in the animal. See Persian cats (the ones with the squashed noses). Some can barely breathe

The same can be said for any animal. At the farm I used to work at, (we had pigs), more angular legs were a trait that was desired with the pigs, since it gives more spring in their jump for mating. However this trait also made leg problems more prominent as a straighter leg would be more under the bulk of the animal and thus can hold them up better.
The same can be said for attempting to increase the size of the pig. Too long, (more ribs = more meat), and there will be back problems, too large and there will be other problems with their legs due to the weight load of the animal.
So the limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves.
4. Thanks for understanding, very few evolutionists do

5. Great

You're my kind of evolutionist.
Inference of design. As in the belief that there was a creator.
6. Sure, just be mindful that naturalism is also a belief system... (This is why I claim Dawkins as Religious since he is very pious and Religiously defends his beliefs)
7. I was taught the standard evo rap, I just prefer to think outside the box, rather than be told what to believe...
8. Pray tell, what was this "testing" to show that variations within the species, (micro) can become evolution (macro)
9. Actual science is empirical, based on the scientific method. Anything else is a social science- like archeology which uses reasoning and deduction rather than factual experimentation.
I know most will not like my definition but it is one that leaves no room for equivocation. The scientific method is empirical, hence for it to be regarded as scientific, (as per the scientific method), is to have empirical evidence.