[VadeRetro]

All your arguments for transitional forms and fossil record, experimentation, etc. does not disprove the basice premise of ID.

That's only because nothing ever can.

However, if anti-IDers use ID tools (fossil record, transitional forms, experimentation, etc.) to disprove ID, then by logical extension, they have also invalidated the ID tools used to disprove ID.

No one ever answers you on that? Let me be the first to tell you that the use of one's reason to systematically investigate nature does not "invalidate itself" even if it does somehow undermine somebody else's contention that we had to have been zapped into existence by some higher intelligence. Why should it?

In fact, I've already tried to tell you as much on this thread. What you mischaracterize as "ID tools" are not the gifts of Behe, Dembski, etc. nor does their validity in any way follow from the consequences of the rather shoddy work the ID movement has done.

ID didn't invent intelligence, it just misapplied the concept.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No one ever answers you on that? Let me be the first to tell you that the use of one's reason to systematically investigate nature does not "invalidate itself" even if it does somehow undermine somebody else's contention that we had to have been zapped into existence by some higher intelligence. Why should it?

LOL love this one. You have yet to tell me how "reason" (I assume that you mean "logic" on this one) can possibly undermine ID without bringing forth the paradox that I've mentioned.

Er, if you believe that experimentation and observation are not ID tools, then, by logical extension, you also have to agree that no experimentation or observation is ever intelligently designed. Considering the phenomonal quantity of shoddy work and out and out fraud perpetrated by anti-IDers since Piltdown man, I might just have to concede this point...