[spunkets]

"So, when in your initial statement you said that ID people say that the "laws of physics are inadequate to govern the world" you had never actually studied what ID advocates say but made an assertion with no first-hand evidence?

They don't have to say it at all. It's in the proof.

"do you even know what it means to prove something? What a phony you are. You call ID "rubbish," you admit you don't even know what it asserts but you know that it's not worth wasting time finding out."

It should be a simple matter for you to show the proof is bad. After all, I posted it. If you can't understand it. I'll step you through it.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

"So, when in your initial statement you said that ID people say that the "laws of physics are inadequate to govern the world" you had never actually studied what ID advocates say but made an assertion with no first-hand evidence?

You replied: "They don't have to say it at all. It's in the proof."

This is lunacy. You claim that someone says something because you wrote down in your "proof" that someone said it??? There's a technical term for this: circularity.

And you claim to know something about science? You truly do not know what you are writing about. You admit you don't know anything about ID, you "prove" ID is wrong based on your false assumption that it is Creationism, and then you challenge me to prove you wrong and you LOL me?

You can have the last word if you wish--I will not reply to anything you write--you are your own best refutation.