"While by Contradiction and Reductio ad Absurdum are valid logical machinations, your attempt at it is absurd. To use this method you would have to prove that evolution could not occur without ID. To do that you would have to prove ID."
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. And I want you to think hard -- and try to refrain from thinking, "oh, that's the old such and such argument, and that has been debunked already."
Suppose I hand you a deck of cards, and it is in perfect numerical order by suit, as a new deck of cards might be.
A hypothesis about this deck of cards is that it has been put in order by some intelligent being or by a machine programmed by an intelligent being, and it hasn't been schuffled since that ordering.
For this particular example, I can't "prove" the hypothesis, but I *can* show by elementary mathematical analysis that the hypothesis is almost certain to be true. In that sense, I have virtually "proven" the hypothesis for all practical purposes.
This is the same kind of argument that can be used to show that ID is virtually proven. But folks like you aren't even interested in the details because you've been hoodwinked into thinking that such hypotheses are not "scientific."
In other words, you have been mislead to the point that you are blind to the obvious. Snap out of it, dude! If you oppose Barbara Boxer there is hope for you.
Provide the details of ONE experiment that can be used to verify the ID hypothesis.
If you oppose Barbara Boxer there is hope for you.
Despite our localized differences every Freeper is united by the common cause of, "working to roll back decades of governmental largess, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America - while having fun."