[Soliton]

Let’s see hte experiments that move a jawbone into the inner ear and create a complex hearing system- Let’s see the experiments that remodle a fin into a weight bearing leg, let’s see the experiments that change water breathign lungs into air breathign ones-

You do realize that if you were able to prove everything about evolution was wrong, it wouldn't do anything to prove ID was right?

If you support ID, produce some data and then you can call it science.

[CottShop]

[[You do realize that if you were able to prove everything about evolution was wrong, it wouldn’t do anything to prove ID was right?]]

ID makes no such claims- insinuating that it does is dishonest- hopefully you aren’t insinuating that ID makes any such claims?

The fact that the evidence by ID does infact show Naturalism is impossible though, is just ONE of the aims of ID- the other is to present enough evidnece to show a high probability that an intelligent design MUST HAVE been behind the IC that we’ve discovered. Any courtroom in the world works on these principles- to show enough evidence to suggest a high probability that an intelleigence is behind somethign and that it cvould NOT have happened naturally. When there is enough evidence to show an intelligent causation, it is just silly to keep denying it

Say that 10 archeologist uncovers 1000 intricately created metal urns- 5 beleive they were caused naturally, while 5 beleive they are caused intelligently- which do you think has the stornger case? To simply state that hte ones who beleive that an intelligence was behindthe causation are ‘practicing psuedo science’ when they present all the FACTS of the case that show a high probability that they were intelligently designed is just silly and unscientific- it’s an a priori bias/agenda to try to discredit thsoe scientists by claiming that htey ‘are practicing religion because they present evidnece which shows a high probability that an intelligence was behind the causation of hte urns’, and htat is essentially the same silly argument that Atni-ID folks are attempting to level at ID scientists.

The FACT is that the evidence speaks for itself, and after 150 years of investigation, it has been found to both refute naturalistic creations of IC systems, AND it shows a high probability that an intellgience is needed-

So no- NOONE is statign that simply showing evidnece which refutes Megaevoltuion automatically proves ID- We’re saying that the evidence itself shows a very high probability of design and intelligence- Again, the evidence does the speaking and stands on it’s own merrit and validity.