[Lev]

Most Darwinians claim that Evolution is dependent upon: 1. Appropriate environment, 2. Natural Selection, and 3. Random Mutations.
Most ID-er's claim that ID is dependent upon: 1. Appropriate environment and 2. Intelligent Designer.
3 degrees of freedom versus 2, yet you picked the loser and wrongly ascribed Occam's Razor as your reasoning. That's not very scientific...

The problem with your argument is that ID is not a valid candidate for Occam's Razor - it's not a scientific theory. In order for it to become one you need to produce the Intelligent Designer. We know what the 3 things are you said evolution depends on. What/who in the world is the Intelligent Designer?
Regards.

[Southack]

"The problem with your argument is that ID is not a valid candidate for Occam's Razor - it's not a scientific theory."

On the contrary, it wasn't MY argument (i.e., Occam's Razor was Tortoise's argument and I merely showed the fallacy in his data by writing up the degrees of freedom for both theories in question) and Intelligent Design IS a valid scientific theory.

In fact, we have conclusive evidence and even proof that Intelligent Design is responsible for new varieties of life via gene-splicing, computer programs (the only thing in the known universe other than DNA to store data, process data, and replicate), as well as fossil-style evidence (e.g. cars buried in junkyards).