[Southack]

"ID is worse than wrong. It's useless. Neither it (generically) nor ANY of its proponents have put forward a single testable, falsifiable hypothesis for a phenomenon that can't be adequately (even better) explained by the dominant paradigm."

You aren't listening/reading/comprehending. You've even contracted your own breakthrough in post #252.

ID isn't wrong...ID has proved to be the explanation for genetically altered pigs. See post #255.

ID is testable...ID has tested positive as the explanation for genetically altered pigs. See post #255.

ID is falsifiable...where ever there is no bias in an Origin, there is no ID.

Thus, on *every* claim that you've made (even contradicting your own post #252), you've been conclusively shown to be in error.

Consequently you are beginning to bore me. It's time that you handed me off to one of your betters. Surely some Darwinist out there somewhere can put up a better debate than simply ignoring genetically altered pigs while simultaneously being bewildered by simple subsets versus supersets.

[voltaires_zit]

Bovine fecal matter of the first order.

> ID is falsifiable...where ever there is no bias in an
> Origin, there is no ID.

And yet, ID is not necessary to explain bias, as you admit by dancing past Dissipative Structures, repeatedly.

Therefore, it is NOT falsifiable.

Further, I strongly suspect that you KNOW this, which is why you repeatedly engage in sophistry that would make a medieval monk blush.