[darbymcgill]

The only thing I can get from your posts is you think that the fact that evidence for something doesn't yet exist is a good reason to think it will someday.

Then your inference would be wrong... I've posted my point to you in #672

If you have a question about something I've posted specifically and not something you wish that I posted, I will be happy to respond. It's all about consistency my friend, I'm just asking the scientists to be consistent....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Whilst reading early (very early) on in this thread, I noted a "scientist" posting unequivocally that there is "no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life". There was no qualifying "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence"... And it just so happened to be the same poster who taught me part 1."

All this because you are arguing silly semantics? As of now, THERE IS no scientific evidence that points to intelligent design. The poster was right, you were wrong. No more than there is scientific evidence that Santa Claus exists. Do you chide people who say that Santa doesn't exist? Do you tell them, "Now, we can't say that. All we can say is that "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence". " No, of course you don't. But because YOU have a personal need for ID to be true, you criticize scientists for making the very logical and very correct statement that there is no scientific evidence for ID. Instead of playing little word games, you should be spending your time marshaling some scientific evidence for your claim.