[js1138]

I know that's what you must do. I'm just trying to get you to understand that's what you're doing.

That is why science develops multiple, independent lines of evidence.

[GourmetDan]

Wrong.

There are no 'multiple, independent lines of evidence'.

They are 'multiple, related lines of interpretation of evidence' because they are *all* based on the same initial assumption (i.e., that the explanation *must* be natural).

You do understand that, right?

The real question is, do you understand the implications?

That I doubt.