...and this would be where you provide specifics. How many times do I have to ask?
This comment completely evades the reply offered. I have read Miller's book, have you?
Ray writes:
In the context of the Creation-Evolution debate "Intelligence" and "Design" are recognized universally to be the attributes of an invisible Creator (if He exists).
Opponent in response writes:
Incorrect. "Intelligence" and "design" are not "intelligent design." In the context of biology, we have never seen "design." Science understands about design since that's the entire point behind engineering.
Non-sequitur.
We all know what it means when points are ignored.
My opponent then continues to produce one stupid non-sequitur and contradiction after another, here is a sample:
Ray (previously): Why is there a Evolution-ID debate?
Opponent: There isn't. If you look at the literature, you don't find any discussion of "ID" because there has never been any evidence put forward for it.
Ray: The issue was that evolution says both attributes are not seen in nature. Creationists-IDists disagree. Opponent denies the central purpose of this debate board and the debate that has been going on since Darwin 1859.
Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" (2006).
Ray (previously): Why does every evolutionist here and everywhere vehemently protest any scientific claim that says nature reflects either attribute?
Opponent: They don't. They simply demand that you show your work and not assert it to be true. So far, you have not provided any specifics.
Ray: Opponent denies a self-evident fact: evolutionists argue against ID tooth and nail----exactly what Rrhain has been doing. The contradiction here is egregious or the same is evidence that my opponent is a scatter brain.
Ray (previously) I agree: evolution says there is no evidence of ID.
Opponent: Incorrect. It isn't evolution that says there is no evidence of "ID." It is science that does it.
Ray: Opponent denies then agrees. Of course, from an objective perspective, opponent is quibbling over nothing.
I am not seeking to depart the topic subject as per the rules of this board. Have you read Miller's book?
General Reader: the replies by my opponent in these exchanges prove that the ordinary evolutionist is completely dishonest or ignorant or deluded since it is a self-evident fact that evolution denies nature to contain Intelligence and Design. Again, the Creation-ID-Evolution debate is the central purpose of this debate board as seen in its name "EvC Forum."
Ray