Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. The evidence for ID is all the same data used for evolution. The difference is the data does not fit evolutionary models, but fits ID.
Randman, that's bullshit, and you know it.
In order for it to "fit ID" there has to be a methodology that it fits into. You (and the rest of the ID supporters) have not given that methodology.
You say the fossil records support "sudden appearence". So let's use that at a model.
Please explain the METHOD by which sudden appearence takes place. Please explain the MECHANICS by which sudden appearence takes place.
Show how the fossil record demonstrates either of these.
You can't. Not because it doesn't, but because it can't support them. Why? Because there is no "method" or "mechanics" behind ID. It's junk science. It's a half formed hypothesis - it's not even interally complete.
The problem is that if evolutionary models are true, you should have tens of thousands of archies, and you do not
First off, this is a gross misunderstanding on your part. But let's assume that you are right here - that is NOT EVIDENCE FOR ID.
One theory being wrong is not evidence FOR a competing theory. It's evidence AGAINST the first theory.
Example:
You think cars work on magic. I think cars work on hamster power. Someone shows us that there are no hamsters in cars - that doesn't mean that cars work on magic.
Now, I know that people have been over and over and over the "lack" of fossil thing with you. But, if you like, we can take that to a new thread and I can explain in great detail why your expectations about the fossil record are frankly very silly.
™ Version 4.2