Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Good arguments? For what?Evolution's scientific proofs are all available to anyone who wants to know reality. I don't need any good arguments. Any fool who can search the internet already knows ALL the arguments for evolution. The reality is there, it is understood and stands on it's own merits.You are the one "arguing". Thus far your arguments have been nothing but you bitchin how wrong we all are. You provide no evidence for your position. You just bitch about the established science without any "good arguments"; actually, any arguments at all let alone any good ones.The reason for your failure is you cannot present any evidence against the reality of evolution. You have nothing to challenge us with. The good arguments on my side are already known. You have nothing that can challenge them.

Look sensei, these one sentence snacks are really boring to read and they make you look childish. It also brings out the worst in us; all that happens is that the thread spirals into stupid name calling.If you have a serious point to raise about evolution please make it and you'll get a serious response. There's no point saying stuff like evolution isn't science that's just silly, factually wrong and not worthy of further comment, but if you have something material to say, just say it. But please bring along evidence and thought.

And yet you can't name those assumptions.

Absolutely not. Unlike your beliefs, science is actually falsifiable and correctable. We can actually determine when a theory is wrong and fix it. Not so with dogmatic religious beliefs which have led you to reject the findings of science.

The problem is that you judge an argument by the conclusion instead of the evidence.

If you haven't noticed, the name calling happens no matter what, due to the arrogance of evolutionists thinking that they possess the truth and using the worst logic defending it.

I have so many times. You better learn to read. You have repeatedly made assumptions on how life should or should not look if it were created seperately. Any or such assumptions are nothing but speculation. Either you are not smary enough to understand this, or you are purposely dishonest in posing your weak assumptions as factual.

Wrong again. Another claim that you cannot back up with facts. Just pathetic!

I'm trying here ...You've made 26 posts in this thread, the longest post you've made is three lines long. The shortest is two words. All your posts have been entirely contentless. Do yourself a favour, make your case and we'll discuss it like grown ups.

Seriously, how wide is your computer screen?

Again, ID proponents fail miserably at debate. They can produce no positive evidence that their positions are viable. They can't even tell us what their positions are. Their only stance is to insult science, scientists, and the results of the scientific process.Intelligent Design is still dead. This discussion just throws more dirt on its grave.

You do realize we can all look at all of your posts? None on this thread are longer than three lines.

Sensei, don't stoop to their level. Let them insult and belittle you. Remain silent concerning personal remarks. I am learning that I myself do that when I react to a situation emotionally rather than respond rationally. And the same goes for us. If we have no evidence to support our claims, we can't win these arguments. (We can't lose either when it comes to proving the Spirit of Creativity. The burden is on them to dismiss it.) And they would be foolish to try. Some things have no obvious meaureable evidence.

Ok, so you're just yet another hopeless religionist dickhead. You'll be gone in a few months having added to the pile of hopeless religionist dickheads before you. How does being a dickhead help your cause?Anyway, it was great to chat.

I love the spirit of creativity. Such a lovely human emotion. But not a spirit like you mean. Not some non-existent otherworldly spook like your god and your talking snake. Creativity seems to be a natural emergent property of the evolved human intellect. It is a natural product of a very natural mind.As a 'spirit' in the way you want to describe it, then, due to our knowledge of the standard model and the working we see in the universe, such spirits do not exist and are, quite rightly, dismissed. All of them ... in total.