Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

I also can't tell how brains work exactly. Does that mean that brains don't exist?I use logic to deduct what is possible and what not. You are using flawed logic. According to you, something can only exist if you know how to explain it? News flash for you. The world is not limited to your puny mind.

First you ask how ID created all life complexity. And now you you changed your demand and only want evidence that what existed?Try to make some sense and make up your mind bro. Are you okay?

Kee moving the goalpost back and forth.

Him: explain how america built the space rocket!Me: I don't know exactly how, but I know the rocket is there.Him: No, only show evidence of existence.Me: Okay... Space rocket exists.Him: You still need to prove that space rocket was created.Me: Okay... I just explained that I don't need to. Keep changing what you want.You: Yes, he wants evidence.Me: Facepalm!

Okay, never heard of such evolutinist dogma before. Pretty boring and unsubstantiated and useless claims. But thanks for the effort!

Wow, still full of ignorance you are.

The rocket example shows how you totally did not understand the response to your demand, ignored it, changed your demand to argue that my response does not apply, just to go back to the original demand immediately after, which I already responded to.If you can't keep up, then better just zip it!

You wrote "Intelligent design does not create complexity, but rather parsimony and elegance. There is nothing elegant about life's complexity".How do you measure complexity and elegance?And are you talking about intelligent design by humans or intelligent design by a deity?

I already explained that it is insufficient. Why would it be sufficient. Because you managed to get some predictions out of it?Before we had advanced instruments, the Sun orbiting around Earth model made good predictions as well, about the position and movement of the Sun in our sky. By your standards, that model would have been proven and indisputable fact.

Does not mean that twisting parameters until your model fits, makes it sufficient proof. You do realize that theories have changed and even have been rejected after new data arrived, don't you?But you don't allow for any critique, because you are a fool defending his precious treasure, ignoring real logic and real science.

You should know for one, that by adding parameters and overfitting, in general, we can get very accurate "predictions" for the data.Data fit does not equal high likelihood of correct model. You seem to be under such noobish assumption.

Your assumption that data fit means correct model.

Not all good fit models are correct. Or do you believe it to be so, LOL!

You know little about science.

Being accepted does not mean that the model is correct. In regression models, we never even get the real model. Only with infinity sample size, the estimated parameters will closely approximate the real values.