Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

What are you claiming? A lack of common descent? Intelligent codes in dna? Tired light? Global flud? ... about a dozen or so more.

I would think that depends on context. Big Bang, Grand Canyon, as evolutionist is silly but also meant as an insult. Like my use of the word religionist.Yes there are Einsteinists, relativists, germists and more all so called by religionists trying to insult the findings under discussion. Amusing.I can accept the lexeme as the insult intended. I'm an insultist.

Sensei, who do think manifests this consensus? I doubt very much if it includes you in any field. To be considered in the consensus you have to be recognized by your peers as expert in the specifics of the subject. Unless you're a bigwig in the specific science you are not qualified and your views are not considered. What is this supposed to mean? A lot of people support The Dallas Cowboys that are not from Texas either. I fail to see where support for an observation of fact is limited by your discipline.

"Scientific consensus" is an excellent descriptive term to those who understand what it is.You're trying to obfuscate the language.A scientific consensus on a specific issue is achieved by the knowledge experts in that field NOT by other scientists in other fields.Biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and others of related disciplines have a voice in determining any consensus about common descent, nested hierarchies and relatedness. Computer scientists, chemists, nuclear physicists and most certainly internet denizens without any scholastic standing, do not.Of all the knowledge experts in the biological fields the vast majority understand and agree with what a nested hierarchy is and what it represents. The outliers, any other scientist from any other field and internet lurkers have no say. But not biology, not evolution, because your religion is involved. Hypocrite.

That's all hyperbolic bull emotionally rendered.The world-wide consensus by the smart guys in this species know that evolution is one of the pinnacles of scientific achievement by humanity.Deny the obvious all you want but we know your objections are religious zealotry. Which means, senseni, your views are not motivated by reality but by fantasy. Your contributions are noted but have no influence.

Really, sensei? You stoop this low?How about the millions of scientists around the world. The majority of them are a whole bunch smarter than either of us.Before you get more childish, 'smarter' is evidenced by academic achievement.And this consensus of the smart folk in our species disagree with you.

None of your tirade negates the fact that the whole scientific world disagrees with your views.I know that as a religionist, that fact of reality means nothing to you, just as any other fact means nothing to you. Your fantasies override evidence and reality. And, now, your ego overrides your intellect.

But you can't show this is false, can you.You can't show any reason to object to anything in evolution except your religious fantasy.

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.

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.

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.

So, still bitchin about cosmetics. Still have no evidence of anything ID.You can't even tell us how your ID spook is supposed to have made life in all its related complexity. Evolution has a complete model of the processes involved, how they work and the predicted outcomes. Science in action revealing reality. Appears your ID presents nothing. Decades of talk, nothing shown.Conclusion: Your ID cannot present anything. It is bogus.

Not explain it but show evidence of existence.The elephant in your bathroom is not there because you dream it. It is only there when you have actual evidence of its existence. Like when you go into the bathroom you can smell the peanut butter on its breath and its trunk is showing above the shower curtain.You need to provide at least some small physical evidence of its influence or presence before your conjectures can be entertained as something worthy of study. You can pull anything out your ass. But if you want to be taken seriously you have to provide some evidence of viability. And what 'logic' leads you to ID? You have yet to produce any. And don't forget the physical viability part. Show us physical evidence written on this universe that supports any of your fantasy.

What change? What demand? That is still a question. One among many.The caution to you in this discussion is to not forget the physical evidence of the process you propose, if you ever make such a proposal.Not only do you have to show how ID created life's complexity, you are required to show that process is physically possible and has actually taken place on the ground.Just like all the physical evidence that shows evolution happens and how, you have to show the physical evidence that your ID process happens and how. I don't think you can do that. ID is bogus and there is no such process to be evidenced.

Yes. Goalpost leviosa between requiring evidence and requiring evidence. That's quite a swing.