Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Your denial of reality is, again, noted.Get thee to a university and ask. The evidence is there for you to see, touch, measure. Once you study then you will know. Knowledge, like a tsunami, washes away everything not grounded in reality including your skydaddy and your anti-intelligence pseudo-science.

This is the best you can do? Tell people to go ask?If you have nothing to contribute yourself, then zip it!You are just pathetic, trying to impose your subjective view as facts.

What a hoot. I just looked at all of your posts. At no time have you ever presented any actual argument. All you have posted are assertions and attacks. You are the definition of a troll. Back under your rock.

What I contribute is the fact that the information you say is non-existent is available at most any university in the world. All you need do is go look.Your conjectures, however, have no information available to study because they are without realistic foundation. They exist only in your fantasy world.We can show actual physical evidence. You can't.We can show the reality of this universe. You can't.

Are you ever going to say something of substance or just continue the trollish behavior? Based on your posts so far I would say you are about 12 years old.

If a constructive discussion doesn't soon begin and aspersions and name calling don't soon end then I will begin taking an active role in the moderation of this thread.I'm not going to be coaching or advising anyone toward constructive participation. Either you're capable of it and willing to do it or you're not, and those who are not will find their ability to participate diminished.

LOL, you are the one doing nothing but attacking, with zero facts to back it up.

Information does not equal evidence. Try again. Or keep failing and embarrassing yourself.

Trying to insult and accuse me of trollish behaviour? The irony! The ones trolling here, is you and your companion fools.

Sensei's daily post limit has been set to 1.

Well, evolutionists here seem to believe that universal common ancestry is as sure as fact, with "overwhelming" evidence. Everybody who does not share this view, is seen as inferior and treated as such, with non-stop insults and what not.Claiming that universal ancestry is a sure fact, is a bold claim. People need to back it up, with more than appealing to authority of "scientist experts". Bring the facts, not opinion. I don't care for opinions that one finds something overwhelming or not.Most of the support for the evolution narrative is based on finding similar species and then assuming that there was a common origin. Well, finding similar things, does not mean common origin in general. So the logic of this reasoning is used very inconsistently.But trying to engage in logical discussion here, to try to find reason based on facts, is met with attack and insult. Some here are contributing, but others do nothing but ganging up and insult and attack on those who don't agree with all of science, making useless appeal to "overwhelming" (<- "experts".

And so it is. Rightfully so. Facts are bold like that. Especially when the force of so many facts is conclusive. I tried not to insult but this is just so fucking stupid. You don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is.The fallacy comes in when you cite someone who IS NOT AN EXPERT in this field. Appeal to your barber as an authority on genetics. That is the fallacy.Citing actual experts is no fallacy. It is information. It is evidence.And here are 600,000 science experts, true authorities in the field, all with evidence of common ancestry just as our science says. Your worst nightmare. Real evidence of common ancestry.And here you have nothing in return. You haven't read the papers, above. The evidence of common ancestry is much deeper than your false surface strawman claim of assumptions.Read them, sensei. Actually learn something.

Even when creationists do read the papers, they don't. And I do realize that the vast majority of creationists "citing" scientific articles have never ever seen those articles, let alone read them (eg, Dr. Henry Morris' bogus moon dust claims based on a "1976" NASA document which he have never ever seen until I sent him a xerox copy of the front page (twice, since they ignored it the first time ... and also the second time) which alone refuted his basic claim).However, there is at least one creationist who had seen those articles before "citing" them for the first time. And it is that creationist who commits the first lie in a long chain of creationist lies.In her videos examining Bones of Contention, Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" discusses how the author lied about the articles he "cited", because she looked them up herself (second nature for her as a post-grad student in primatology, or a closely related field). She explains how the author only read the article's abstract and only the very first part of it, misrepresenting that as the article's conclusion.The abstract is a summary of the article which basically (but not necessarily in all cases) consists of:

1. A statement of the purpose of the paper. This would normally include a statement of a problem or question that the paper seeks to solve or answer.
2. A summary of the methods used to solve/answer the problem.
3. A short statement of the conclusions of the paper, including whether an answer was found or not.

What Erika found with that creationist author and with many other creationists as well is that they only quote the abstract's statement of the problem, but make no mention of the paper having solved that problem. They quote the problem as being the conclusion of the paper, not that which the paper was able to answer.Thus those creationists make the paper say the opposite of what it actually says. IOW, they lie!Here's a YouTube search page, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gutless+gibb... , linking to her videos discussing Bones of Contention.And here's a list of videos where she participated in a discussion of a creationist video, Dismantled ( https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gutless+gibb... ), where she describes this example of dishonest creationist "scholarship" . I seem to recall especially in the part on The Human/Chimp Similarity -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m9Dc4k9qYU&list=PLvBy0PB...

Just a few comments about things that to me aren't in question.If you're writing about the person you're discussing with instead of the topic, you might want to reassess posting itFrom http://www.grammarly.com:

quote:

---

The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it.

---

The goal here is not to nag others into reading material that convinces them. The goal is to convince others through arguments made in your own words about evidence that's been presented here.And it is a certainty that the information and data gathered during an experiment constitutes evidence.

I wasn't talking about appeal to authority fallacy. I was talking about appeal to authority an sich. Learn the difference before you call somebody stupid!You just prove my point. If all you can do, is appealing to authority, without putting up your own argument, you are hardly contributing and not worhtwhile.Have you read all those papers yourself? Feel free to use any of its content here, if you can. So far, you haven't seen you being able to use or apply much of it, other than trying to insist on how great you think your papers and your experts are.