When you enter an online science forum where the topics of ID and evolution are being discussed, what are usually the first claims that Darwinists make?
They assert that ID is not science because...
1. It's not testable
2. It offers no predictions
3. It's not falsifiable
Here's what you do when that occurs: First of all, tell them they're full of baloney...
...then, to save time (because believe me, you will have to address these issues over and over and over) link to the posts below and tell them to find a better way to spend their time than to try to convince you of something you know to be incorrect.
Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions
Is Intelligent Design Testable?
What is Falsifiability and can ID be Falsified?
Miller on Witness Stand: ID Isn't Falsifiable, So It Isn't Science; Plus, We've Already Falsified It
Intelligent Design is Falsifiable
See, here's the deal... Darwinists simply cannot absorb the fact that they're just blind to the facts about ID. I'm thinking that this phenomena is due to some evolutionary glitch in the Darwinist mentality that renders them incapable of accepting the facts in regard to these issues.
HT: Robert Crowther at ENV