You are strawmanning. This is dishonest.So you do not believe truth exists.
Which it does.In order for truth to be a component part .... truth would have to exist.
It's still an unsupported opinion, not a fact.You got a better one given your (fact) strawman response? It is two postulates for the source of the instructional data. Mind or mindless and what better explains? That is all it has to do and there is your applied science. Spare us your irrational prejudice against religion. As long as a mind beats out mindless, for the instructional data, mindless is eliminated, and mind is put forward as provisional truth pending further discoveries. This is schoolboy.
I asked you for falsification criteria for ID. You haven't provided any, thus confirming my point that ID is not falsifiable.It gives you an excuse to refuse to look thru the telescope. The point of this thread is falsification against ID. Look at the title in case you forgot.
There have been falsification arguments against ID. All you have to do is google it.
Is your post a product of design? What is the source of your post? The primary cause? A nonmaterial mind? How many molecules does a thought have?
You're resorting to insults, and you still haven't supported the claim. If you think ID is a valid deduction then present the deductive syllogism and prove its formal validity. You won't because you can't.It is. It only works with logical minds which excludes you.
The claim has been supported and rejected by you. The problem here is with you and not with any claims.