Well, no, really both sides should present their alternative viewpoints without claiming proof unless they actually have one!
The problems with this tactic is that this inevitably leads to negative arguments. Problem with negative arguments, they are very hard work.
In the case of the thread we are reviewing here, the argument was that navigation through protein space was not possible in the timeframe of the age of our planet.
The DI claimed that they had evidence that quantified the probabilities involved. After discussing that, it became clear that the evidence not even remotely said what the DI claimed.
The paper it was based on was not appropriate to the conclusion, and even then they had to exaggerate the numbers significantly to use it.
Now in that thread Paul and i provided with a number of papers that explored different approaches to how navigation through protein space would be possible.
We could discuss these papers, but to be honest, they are a bit over my head technically. However, they are peer reviewed, published in reputable journals, and most importantly, positive evidence.
The way you keeping avoiding to acknowledge this, makes me wonder if you realize the logical position this puts the DI with it's argument, the burden of proof is completely on them.
Another reason why i am not so keen on discussing one, or all of these papers, is that it would make it seem that whatever we are discussing, is the only thing standing in the way of acceptance of ID.
It is not, if one, or all of these papers are negated, that still only identifies a gap in the knowledge.
So i will repeat my question:
Going on the scientific evidence presented by both sides in that thread, do you think the DI has quantifiably shown navigation through protein space is impossible?