[Junior]

Before one can acknowledge the supernatural, one must have evidence for it. Any evidence, by its nature, would be natural, obviating the need for the supernatural.

You're on your own here.

[Theo]

... obviating the need for the supernatural

It all comes down to that, doesn't it? Any theory other than evolution is incompatible with your worldview. So your clinging to evolution is not primarily based on evidence, but on your atheistic worldview.

Makes sense to me.

[bondserv]

Before one can acknowledge the supernatural, one must have evidence for it. Any evidence, by its nature, would be natural, obviating the need for the supernatural.

You're on your own here.

I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence.

In other words "Life was created".

[grey_whiskers]

Any evidence, by its nature, would be natural, obviating the need for the supernatural.

Jumping the gun there. The question is how one falsifies the assertion that the supernatural was involved in the first place.

Derision is not logically sufficient.

"How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin" implies you have a 100% effective angel detector, with no false positives or negatives; and the angels have not developed any ECM, or have signed a unilateral treaty not to use it.

(Stir, stir, stir...)

Cheers!