Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

"You claimed that intelligent design cannot be disproven. Sort of like saying intelligent design is undeniable, or impossible to be disproven. Ok, now provide evidence as to why that is so." Okay. Any effect that an Intelligent Designer used in the creation of the universe could have been done in a subtle way, in a natural way. The Intelligent Designer could have used natural forces to create the universe, then to create Earth, then to add life. The Intelligent Designer could have then forced mutations to take evolution along, getting us to where we are now. The Intelligent Designer really could have done anything with the universe. We don't know. We can't prove it right now. We can't disprove it, either. "As far as you being a hypocrite, I provided sources buddy." However, one of the rules of the debate was that you would have burden of proof. You accepted the debate. Therefore, you accept the rules. "That is not a valid experiment..." So? Let's say there was a science conference in San Diego, and suddenly, a person materialized on top of the conference table. He claims to be the Intelligent Designer who created the universe. He demonstrates his metaphysical powers by moving around objects, and then he kills the man in front of him, doesn't get killed by the security guard's gun, and brings the man back to life. He then shows the scientists how he is metaphysical, and the Intelligent Designer. They ask him some questions, and he answers, displaying omniscience. The scientists document everything, and put together a report on how Intelligent Design is true. Sure, it's far-fetched, but if it happened, it would prove Intelligent Design, no? "It don't[sic] work like that pal..." The Intelligent Designer could have created the universe in a seemingly natural way, then created the Earth in a seemingly natural way, then created life in a seemingly natural way, then died. It would look completely natural, but there could be an Intelligent Designer behind it. Because an Intelligent Designer wouldn't have to leave behind a signature or anything, we wouldn't be able to prove or disprove anything, ever. "It doesn't, and is therefore illegit[sic] and disproven." Just because science can't prove something, doesn't mean it can't be true. Maybe Intelligent Design isn't universally accepted science. That doesn't disprove it. See the arrow example. "What I have to say for this is that there COULD be zero." That doesn't mean anything. A lack of evidence is in my favor. There could be zero, but there could be twenty. Because you can't prove that it is zero, and it is impossible to prove that it is zero, Intelligent Design is not disproven by the infinite regression theory. "Even so, by talking about the metaphysical you admit that intelligent design is an attempt to get science to accept the supernatural." Science doesn't have to accept it. It can be true without science. "It's untrue if I claim it to be science." So, if some people claim it is science, then proving that it isn't science makes it untrue? I claim it not to be science. I claim that it may be true without being scientifically provable. Things can be true without being scientifically provable. However, if it is disproven by science, then it is untrue. However, Intelligent Design isn't able to be disproved. "As far as your whole bulls-eye analogy, I doubt that an arrow being placed on a target would have the same impact as one fired one-hundred feet away." If you fire it from two feet away with a different amount of tension than you would from one-hundred feet away, then it could look the same. The tension and the distance combined affect the impact. "I think that 'sic' is another way of saying that I am correct but you wish to ignore me as you don't know how to rebut my assertion with evidence." [sic] is used when quoting something that is misspelled or grammatically incorrect, so that I acknowledge that it isn't correct, but it was the speaker that made the mistake, rather than the person who is quoting. ":)" (: "But because of that they can't be considered factual and are currently considered non-existent." Wrong. Because they can't be considered factual, they are currently not considered existent. Just because you consider that something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. "As far as this debate goes, the burden of proof lies on you and you failed to meet it." See above logic about how Intelligent Design could exist without being detectable. "I've shown multiple reasons as to why intelligent design isn't impossible to disprove and you keep ignoring me and coming up with all these excuses why my arguments are incorrect." All of your arguments are about how Intelligent Design is impossible to prove with science. You do nothing to disprove it except say that things must be science to be true, which is untrue. "As I've said before, you're whole argument is based off of negative proof and is invalid." My argument currently rests on the fact that Intelligent Design is undetectable. "Please vote CON" Please vote PRO. "Thank you" Thank you, as well. ":)" (: