Resolved: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

I was hoping this wouldn't turn into an evolution vs creationism debate, but you seem to be at a total loss in terms of trying to prove your burden. I generally try hard not to debate with creationists, but your crippling ignorance really needs to be highlighted. I beg you not to just copy and paste creationist propaganda from a christian website, everyone knows this does nothing but highlight your total lack of knowledge of the scientific method. While your attempts to single handedly --------------------------------------------- Your concept of mutual exclusion is dead wrong, where did you get this from? Your logic is honestly giving me a headache. Are you somehow suggesting that evolution is the only theory that needs evidence to support it? Somehow intelligent design can get away with having no evidence whatsoever and yet still remain a legitimate scientific theory? This is academic high treason. Proving one thing wrong does NOT, I repeat NOT make the other thing right. This has been common knowledge for the better part of a thousand years (rough age of the scientific method). The very idea that you seriously think you can disprove evolution through one post or a set of posts on an internet forum is laughable. You realise that in order to legitimately present intelligent design as a scientific theory, you would have to demonstrate scientifically why the concept of gradual changes over an extended period of time cannot occur. Just to put this in perspective, somehow proving evolution wrong would mean you would have to come up with a reason for all of the phenomena that relies on evolution, just like planes rely on the theory of gravitation, the following abiogenesis - adaptation - adaptive radiation - allele - allele frequency - allopatric speciation - anagenesis - Archaeopteryx - aquatic adaptation - artificial selection - atavism - Cambrian explosion - catagenesis - gene-centered view of evolution - cephalization - Chi square test - chronobiology - chronospecies - clade - cladistics - Climatic adaptation - coalescent theory - co-evolution - Co-operation (evolution) - coefficient of relationship - common descent - convergent evolution - cultivar - ecological genetics - ecological selection - endosymbiosis - error threshold (evolution) - evolutionary arms race - evolution of cetaceans - evolution of complexity - evolution of the horse - evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - evolution of mammals - evolution of sex - evolution of sirenians - evolution of the eye - evolutionary developmental biology - evolutionary neuroscience - evolutionary psychology - evolutionary radiation - evolutionary stable strategy - evolutionary tree - experimental evolution - exaptation - extinction all relies on the theory of evolution. (NB, this is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org..., and I haven't done much editing so it may not be 100% accurate). I honestly have no problem with you trying to disprove evolution, if you want to do it, by all means go for it. I honestly wish you the best of luck. But what I have a major problem with is with your total ignorance of the scientific method and basic scientific concepts. If you want to contest the theory of evolution, do it in a scientific arena or not at all. Don't copy and paste stuff from a christian website and attempt to pass it off as the evidence which destroys evolution, because frankly this is insulting. It's insulting to every scientist in the world when people like you take intellectual shortcuts and undermine the work done by legitimate scientists in the academic arena. But anyway, just to humour you... allow me to destroy your arguments in the vain hope that you don't spend the last round wasting my time by copying and pasting propaganda. Birds ---- Of course, ignoring the innumerable examples of natural selection at cellular levels and at larger levels, let me talk of your birds. What you are referring to is easily explained by exaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Of course, all the explanation for your little bird problem is there, but for fun, I'll explain it. Basically, poorly designed wings need not be poorly designed wings, they are generally well designed something elses. Like keeping heat in, or as an aid to running. Just like as Darwin said its like 'if a man were to make a machine for some special purpose, but were to use old wheels, springs, pulleys, only slightly altered, the whole machine, with all its parts, might be said to be specifically contrived for that purpose'. For future reference, don't call something 'utter stupidity' just because you do not understand it. Polonium 218 ------------ Going past obvious errors, confusing evolution with the origin of life, and geology. It can be demonstrated that the occurrence of rings need not break any physical laws. The idea you posted was first introduced in the 1970's, a firm rebuttal was posted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1989 and has still not been answered for nearly 20 years. Oh and the initial idea was not posted in a peer reviewed journal by the way, I bet the site you got that from failed to mention that. Here's some of the rebuttal to humour you. I'm sure you don't understand it, and I won't pretend that I am familiar with it 100%, but this just shows how easy it is to shoot down creationist arguments. ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] "Beginning with the assumptions that the smoky RICHs in quartz are caused by alpha particles radiating from the mineral inclusions and that these alphas are not due to some unknown nuclides or isomers, we have tried to develop an understanding of how such giant RICHs might form. "Aluminum centers are common extrinsic defects in natural quartz. Trivalent Al can substitute for Si, which is tetrahedrally coordinated with o, up to at least several overall structural consequences… However, holes and electrons can be trapped at a variety of extrinsic and intrinsic defects in the bend gap in quartz… "When an alpha decay in the inclusion occurs, the alpha particle starts out with a velocity that depends on its energy…" (Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J. 1989. "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle" Science 246: 107-109.) "Thus a narrow zone at the outer limits of the range of alpha particles in quartz is a zone of excess hole production. The continuous production of holes during geologic time drives the electronic equilibrium of this microregime in the direction of stabilizing the Al color centers and producing a thin smoky halo. As hole-capturing centers such as Al defects become saturated, excess holes must migrate outward down a charge potential. "If anomalous RICHs in other silicate minerals such as micas do not develop in fundamentally different ways (albeit the nature of the color centers can involve defects other than Al), then many of the special conditions and special alpha energies invoked to account for Po and giant halos in mica seem no longer necessary. Giant RICHs can grow by hole diffusion. "…the sizes and structure of giant and Po RICHs in mica also are artifacts of radiation-induced conductivity and that their explanation requires neither unknown radioactivity nor an abandonment of current concepts of geologic time." [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Well that was easy, and I have progressed nowhere. Let me remind those reading that my opponent has made no progress whatsoever towards his burden, while I have demonstrated clearly that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Extend all my points from round two in relation to the definition of a scientific theory and how intelligent design fails on every single count. Damn that was a long post.