Official TOC Round 1

Official TOC Round 1 "Comprehensive is awfully subjective. Maybe, 'most in accordance with my arguments' would be a better phrase?" I am not attempting to bias the debate with skewed definitions, if that's what is meant. I acknowledged that my opponent's definitions for evolution and natural selection were as good as my own. The only dispute here is over the definition of ID. ==================== Definition of Intelligent Design ==================== The Discovery Institute definition can be found at [1], or indirectly at [2] or on Wikipedia. Since Discovery Institute is the primary proponent of ID, their definition is most reliable. "My opponent disregards the evidence I gave him." I do not. I responded to the 'evidence' near the end of my case. "Gravity is a proven force. It is a scientific law. It has been explained thoroughly. The creation of the universe however is still completely unproven. The Big Bang is not a law, but a theory." My opponent misunderstands the definition of "theory". Merriam-Webster defines "theory" as "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ". The difference between a law and a theory is rather small [3]: a law describes a set of actions such as gravity, while a theory provides an explanation for observed phenomena. "[B]oth a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole." And anyway, my opponent's assertion that Gravity is proven (news flash: so is evolution) does not change the meaning of my analogy. My point was that unnecessary entities should not be created, even if they don't conflict with the scientific law or theory. Gravity is proven; adding fairies on top of it, while not technically wrong, is unnecessary. Likewise, adding an intelligent designer on top of evolution or the Big Bang is unnecessary. The Big Bang is also proven; see "On the Validity of Big Bang Theory" in round one, which is as yet unrefuted. "You are supposed to tell me and the judges WHY the evidence is flawed." I did, in my "Validity of ID" section. "Yet again, my opponent brings up another irrelevant analogy. Teaching ID is noting like teaching the Earth is flat. The Earth has been proven to be round. We have orbited it's [sic] spherical mass. Teaching the Earth's flatness would be an outright lie." Teaching ID may not be an outright lie, but it is analogous to teaching that fairies are controlling gravity. Though not technically wrong, it is unnecessary to explain the universe, and there is no evidence supporting it. "What my opponent assumes here is that: -Evolution is fact" Evolution itself is not a fact, but it is a theory supported by facts. I listed facts in round one (fossil record, genetics) which stand unrefuted. "-ID is as absurd as a flat Earth" My opponent makes a fair point, in that flat earth as been disproven. However, ID is still just as absurd as gravity fairies. "I have backed up my statements, while his are empty husks of cyber trash." What about all that unrefuted evidence from round one? "Opponent, do you believe that two sides of a story with evidence supporting each should both be taught?" Firstly, ID is not supported by evidence. Secondly, no; I think that scientists should continue investigating until one hypothesis has enough evidence to be considered a theory, and then that one theory should be taught. "IRRELEVANT. We are not talking about American Indian Myths. We are talking about the real world, how it was created, with evidence t [sic] back our claims." And I have yet to see any real evidence to support ID. "The fact is, ID is an evidence backed theory that contests with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution." My opponent claims that it contests with those theories, then he claims that they are not conflicting. Which is it? Either way, it is flawed, as I have shown. "My opponent has yet to provide ANY unrefuted evidence that would derail ID." -It is untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. -My opponent is trying to give me burden of proof. All hypotheses are invalid until proven valid; otherwise, we would accept just anything without evidence. ========== Validity of ID ========== On My Contradiction: When I said "Therefore, an intelligent designer could not have created matter", I was trying to prove a point, that being that if my opponent's claim is true then ID must be false. However, there is still no contradiction. Big Bang Theory does not state that matter was ever created; it states that matter has always existed, but that it previously was all contained within a singularity. Notice that when I say "matter always existed", it is not because the universe is eternal. Before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist. So even though the universe is finitely old, matter never spontaneously came into existence. "My opponent picks my arguments apart by each sentence. This does not work." I don't see why not. "It must be agreed that scientifically, matter can neither be created nor destroyed . . . If we have matter, which we do, it must have come from somewhere." Contradiction. Interestingly, this is the exact same contradiction that my opponent accused me of; however, Big Bang Theory is an adequate explanation. "The answer now seems simple where the matter came from." It has always existed. Remember, though, that "always" is finite, since time began with the Big Bang (if you can even really say that time "began".) My opponent wrongly assumes that a supernatural being MUST be a "who" and not a "what". My opponent's case, flawed as it is, does not advocate intelligent design; instead, it advocates supernatural design, a completely different concept. He has yet to prove that all supernatural entities are intelligent. "My opponent can argue this, but his pleas will be easily thrown down by cold, hard, scientific facts." What, that we exist? My opponent's claim that existence supports ID is as sensical as the claim that since we exist, the universe must have been created by Shiva the Destroyer. Or that since we exist, the universe must have been created by a supernatural banana. That is, it's a complete non sequitur. "What qualifies the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and Abiogenesis to be taught in science classes?" Evidence. Facts. Testability. Falsifiability. Omnievolution is more than qualified as a set of scientific theories, while intelligent design is not. The choice is clear: vote PRO. [1] http://www.discovery.org... [2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org... [3] http://www.wilstar.com...