Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

You might have got lucky and beat me in other debates because of vote bombers, but this time you set yourself up for failure. :) Before I argue let me point out a few observations 1) The resolved is a double negative. It is the same as "Intelligent Design can be proven" 2) As Pro and the Instigator, you have the burden of proof 3) I need not put forth any logic, science, or experiment disproving intelligent design until you prove it valid. Otherwise, your argument will be one based off of negative proof and therefore will be fallicious and invalid. 4) In its self, the resolved is the same as "The existence of fairies can be proven. " In order to be valid it needs evidence. 5) You can't play the agnostic card here, telling me that I don't know if intelligent design is true or not, because it is not enough to affirm the resolution. You have to show how intelligent design can be proven. 6) Merely rebutting my arguments isn't enough to affirm the resolution. You have to put forth evidence as well since you bear the burden of proof. 7) You can't just uphold one aspect of your assertion and believe that you win by default. Actually in this debate, it's the other way around. All of your contentions have to stand, whereas I only need to uphold one of mine. Now for my arguments. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Since I have nothing better to do, I guess I might as well point out the flaws of intelligent design. Also, once again take note that merely rebutting my arguments is not enough to affirm the resolution. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... 1) This argument is one of lack from imagination. I cannot imagine how certain features of the universe could have occured on their own as they are too complex. So there MUST be an intelligent designer. 2) It serves as an argument from ignorance as well. The existence of certain features of the universe are currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so there must have been an intelligent designer. 3) Not only that, but it's based off of negative proof. Since something is false, apparently your assertion must be true. 4) It does not specify the nature or identity of the designer, just that one exists. 5) If intelligent things have to be designed by an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer? 6) It aims to have science accept supernatural explainations. If supernatural is beyond the scientifically visible universe, then how can it be science? Well one things for sure, intelligent design ain't science. 7) To further number 6, the scientific method involves these steps{ 1 Define the question 2 Gather information and resources (observe) 3 Form hypothesis 4 Perform experiment and collect data 5 Analyze data 6 Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7 Publish results 8 Retest (frequently done by other scientists) }Intelligent design doesn't follow the scientific method. 8) To further explain why intelligent design isn't science, it must follow these criteria{ Consistent - look above Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor) - that seems awful complex explaining how an intelligent designer created things in the universe when it comes to explaining "how". Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively) -Intelligent design cannot predict anything Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability) - intelligent design isn't empirically testable and to be falsifiable you'd have to admit it could be incorrect in the face of more accurate science Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments - As I said before, you cannot perform an experiment of intelligent design. When it comes to these complex things in the universe, how are we testing or observing an intelligent designer creating those things? Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it) - You tell me. Progressive (refines previous theories) - I think not Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty) - I think not } And it doesn't I await my opponent's arguments. Good luck mongeese.