It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

"I am arguing for in this debate is intelligent design."Rebutting this:What is intelligent about the fact that most estimates say 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct? (http://www.pbs.org...) This is just one site supporting the 99% extinction, there are many, many more. That seems wasteful rather than intelligent. Furthermore, the recurrent laryngeal nerve contradicts the pseudo-scientific theory, if you can even call it that, of intelligent design. In giraffes, this nerve takes a 15 foot (4.6 m) detour rather than going straight from the brain to the larynx. This detour is less dramatic in other mammals, but is still not the most intelligent way of designing any mammal (Mammal Anatomy: An Illustrated Guide. Marshall Cavendish Corporation. 2010.) Richard Dawkins has an excellent video regarding the nerve (). Finally, vestigiality: genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution (Bernard Delahousse; Martin Meganck (2009). Engineering in Context. Academica. p. 270.) I dare say this speaks for itself. If you need further explanation on why this opposes intelligent design, I'd be happy to discuss it, but it's simple grade school biology.---------Moving on. "Genetic Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity."I do not disagree that genetic mutations cannot be harmful. However, they certainly can build complexity. Look no further than at yourself. Of the great apes, we are the only ones with 46 (23 pairs) chromosomes rather than 48 (24 pairs). This is because of a genetic mutation in chromosome 2; a fusion of two primate chromosomes (http://www.evolutionpages.com...). Here is an excellent video describing this mutation: . "Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity" Genetic mutation is random. Natural selection is not. Natural selection may act on genetic mutation, but this does not make it random.I cannot state it better than this: "The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment." (http://www.pbs.org...)Natural selection states that individuals in a population that are best fit to survive these conditions based on their inherited traits will be most likely to survive. There is nothing random about it."The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils" Firstly, I do not know what Genesis says about evolution. I do not care what Genesis says about evolution because the Bible is fiction. The virgin birth sounds a lot like parthenogenesis (a process which, ironically, many religious persons have never heard of), but this does not mean that it actually happened or could actually happen in human beings. I find it fascinating that people think they can use the Bible in scientific arugments, but they cannot prove the actual existence of the historical Jesus Christ. But I digress.There is no such thing as an intermediate fossil. You only call it intermediate in relation to the origin of life and the present. Scarcity of fossils does not support or disprove evolution. Once again, we fall back on the term "modified." If we found more fossils, they would modify, and almost certainly support, our view of the evolutionary process. That being said, it is incredibly, incredibly difficult for a fossil to form. If you're waiting for all the fossils to be discovered, you're simply out of luck, because it is never going to happen in our lifetime and it probably will never happen. That being said, we have discovered many fossils that support human evolution. There is a whole exhibit at the Smithsonian supporting evolution in humans (http://humanorigins.si.edu...)."Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life" Correct. We do not know what the original common ancestor is. We may never know. This does not mean it takes faith to believe in evolution or that we should favor other possibilities. However, we can look at what we know now about the DNA of different species. According to Richard Dawkins, former Oxford professor and perhaps the most influential evolutionary biologist of our time, if we compare the genes of any pair of animals or plants they form a perfect family tree (https://m.clippercard.com...)."However, the more information we get, the more convoluted the tree becomes."Once again, this modifies the theory, and still leaves nothing to faith."The Chemical Origin of Life Remains an Unsolved Mystery"This does not disprove evolution, nor leave anything up to faith. We have concrete evidence to show the evolution is a process that occurs in our world and it is logical to conclude that it would have started with the original life form. Saying that it did not start with the original life would be to say the evolution began randomly at some point in time, which clearly is not the case, otherwise we would not see the complexity of life we do today. It would still be a bunch of whatever the original life form was. At some point, that original life form would have undergone some process of natural selection or genetic mutation, which we have already determined are part of the evolution process."Scientists may one day create life in a lab, but they will have done so using intelligent design"Sort of, but not really. Your intelligent design depends on an unprovable creator; their intelligent design would be based on scientific evidence that we have gathered from examining the evolutionary process over time. Hardly five solid pieces of evidence that do not support evolution. Observing more natural selection and more genetic mutations, finding more fossils, constructing a more complete family tree, and finding the original life form would simply modify our understanding of evolution."In the next round I will address any issues you have with this and describe how one can come to the conclusion of intelligent design using the scientific method."You cannot use the scientific method to come to the conlusion of intelligent design. The scientific method requires testing your hypothesis. You cannot test for intelligent design.Furthermore, intelligent design undermines the beauty of nature and the complexity of life. If you really appreciate the world around you, take the time to study the evidence rather than making empty-headed claims that our beautiful world could only have come about with a designer.It takes no faith to acknowledge and accept evolution. Those who accept evolution understand it is only a theory because it can be modified, but the fact of the matter is our complexity of life comes from a combination of different factors, including natural selection and random mutation. How much these impact the evolutionary process, we cannot say, but the fact still remains that the complexity of life as we know it can be observed and explained using evolution.Please provide me some information on how intelligent design is not faith based; or how it can be tested; how evolution can actually be disproven rather than modified; or what aspects of evolution require faith, which is believing in something without evidence.