should inteligent be thought as a science

Well, this is the last argument of the debate, so let's make this the best one. "You seem to be attacking what I say rather than replying with hard evidence. you have not really given any reasons to prove anything or basis for what you are saying." This is the idea of a rebuttal. As the "Pro" side of the argument, you are making a claim that intelligent design should be taught in schools, and as such you have the burden of proof. I am merely refuting your arguments because you are the one making claims, and it is my duty as the "Con" side to disagree with what you say. "My reason was to point out that there is ALOT of "i think so's" or "probably" in the theory of evolution which doesn't seem very scientific." As I said, science is not a method of thinking that points out "facts", as those are merely pieces of observable evidence. Rather, science gives explanations for these observations. We can never truly know if our explanations are the real source of what we observe, and therefore, everything in science is bound to have "probably" stuck on it. Hell, gravity is a theory, just like evolution, because it could technically be angels controlling motion. Human knowledge is limited, and all of science is a simple testament to that. ""3. You have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The idea behind the method is that human knowledge is, indeed, limited. Because of this, all theories must be tested over and over again. There is no definitive truth, merely an acknowledgement of the truth as we can best determine. That truth is evolution, so while no one is certain that it is true, it is being perfected and made more true every day, unlike intelligent design" If no one is certain that evolution is true than why is it being taught as a absolute truth in our text books without question? And don't you say that it is not being taught as a fact in our schools because it is. (I see it everyday in textbooks)" Again, you reference textbooks in school without any sources. I am, as I am typing this, holding my biology textbook with a paragraph on evolution pulled up. It never says that it is definitive truth, just that it is the best explanation we have. To get back to our point, however, I do not believe that evolution should be taught as whole truth, but that is not part of the debate topic. ""you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays." Can you elaborate" Nope. That's exactly what I mean. Go and take a look at how they teach it." Again, I don't know every textbook in the world, but clearly you are reading something different from what I am. It truly is a shame that this is the last post because I would have loved to see what you put forward. Sadly, you have no evidence, and simply saying "Go and take a look" is not enough when I have already done exactly that. ""Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science?" Because the whole idea is that a student learns what is true from the teacher, not the other way around. Would you like them to also decide if they learn about a round earth?" To an extent that is true but not for this. Intelligent design has enough evidence to be considered a science that can be taught in our school. You cant disagree that we don have any evidence." Your rebuttal has nothing to do with what I said. I claimed that students should not decide what should be taught, and you responded by saying that intelligent design has evidence. Besides that, you made a baseless claim, as you did not support it with any evidence. ""The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" Again, evidence?" Do some math. http://www.icr.org...; Thank you for providing a source for one of your claims, but it unfortunately fails to deliver. The article itself ignores the sheer amount of DNA replications in a single cell, and the amount of time evolution takes to occur. It's math is correct, but the logic is not, and we can write this one off pretty easily. ""We see no gradual change in the fossil record." "To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT." http://talkorigins.org......... Spend an hour there or so, it really dives into the core proofs of evolution that you didn't feel like addressing" ------ You didn't seem to want to address what I just said about there being no gradual change in the fossil record. I would however like to here you thoughts on why there isnt one." Again, the change in the fossil record is simply to large of a scale to put into one simple argument. There is so much evidence, and so many records, that it would only be possible to debate them by debating any points in the fossil record you disagree with. Unfortunately, you didn't do that, so that cannot happen now. ""DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. " Bill Gates If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin- Well it has been demonstrated. Darwin"s theory was formed on the assumption that the cell was just a blob of protoplasm. But science has discovered that it is much much more." This part of his argument is actually fairly accurate. Fortunately, science is forever testing its theories. Therefore, the theory of evolution does not teach that this is truth, and we can move on. "Teaching evolution is teaching 19th century science. Come into the 21st century because science is passing you by." While it would be easy to dismiss this petty remark, a good look at the rate of scientist who accept evolutionary theory shows that it is, in fact, much more timeless. "The elucidation of DNA"s information-bearing properties raised the question of the ultimate origin of the information in both DNA and proteins. Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly." Information in DNA is not like the information we know. There are merely chemical reactions that occur between mRNA and tRNA that differ depending on the chemical properties of both. This is like saying that, when a ball hits water and water is displaced, that the ball gave information to the water to displace a certain amount. The chances of everything just evolving by chance is..." Evolution does not rely on chance. Natural selection is non-random. "Did you know that the universe is expanding at just...Creator made everything intelligently." The Amazing Atheist has done video after video on this issue, so I'd recommend him if you have any confusion. However, with a universe this big, of course there are certain places that humans can live on. There are far more planets that humans cannot live on. So yes, we are here by chance, because there are so many planets in the universe that some are bound to be habitable. In fact, many others are! "Cell complexity screams...systems already being developed and in place." There are two points in this paragraph to address. First, you claim that natural selection has been shown to be impossible, and give no source, so we can dismiss this as musings. Second, the pro side claims that the complexity of cells proves intelligent design. However, evolution clearly accounts for complex biological life through rapid genetic mutation and natural selection, and as such this can be, again, dismissed. "Cambrianic explosion proves all Cambrianic explosion is 100% proof." Um... could someone leave a comment to explain this? He really didn't make this very clear. "There is zero evidence in the fossil record of any species transferring to another species" Again, talkorigins. Plenty of examples, especially among whales. "Check out "Signs of Gods existence" on youtube. It is irrefutable evidence, none of this "proves" any religion, but it all proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that we were created by an intelligent designer" I'd love to, but many videos have that name, and he failed to provide a link. If he would be so kind as to comment on the debate with a link, that would be dandy. "http://www.answersingenesis.org...... Should take a look at the link I left you." I've been to the site more than enough times, thank you though. "I would have enjoyed this debate if it could have been tooken less seriously and more respectful on your end" You had every chance to point out where I was being disrespectful. Also, wouldn't taking it less seriously make me less respectful, and vise verse? "You never gave any real evidence rather you just rebuked each of my arguments without any scientific basis." Again, you have the burden of proof. You also failed to quote any time I did this. " To conclude I would just like to say say that all the universe cannot come from nothing and your theory does not have a explanation of were that life giving goop came from." Yes, but evolution is not designed to explain the origin of life. Truth is, there is no theory that explains this. You cannot, however, say that the lack of a current explanation makes yours valid. Well, I hope you had fun my friend. If it means anything, you certainly improved over the course of the debate, and I hope you bring that improvement to other debates on this site. I apologize if I was disrespectful, please message me where I was. If you have any other debates you'd like to have, feel free to message me. I believe we have both learned from this a good deal. I still hope, however, that the voters do see that evolution is a theory, and intelligent design remains a hypothesis. But that is their decision. May the best man win, and it's been a pleasure debating with you. GGWP.