Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

I've debated this topic several times and the thing that seems to ring true time and time again is the universal truth that intelligent design advocates do not understand that: A) You cannot disprove evolution on an internet forum B) You cannot disprove evolution on an internet forum by misusing and totally misunderstanding basic scientific concepts C) You cannot disprove evolution on an internet forum by misusing and totally misunderstanding basic scientific concepts while also showing a total lack of knowledge in even the most rudimentary facts of the legitimate theory you're trying to discredit. D) Even if you were to by some divine miracle (sorry, couldn't resist) manage to single handedly destroy the theory, it would not win you the debate for the simple fact that you have not come close to meeting your burden. E) The disproval of evolution does not warrant the credit of intelligent design as a scientific theory (the burden). Your quotes are irrelevant, of the seven quotes used, only two were done by real scientists, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. And these quotes really do nothing, they have nothing to do with the point you're trying to prove. Allow me to address your laughable attacks towards evolution: "GENETICS: Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity" Huh? People in elementary school can make a more informed statement. Mutations is exactly what GIVES complexity to organisms. It is the whole backbone of natural selection. This is such common knowledge that I don't even feel a need to source it, but a simple google search yields 22,398,000 pages that support this (subtracting about 2,000 christian pages), as well as every single piece of modern scientific literature. "BIOCHEMISTRY: Unguided and random process cannot produce cellular complexity" What? I'll get onto this concept of 'unguided' later, but I find it difficult that people can actually think that biochemistry is somehow evidence of the illegitimacy of evolutionary theory. Biochemistry and related areas such as molecular biology, structural biology, and molecular modelling DEPEND on the existence of evolutionary theory. A lot of these sciences work because of the idea that gradual changes in organisms occur over an extended period of time. Cramming 'god did it' where reason once was essentially ruins the very premise of these sciences. "PALEONTOLOGY: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils" Oh, really? Lacks transitional fossils you say? Care to explain the existence of: Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Dimetrodon, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon, Yixianosaurus, Pedopenna, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Aetiocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus and Equus. This is just an incomplete list that I got from wikipedia (oh don't tell me, they're all in on the conspiracy too? ). "TAXONOMY: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life" Interesting, care to explain this picture then? . http://tellapallet.com... and this? . http://www.sciencemag.org... what about this? . http://demonstrations.wolfram.com... Damn, biologists suck they should leave biology to the EXPERTS! !! "CHEMISTRY: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery" *Sigh* Actually it is a well developed science called abiogenisis, and there are currently many well respected and currently tested hypothesies. This is the logic of intelligent design proponents I don't think I'll ever understand. "You don't know how x occured with 100% certainty, I also have no idea, therefore I am right! ". --------- Your lack of knowledge of evolution makes my head hurt. It is not a random and misguided process. It is a formulated theory, which can make real predictions about the outcome of certain circumstances. Think of it this way, you throw a rock and it lands 20 meters away from you. Now, if I'm to use your logic I can make a random guess at odds, hmmmm lets say 1 in one trillion odds of the rock landing 20 meters away, yeah thats a good number. Think about it, the rock had to be thrown at the PERFECT angle, the rock had to have the PERFECT mass, the rock had to have the PERFECT initial velocity, and have the PERFECT shape to land at the distance of 20 meters away. Now is this proof that it is infinitely improbable to throw a rock 20 meters away? That it is just pure chance that the rock landed where it did? No. This is a field of chemistry called statistical thermodynamics, which essentially states that any configuration is infinetely improbable however ultimately, however improbable, any configuration must exist in a state. So what you essentially do when you spit out your arbitrary number is just predicting the probability of finding a specific organism in a single state. The population of a system of states is not a matter of 'luck' as your uneducated ID friends tell you, but they are goverened by chemistry. Just like with our rock problem, the system of states is governed by gravity. Evolution is an attempt to explain a system of states of various natural organisms. Something that it has done very well, something that has overwealming evidence, and something that has withstood the harsh scrutiny of the scientific arena. So we've established that not only that evolution isn't 'random' or an 'accident' (By the way, Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, I'm hoping you know this. .. ). I find your 'I love you' analogy hilarious. I think my analogy makes a lot more sense (and I'm sure the people judging will as well). Three men are in three seperate dark rooms, the rooms are identical and each contain a wooden chair that cannot be seen due to the darkness of the room. The agnostic decides that the room is too dark to see anything, and remainds standing. The atheist wanders very carefully around the room until his hand brushes something. He feels the object to find that it has four legs, a study back, and after pressing down on top of it, he decides that it can hold his weight, he has discovered that it is a chair and sits down. The man of faith (or intelligent design proponent) was reading the bible before entering the room and is absolutely sure that god told him that there is a comfortable bed directly in front of him. He happily jumps face first into the ground. ----------- All these flawed attempts at science are laughable. I seriously question whether my opponent has had any experience with science what so ever. I urge the voting audience to ignore any attempts my opponent has made to discredit evolution and also ignore my responses to these attempts. They have nothing to do with the debate at hand, which I remind you is "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory". The burdens have been clearly identified and established, mine being to show that it IS NOT a scientific theory. I have done this as follows: -Used an uncontested definition of 'scientific theory' (incidentally, this definition is the one used in science and cannot really be contested). -Taken key elements of the definition and showed how intelligent design does not meet these requirements My opponent has made no steps towards meeting his burden of showing that intelligent design IS a scientific theory. My arguement by definition has not been challenged once all that has been presented is bronze age scientific knowledge with no relevance at all to the debate. Sadly I have reached my charachter limit.