Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

^o^ I won't be so harsh on this. I'll let voters decide who should be the victor of this debate. Now, I've provided multiple sources as to why the claimant must have the burden of proof. If you say that there are fairies, it is not my responsibility to prove you wrong, but yours to prove their existence. Just because you tell me that I have the burden of proof doesn't mean I have the burden of proof. I could see if the resolved actually implied me having the burden of proof, but it doesn't. You claimed that intelligent design cannot be disproven. Sort of like saying intelligent design is undeniable, or impossible to be disproven. Ok, now provide evidence as to why that is so. As for your whole rebuttal, wjelements and i-am-a-panda aren't the people who decide how a debate goes. Did they create the rules for debate? Are they always correct? Instead of using mere opinions for my debate, I used reliable sources and evidence (regarding the whole burden of proof quarrel. ) For those who didn't catch them, here are my sources. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. " See, the burden of proof is on the claimant . http://www.debate.org... For the debate source, please do a CTRL F and type 'burden'. 'As wjmelements said, you carry the burden of proof for this debate as the instigator, and must prove that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god cannot exist. ' - mongeese As far as you being a hypocrite, I provided sources buddy. :) Like I said, the resolution didn't imply that the burden of proof rests on me, but it rests on you. You said that intelligent design 'cannot be disproven' which is like saying it is undeniable, concrete, or impossible to disprove. You made the claim. ""Let me ask you this: Can intelligent design be proven? " Yes. If we were to set up a controlled experiment in which we asked for the Intelligent Designer to write something on a chalkboard, and a message about Intelligent Design did appear, then Intelligent Design would be proven. However, a lack of reaction would still leave it as a mystery, as the Intelligent Designer might be dead, or might want to mess with our minds, or might not care about little controlled experiments. " That is not a valid experiment. It is not consistent because it isn't applicable. It's not parsimonious because it leaves us to jump to all of these conclusions. It's not empirically testable because we have no way of contacting an METAPHYSICAL intelligent designer or even knowing one exists. Also, it isn't falsifiable because there is no proof for it in the first place, making it invalid. It obviously isn't correctable. It doesn't support any previous theories. It isn't open to checking because it can't be checked. "Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. There is no logic that can absolutely prove that Intelligent Design could not have happened. An experiment would also fail, because there is a chance that the Intelligent Designer does not wish to make himself known, or the Intelligent Designer died a while after creation. " It don't work like that pal. You're the one who said that intelligent design couldn't be disproven. You didn't show any evidence as to why it is undeniable. Like I said before, the burden of proof is on the claimant. His whole argument is based off of negative proof which is fallicious and incorrect. NOW FOR MY ARGUMENTS --------------------------------- Now, here's the big part. Intelligent design claims to be a science. Meaning that it must follow the scientific method to be considered legit. It doesn't, and is therefore illegit and disproven. Also, I showed how intelligent design wasn't factual because under that logic, if an intelligent being needs a more intelligent designer, then there would have to be an infinite regress of designers. Mongeese rebuts by saying our designer would HAVE to be metaphysical? Why? Any evidence to support that? And then he says there COULD be several levels of intelligent design. What I have to say for this is that there COULD be zero. Even so, by talking about the metaphysical you admit that intelligent design is an attempt to get science to accept the supernatural. I have just proven that intelligent design isn't concrete because it isn't even factual as it stands. It is not verifiable or testable. And it is not even known if metaphysical things exist or not. "Just because something cannot be proved through science doesn't mean that it isn't true. " It's untrue if I claim it to be science. As far as your whole bulls-eye analogy, I doubt that an arrow being placed on a target would have the same impact as one fired one-hundred feet away. Now, whenever I say something you keep saying '[sic]', but you don't explain why I'm incorrect. I think that 'sic' is another way of saying that I am correct but you wish to ignore me as you don't know how to rebut my assertion with evidence. Please stop using that word, because other than in this paragraph, I don't use it. :) Now, here's the bottom line. As far as your whole fairy analogy goes, you're right. They could be metaphysical, invisible, or undetectable. But because of that they can't be considered factual and are currently considered non-existent. As far as this debate goes, the burden of proof lies on you and you failed to meet it. I've shown multiple reasons as to why intelligent design isn't impossible to disprove and you keep ignoring me and coming up with all these excuses why my arguments are incorrect. As I've said before, you're whole argument is based off of negative proof and is invalid.