Official TOC Round 1

Instead of arguing every sentence again, I will cut right to the chase. Before I do so, I feel the need to clear my name on something. My opponent accuses me of a contradiction, which I must refute. "It must be agreed that scientifically, matter can neither be created nor destroyed . . . If we have matter, which we do, it must have come from somewhere." Contradiction. Interestingly, this is the exact same contradiction that my opponent accused me of; however, Big Bang Theory is an adequate explanation. My opponent cuts out what I say in between. I state that NATURALLY, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I then describe how matter can only be created SUPERNATURALLY. (Or, ABOVE natural powers) He continues to address only the sentences (or in this case, parts of sentences) that will strengthen his case. He ignores the evidence I give him. On to the core of the debate. The resolution asks whether or not ID should be taught in school. My opponent argues that omnievolution should be taught, but not ID. I asked him what makes omnievolution quailfied to be taught, and he responded as so: "Evidence. Facts. Testability. Falsifiability." ================== Evidence and Facts for ID ================== I have given this multiple times, only to be addressed partially each time by my opponent. To be as clear as possible, I will not use complete sentences in order to spell out my reasoning again. 1 Matter exists (Scientific fact) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 Matter cannot come from nothing by natural causes (scientific fact) http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 Since matter exists, and it cannot be created naturally, it MUST have come into being SUPERnaturally. =================== Testability and Falsifiability =================== Both accusations of ID not being testable or falsifiable are completely non-unique. This means that the same applies to the Big Bang Theory, and omnievolution as a whole. Just as you cannot prove ID wrong, you cannot prove omnievolution wrong either. My opponent does not hinder my case, while he actually points out faults in his own. My opponent says that omnievolution is a valid theory that should be taught in schools. Lets re-examine what a theory is. According to wikipedia: A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things: -it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and -makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class. http://en.wikipedia.org... Does ID classify distinct observations as a class of phenomena? It certainly does. It classifies the observation that matter exists as a supernatural event. Does ID make assertations about the underlying reality that brings about this class? Yes it does. Is asserts that an intelligent thing/being created the matter of our universe. Therefore, is ID not a valid theory? ID has evidence and scientific facts backing it. While it is not completely falsifiable, NEITHER IS OMNIEVOLUTION. Since ID has all of the necessary criteria to qualify it to be taught in science classes, it ought to be taught. If you like the idea of single-mindedness and censorship, vote for the affirmative side. Opponent, I thank you for an enjoyable debate. Judges I thank you again for your time and patience.