Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Coming from an Atheists point of view I guess one could classify Intelligent Design and Creationism as the same thing. Coming from a Christian backround I know that they are quite different. This, however, is not important. "To say that we should stick to our presuppositions, does simply not make much sense at all." It makes pefect sense. The fact of the matter is, this was a trap debate unless you were planning on trying to see my argument from my point of view. This means you would have to at least pretend the Bible is true. You are in fact trying to strip my presuppositions away, and you do not even realize it. "You're attempting to turn this debate into one about the existence of a god, whereas it is no such thing." I am not trying to do anything but prove a point. I will lose this debate unless you are will to examine facts through the eyes of a creationist; also know as being open minded. When an evolutionist looks at facts, what does he think? "Oh, that is evidence of how, over millions of years, volcanos and other natural disasters formed the strata in the earths crust!". When a Creationist looks at the very same evidence what doe HE think? "Oh, that is evidence of how the great flood layed down all of the strata on earth in a matter of about one year!" These are both theories attemtping to explain the origin of the strata layers, and they are both based on the same facts. We interprate these facts differently because I believe in the Bible, and you do not. The again, You have your own history/science books that you would refer to in order to try and explain the same thing. It mfollows then, that we cannot debate facts, rather we have to debate how we interprate these facts. Thus, the debate would come down to the Bible, and me defending ITS credability. My burden then, in order to prove creationism as a theory, is to show how the Bible is consistent with science. I have no desire to debate the existence of God. I will now defend creationism as a theory. "...there is no experimental evidence which suggests that we were created by an omnipotent power." There is no "expirimental" evidence that the Big Bang ever took place either, yet that is accepted as atheory. A theory is just that; a theory. There is no completely solid evidence that points to it certainly, but there is plenty of evidence that suggests that it is possible. "The supernatural cannot be tested by the natural. All attempts to do so have failed." Once again, you cannot "test" the Big Bang theory, yet it is accepted as a theory. The Big Bang theory is LARGLY speculation, and nothing more, while the Creation theory actually has a book to back it up. A book that proves historically accurate. (http://www.christiancourier.com...) "Predictive" I have not the slightest clue what you are talking about when you say: "nothing can be predicted with intelligent design because it is the assertion that everything that currently is, always was. Nothing is gained at all, and it makes no predictions about our natural world.". If you could clearify, I will glady refute. If you can look through the eyes of a creationist for even one moment, you will see how it is easily accepable as a theory. Everyone may not accept it as a correct theory, but it still has enough behind it to support it at LEAST. I would also like to comment on your statements concerning Answers In Genesis. 1) What classifies as an "unbiased" source to you? Does the simple fact that it is a Christian website lable it as "biased? This is ridiculous. If that is the case, than I hadbetter not see any eolutionist post a link to talkorgins.com again. I mean come on, thats such a biased source... 2) What are you talking about when you say the author is just going by is opinion? He is stating facts. Look them up for yourself (but be sure not to use one of your biased evolutionist sites). 3) It is utterly ridiculous to make a claim like "The author has done no studies, and has no scientific experience what so ever" without evidence to back it. If you are going to make such a claim, you had better do a good job of backing it. After all, you have cited nothing, and are therefore going on personal opinion :) 4) It takes INTENSE studies and very in-depth research to make a strong case for one or the other. This site gives you something to think about. I do not think, however that this information can simply be disregarded. Thanks! Renzzy