Official TOC Round 1

"I tried to find the most reliable and comprehensive definitions, even if that meant going to a different source to get them." Comprehensive is awfully subjective. Maybe, "most in accordance with my arguments" would be a better phrase? =================== Definition of Intelligent Design =================== My opponent does not want to let go of his definition of Intelligent Design. (I looked on Discovery Institute's site and could not find the definition he provided) I have given dictionary.com's definition, and will now present Merriam Webster's Dictionary's version. Id is defined as: "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence." Once again, there is NO mention of an opposition to evolution. This is critical to the debate. " If my opponent does concede that omnievolution is an adequate explanation (which he seems to do in half of his case, but not the other half), then an intelligent designer is an unnecessary entity." This is not true. Omnievolution is only possible BECAUSE of a Designer. I go on to explain this later in my case, and will address it again this round. "Even if intelligent design does not conflict with omnievolution, there is still no evidence whatsoever that such a designer exists. For example, imagine a theory that says that gravity is caused by magical fairies pulling on objects. It is still completely cosistent with the theory of gravity, but does that mean we should teach it? Of course not." My opponent disregards the evidence I gave him. Once again, I will restate this later in the round. The fairy analogy is irrelevant to the debate. Gravity is a proven force. It is a scientific law. It has been explained thoroughly. The creation of the universe however is still completely unproven. The Big Bang is not a law, but a theory. Evolution is not fact, but educated guess. The only way this analogy would hold any merit is if we lived thousands of years ago when gravity was still unproven. We live in the twenty-first century, we know better. "If my opponent concedes that omnievolution is an adequate explanation, he also concedes that there is no evidence that an intelligent designer exists; his evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (in the "validity of ID" section) relies on the invalidity of omnievolution, and in particular big bang theory." My opponent is once again mistaken. Either my opponent did not read/remember my arguments, or his computer is malfunctioning. My evidence for ID does not rely one bit on the invalidity of omnievolution. Would you please provide me with a quote where I made that statement or a few lines where I implied it? "This evidence is flawed, but that is another matter." This is a debate. You are supposed to tell me and the judges WHY the evidence is flawed. I cannot refute what you do not attack. Until otherwise stated, the evidence remains valid. "For example should we, in addition to the theory that the earth is round, teach that the earth may indeed be flat? Most students would probably believe it; after all, the earth appears awfully flat. Students may end up believing that the earth is flat, even though in actuality it is not. For this same reason, we should not teach ID: students may end up believing it, since it seems more obvious than omnievolution even though omnievolution is supported by far more evidence." Yet again, my opponent brings up another irrelevant analogy. Teaching ID is noting like teaching the Earth is flat. The Earth has been proven to be round. We have orbited it's spherical mass. Teaching the Earth's flatness would be an outright lie. What my opponent assumes here is that: -Evolution is fact -ID is as absurd as a flat Earth First of all, my opponent does not provide any evidence to back up his claims. He talks about "far more evidence" like it is common knowledge. I have backed up my statements, while his are empty husks of cyber trash. (That was not ad hominum, but ad argument) Secondly, since his analogy is flawed, he then agrees that controversy with evidence should be taught. If I am wrong, please tell me. Opponent, do you believe that two sides of a story with evidence supporting each should both be taught? "If we teach ID, for the sake of fairness we must also teach every other creation theory:" IRRELEVANT. We are not talking about American Indian Myths. We are talking about the real world, how it was created, with evidence t back our claims. "Politics does not have a clear right and wrong answer, nor does choice of store or restaurant; science does. Teaching intelligent design is more analogous to teaching that 2 + 2 = 5: it is just flat-out wrong. Should we, as an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4, teach that 2 + 2 = 5?" Repeatedly my opponent disregards ID as nothing more than a childish idea. If ID were proven false, his analogy would carry some merit. The fact is, ID is an evidence backed theory that contests with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. It is FAR from being proven false, and ought not and will not be ignored as a 2+2=5 equation. My opponent has yet to provide ANY unrefuted evidence that would derail ID. Science does not have a right or wrong answer for how the universe came to be, and contesting ideas backed by evidence need to be taught. ================== Validity of ID ================== My opponent picks my arguments apart by each sentence. This does not work. The evidence must be read as a whole, and not as any one statement. My opponent contradicts himself while "refuting" my arguments. Observe: I said "Matter exists. How did that matter come into existence? Scientifically, it is impossible to create matter." He said "Therefore, an intelligent designer could not have created matter." Then I said "So if it is impossible to create matter, how did our matter come to be?" He replied "Big Bang Theory is a perfectly adequate explanation and does not include any unnecessary entities." So first he agrees that matter cannot be created, then he says that the Big Bang can create matter? If you want flawed logic, look no further. ID explains the creation of the universe perfectly. It must be agreed that scientifically, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That is a scientific law, considered as fact. Naturally, matter can only be moved. If we have matter, which we do, it must have come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Naturally, it is impossible to create matter. The answer now seems simple where the matter came from. If natural methods are impossible, then supernatural methods are the only other option. ID is backed by evidence. You are here, I am here. Your computer is here. We came from somewhere, and that somewhere could not have occurred naturally. My opponent can argue this, but his pleas will be easily thrown down by cold, hard, scientific facts. I am just about out of characters, and cannot address his arguments any further. I look forward to doing so in the next round. Until then, I will ask my opponent one more question: What qualifies the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and Abiogenesis to be taught in science classes? I do not want to hear why they are better than ID, I only want to hear what qualifies them to make it into science textbooks. Thank you opponent, and thank you judges/audience for your time. ================= Sources ================= http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.astronomy.net... http://www.howstuffworks.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com...