It is a fact that God put medicine in plants
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Burden of proof
I have to prove that it requires great intelligence to create the medicine in plants and only god can do it.
Con needs to show that it does not require intelligence to create medicine in plants and this medicine can come naturally via evolution and big bang
research has shown psilocybin to have potential to treat a range of psychiatric and behavioral disorders, although it’s yet to receive FDA approval for anything.
Its potential indications include depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, quitting smoking, alcohol addiction, cocaine addiction, cluster headaches, and cancer-related or other end-of-life psychological distress
Smoking cessation and other addictions
a small pilot study from Johns Hopkins UniversityTrusted Source, researchers found that psilocybin therapy significantly improved abstaining from smoking over a 12-month follow-up period.
turmeric's antioxidants have been found to reverse the effects of damage caused by pharmaceuticals, particularly in the treatment of schizophrenia. Commonly-prescribed antipsychotics often cause involuntary muscle movements and severe behavioral changes
1.) Evolution.
When an organism replicates, it passes on mutations. These mutations can duplicate, shift or shuffle parts of the genome.
These mutations can potentially change the protein chemistry, cause the organism to produce enzyme variations, or cause some chemical processes to be modified to produce subtly different chemicals.[1]
2.) Selection Pressure
The millions upon millions of plants in any given field reproduce, mutate, are eaten by insects, infected by pathogens and compete with each other. Any mutation that changes a protein or enzyme in a way that now produces a chemical that repels or harms insects, or kills pathogens boosts that plants chances of survival and reproduction compared to its competitors.
The trillions of plants, and hundreds of millions of years they have existed provide an uncountably vast quantity of mutations, that could lead to these beneficial chemical variations.
Over time, the selection pressure means that the plants that are most likely to survive are the ones that have such mutations to produce chemicals that fight of infection and insects. The ones that don’t are most likely to die.[2]
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
As a result: it is inevitable that an evolutionary system will produce a wide variety of plants that produce chemicals that kill fungal infections, bacteria, and interfere with the chemistry of other organisms such as insects.
3.) Chemical effects on humans.
Given that it’s inevitable that plants will evolve to produce chemicals to kill bacteria, fungus and alter the chemistry of organisms that go near it: it’s unsurprising that humans would find that plants kill bacteria, fungus and alter our body chemistry.
Even Pros example - Tumeric - is a natural insecticide. [5]
We would expect some of these chemicals to kill us, or make us sick, most chemicals to have little or no effect on us at all - and a handful to have beneficial effects due to them having evolved to alter chemistry in organisms bodies.
This is exactly what we see, and strongly implies evolution - not divine intervention.
4.) Rebuttals
Pros argument is to list the plants that have beneficial properties, and asserting that God must have done it.
Pro does not explain how he knows this, or why he can rule out any other explanation, or why the chemicals are so complex they necessitate an omnipotent super being to create.
Worse: the explanation pro provides fails at a basic logical level:
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all? If good plants are there to help, are bad plants there to intentionally kill us? What about addictive plants? Why make antibiotic compounds wreck your kidneys?[6]
Pros argument quickly becomes incoherent when these additional facts are brought in.
Conclusion:
I have provided a concise explanation of how plants can evolve chemicals that have pharmaceutical effects.
I have shown pros argument is an unsupported argument from ignorance that becomes incoherent when more facts are considered.
Sources:
[1]https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations
[2] https://www.canr.msu.edu/grapes/integrated_pest_management/how-pesticide-resistance-develops
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?hp
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27804972/
[6]https://medshadow.org/6-medications-can-harm-the-kidneys/
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.
DNA repair is a collection of processes by which a cell identifies and corrects damage to the DNA molecules that encode its genome.
here is a study that was reported on by the same fellow. Anyway people who smoke there dna damage is 3 times higher then ours, But they found that if they eat turmeric there DNA damage returns back to normal.
Excessive DNA damage causes mutation
. Chlorophyllin is one of the most promising agents to protect against these deadly gene mutations.
variety of chemicals from plants known as phytochemicals also seem to protect cells from harmful compounds in food and in the environment, as well as prevent cell damage and mutations, says Jed ...
Mutations occur if the repair mechanisms re-attach the wrong piece of DNA back together
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all?
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all?
cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence.
this means organisms that have mutations that produce enzymes reduce the dna damage
pro appears to mostly accept that I have been able to explain how plants can evolve anti-fungal, anti-biotic, DNA repairing, medicinal properties. I also showed evidence that we have observed plants evolving new chemicals and enzymes.
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
environmental and genetic factors. It has been estimated that nearly 50% of infertility cases are due to genetic defects.
Help Reduce Kidney Stones: Not all citrus juices are created equal. A recent study found that orange juice, but not lemon juice, can prevent painful kidney stones from forming
intelligence
n. The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
Cancer cells have differences compared to regular cells; otherwise they would not be cancer. The chemical ingredient in olives simply has an effect on cancer cells because they have differences in membranes - meaning the chemical damages the membrane in cancer cells, but not regular cells[5]
Cancer is a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth
Cancer is when the cells start to grow out of control. The cancer cells keep on growing and making new cells. They crowd out normal cells.
1/2/3/5/6/7/8 - Evolution explains medicinal properties of plants.
In the resolution, pro stated I must show how plants could evolve medicinal properties in order to satisfy my burden of proof - instead pro now appears to demand that I be able to fully explain in detail how every individual plant that he can name.
I have answered, fully and in detail, how plants can evolve properties that can have medical effects.
This was covered extensively in Points 1, 2 and 3 covered and extended in all rounds so far.
In Points 5, point 6 andPoint 7I go further and go on to show how DNA repair mechanisms are likely follow the same pattern.
The question:How can [plant] evolve the positive health impact [effect]has been answered in full, and applies to all pros examples.
With the exception of pros personal incredulity, and claims that mutations and evolution don’t happen - despite us having observed both - pro has not offered any rebuttal - con has clearly met his burden of proof, with almost no challenge.
Mutations
Pro again appears to claim all mutations are either prevented, fixed or a new claim that they always lead to infertility.
This is simply unsupported by any of his data.
Organisms can repair some DNA, and as shown, there are mechanisms by which organisms can prevent DNA damage leading to a mutation. It is also the case that infertility can be caused by genetic mutations.
Pro takes this reasonable data, to outrageously claim that all of most DNA damage is repaired, most mutations are repaired and mutations always cause infertility. Thus evolution cannot happen.
As stated, this claim is completely absurd unsupported hyperbolic overstatement of the data he presented.
4.) Pro does not meet his burden
Despite pointing this out of the last 3 rounds: pros argument has simply been:
These plants have therapeutic effects - therefore god.
This is a nonsequitor, and unjustified bare assertion, for which pro does not offer any compelling explanation.
Pro argues that God creates poisons to kill us, and makes our immune system protect us from the toxins he created to kill us, because he doesn’t want us to die; but didn’t do a good enough job, so needed to make plants (some of which he made kill us), heal us.
Pro also claims that mutations can’t happen - as DNA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.
Pros case is simply incoherent.
In the resolution, pro stated I must show how plants could evolve medicinal properties in order to satisfy my burden of proof - instead pro now appears to demand that I be able to fully explain in detail how every individual plant that he can name.
intelligence
n. The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
Help Reduce Kidney Stones: Not all citrus juices are created equal. A recent study found that orange juice, but not lemon juice, can prevent painful kidney stones from forming
uncovered a gene mutation that may provide answers to unexplained female infertility.
NA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.
I heard that olive oil can kill cancer cells. Does that mean that it can actually be used to treat and cure cancer? In light of this news, should we include more olive oil in our diets to prevent cancer
In these sections, I have explained how evolution can create antibiotics, anti-fungals, how DNA repairing mechanism can originate, and how beneficial properties of the immune system meet the criteria of being able to evolve, I explained how olives are able to fight cancer; and used evolution to explain how chemicals can evolve that end up having medicinal properties (and also poisonous and neutral ones)
My burden of proof is to provide an explanation of how medicine can occur in plants via evolution - which I explained generically in R1 - section 3, and again explained further in R3. This burden has clearly been met and exceeded.
Pros argument has been to largely ignore these explanations and then demand I provide more specific explanations of other how plants and medicine originated despite me already having provided a generic explanation.
This is clearly moving the goalposts.
The only case where pro bothered to even make a counter argument to the evolutionary explanation, is by denying mutations.
Pro first said mutations can’t occur, then claimed the mutations that don’t occur cause infertility, and thus mutations and evolution can’t happen.
Pros issue is that I have repeatedly pointed out that evolution via random mutation has been physically observed.
How on earth can pro possibly claim that two things that have been repeatedly observed occurring - don’t occur?
This on its own should be enough to destroy pros entire case.
Moving on though, pro continues to simply assert that evolution can’t occur because some damage fixed, some mutations leads to some infertility, etc: but as I have repeatedly pointed out - pros evidence falls far short of showing that no mutations that could produce evolution can occur - this is simply an unsupported assertion by pro.
Why does pro believe that because some mutations can produce infertility, that all must produce infertility? Why does pro believe that because some damage is repaired, it’s all repaired?
Which forms part of my final point:
4.) Pros case is incoherent.
In the final round, Pro simply restates his case:
Medicine appears “smart”, therefore God.
Let’s presume pro doesn’t believe that chemicals literally have little brains and make rational decisions - and assume the figurative sense.
Firstly: As shown in 1/2/3/5/6/7 - evolution should be able to produce these things to.
Secondly: Pro still falls down to the same assertion he has made throughout:
Medicinal plants are “smart”: on what possible basis, and what possible grounds have you assessed that these plants have complex chemicals for which the only possible reasonable explanation is the existence of a transcendental super being.
Pro has not offered that explanation at any point - leaving me no case to refute.
Worse. The assertions pro does make, are incoherent: as stated in the last round:
“Pro argues that God creates poisons to kill us, and makes our immune system protect us from the toxins he created to kill us, because he doesn’t want us to die; but didn’t do a good enough job, so needed to make plants (some of which he made kill us), heal us.Pro also claims that mutations can’t happen - as DNA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.”
Pros only objection to any of these points is that he did not claim no mutations occur, only the ones that can produce evolution. There are not “mutations”, and “evolutionary mutations” : there are just mutations, so pro is assuredly denying the existence of mutations.
Arguments.
Con has clearly met his burden of proof.
Pro on the other hand, moves the goal posts, denies reality, speculates, asserts and then contorts himself into incoherent knots simply trying to use God to explain the evidence we see.
The idea that God made medicine in plants makes no sense, given pros claims; and is at its base simply an unsupported assertion by pro.
Another troll spam debate (given that he's previously conceded evolution is how life got here, not God, pretty safe to say the trolling is intentional)... Given the amount of copy/paste, vote against pro would be justified on that alone.
1. Didit fallacy
Pro offers his usual didit fallacy (normally each debate stands wholly alone, but at a certain point we can't pretend someone isn't spamming the same drivel), with no explanation for why any god (let alone a random one from the middle east) would have done it (or that they even exist for that matter). Con calls him out on this in a much wordier format. Summary of it from con: "If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place?" Not even getting into the failing to fix said illnesses most of the time.
1. Evolution
Seems to be the better explanation for what is observed (and as for us being able to benefit from eating other carbon based organisms, well the DNA repair is listed by con as "That such enzymes and antioxidants are beneficial to other animals with DNA, is unsurprising and is explainable using EXACTLY the same trial, error and selection principles as outlined in point 1,2 and 3 in R1."), and no counter case is offered to suggest otherwise. Were this Minecraft and there were exclusively beneficial effects, pro might have a case.
S&G should be self explanatory; but pro decided to hide his points behind a wall of bad grammar, missing punctuation, wrong capitalization, extra spaces at random, etc. Con on the other hand was legible.
Sources and conduct would also be warranted, but I am not putting the extra time into them on a troll debate.
Everything is made in numbers
btw the moon is out for about 12 hours a day
" Because of the Earth's rotation, the moon is above the horizon roughly 12 hours out of every 24."
https://www.space.com/7267-moon-daylight.html
"the sun is out for around 12 hours to"
"On average, the sun is in the sky half of each day"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110505171211AAwXyb5&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABETEsraGjl9WeuWaXAAwCy5z_Bmgwz4_DbrHnGhc1Em11SsbjHPrTk5ys4YSdmUrNlzOexkkRlFFIiH9jFf35HHwN2M_UZ6GF-5NRCKbEd69w7AOR7uO5Fii3q4OiboL9Kg7zoVSAQts5pk4J1nLvUwdBCdPBim_f-a97-ATfHj
What a coincidence. The sun is out for around 12 hours each day and the moon is around 12 hours each day.
its almost as if god created the sun to be in the sky for 12 hours. Then created the moon to be in the sky for 12 hours.
God measured the sun time to around 12 hours then measured the moon time to around 12 hours. It was probably once perfect but time breaks things. What are the chances of such a coincidence happening. zero i don't think there is a chance of this happening by chance. Stuff like Monday the sun was out for 11 hours 58 minutes. Then the Moon was out for 12 and 2 minutes.
The amount of time is probably similar to the clocks in our body that run coincidentally on a 24 hour scheduled. Its not like god created everything to run on 24 hours because he created a day to be 24 hours.
Rats are 23.5 on average humans are on average 24.5 on average.
" The body clock, or circadian clock, is an internal clock that keeps track of time. Circadian comes from "circa-diem" meaning "around a day". So in a mouse for example it is about 23.5 hours and for a human its about 24.5 hours."
That's a little close to be an accident. Its almost as if the creator was aware of the 24 hour day cycle when he created the first creatures.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/body-clock-jet-lag
Everything is made in numbers
my hands are exactly the same. This is because god measured Adam and eve and i inherited these preciseness.
My feet has 5 fingers my toes has 5 fingers.God counted out
The sun and moon and planets are all round because god measured them out.
The serval has the same ear design on both ears. To make it proportionate
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10iJpm5ix0BZHXwOMYS1Q9TOW7X_cV4apOOJ-b0AQuwg/edit
all animals have hormone clocks that run about 24 hours
" The body clock, or circadian clock, is an internal clock that keeps track of time. Circadian comes from "circa-diem" meaning "around a day". So in a mouse for example it is about 23.5 hours and for a human its about 24.5 hours."
That's a little close to be an accident. Its almost as if the creator was aware of the 24 hour day cycle when he created the first creatures.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/body-clock-jet-lag
I did not understand your question sorry??
OK my mistake. But i don't drop the case. It still does rely on chance. You still have to say that 32 amino acids appeared out of nowhere and are capable of replicating.
Then there is this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8vBw_GI_s8
10 to the 40 is still pretty high
10 to the 20th is the amount of seconds that have ticked by since life began.
10 to the 16 is the number of cells in your body.
If you're not illiterate, please restate the conclusion of that article? I'll give you a hint; following where your quote left off:
"...If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
"For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth..."
what evidence that it was a god that put it there?
yes i agree with that he said that evolution has an absurd chance of happening. stop trolling me. I have not conceded creation to be wrong. Stop twisting my words.When a evolutionary scientist says that evolution chance of happening is a not going to happen number. I am going to use it against them.
The article said this so i used this against them.
"This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 power of 80"
Remember anything over 10 to the power of 50 is considered so high it is considered impossible. evolution is almost 8 times that
So you admit to using the short article as evidence, and agreeing with it. Given the very next line of it explains why those assumptions of the "creationist argument" are wrong (and you're not illiterate), you've conceded that the creationist argument is wrong. That or you disagree with that article, in which case you would have have shared it as evidence against creationism.
The article said this so i used this against them
"This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 power of 80"
The Article said the chance of life coming via evolution is
"his would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390"
this is a not going to happen number. Yes i do use what evolution scientist say against them.
remember in that video 1 chance to 10 to the power of 50 was consider NL something which meant impossible
Did you or did you not share http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life as evidence for how life really came to be?
pls show me where i said evolution is true Jesus did not exist. What you can not. Because it never happened.
"(given that he's previously conceded evolution is how life got here, not God, pretty safe to say the trolling is intentional)... Given the amount of copy/paste, vote against pro would be justified on that alone."
That never happened. on the other debate you accused me of
"Pro has now conceded that life came into existence in the past rather than the future"
i never stated evolution happened in the future. you the troll. I said Jesus being a past event is just as likely as evolution.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero
i made a mistake
i meant to say you have explained anti fungal and antibiotic. even then i believe my explanation is better. but only those things
i said 4 things when there was only 2 things
I don’t believe in intelligent design. I am pointing out that God is not a reasonable conclusion, and that you’re asserting it despite it not following from the evidence you’ve presented by showing that even if we assume everything you’ve said is true, God is still not the most likely, or the only options.
it's funny you give me 3 options that you believe are more likely to have created DNA over god. 2/3 of them are intelligent design options. you believe in intelligent design you just don't know it. plus they were the first ones you said so you believe it more than the last option. your admitting it takes intelligence to create life.
Trust me that was a joke. People can not even get me to take an aspirin.
LOL
Do not encourage illicit drug use please, minors and maybe even addicts trying to give drugs up are using the website.
Lets all eat some Magic mushrooms
Yess i wanted to debate ramshutu