Instigator / Pro
3
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1262

It is a fact that God put medicine in plants

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
7
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

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

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@billbatard

I did not understand your question sorry??

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@crossed

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?

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@crossed

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"

-->
@Barney

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

-->
@crossed

Did you or did you not share http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life as evidence for how life really came to be?

-->
@Barney

pls show me where i said evolution is true Jesus did not exist. What you can not. Because it never happened.

-->
@Barney

"(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

-->
@Ramshutu

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

-->
@crossed

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

Trust me that was a joke. People can not even get me to take an aspirin.

LOL

-->
@crossed

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