Instigator
Points: 2

God created Dna

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:

Point 1
Religious people have genes that are all rainbows sparkles and sunny. But that same gene in atheist is all dead has rain clouds going all over it and is just depressing looking. but sure that does not prove god exists.
Paul post. in the video he post's about them trying curing religious with vaccines





Point 2
Bill Gate said

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.

We always here how things found in nature are ten billion times more advance then invention done by are smartest humans. But we are still to stupid to realize that the reason why things found in nature are more advance then inventions done by are smartest people is because the one creating it is a billion times smarter then our smartest people.aka god





point 3

our actions effect our DNA

so if a kid decides to not obey his parents and steal from a cookie jar. That effects his genes and That action is going to be passed down to his children.


so if i am an alcoholic My DNA changes and my kid is most likely  going to be an alcoholic.


If i have sex with a bunch of females. MY DNA will change and my  children would get that DNA and would repeat that.


Sins of the father are the sins of the son.


If i do a bad thing like watch porn and get addicted to it. my genes will change where my children would most likely be addicted to porn 3 to 4 generations.


This is exactly how many generations the bible said the the sins of the father would effect there kids.


Bible says that sin will be past down 3 to 4 generations


Scientist say genes we get by doing sin will be past down 3 to 4 generation.

3 to 4 generation exact same number




point 4

There DNA repair foods. Why would plant's have properties that repair dna. Firstly the creator would have to have knowledge on what DNA is in order to create something that repair dna. and how does it have knowledge on how to repair it.


The kiwi fruit industry wanted to know what medicinal purposes there plant had. so they funded a bunch of experiments. They found that when you consume a kiwi you repair 5 genes.




By video 2 They went forward with there experiments. But with other fruits and they found that the group that ate 4 different kinds of berries with  kiwi  repaired 25 genes. They ate bilberry raspberry blackberry kiwi and strawberry and repaired 25 genes. 5 genes per fruit.precise number 5



turmeric was given to smokers and there DNA damage rate was returned back to a normal person.





Published:
Thanks, crossed.

DEFINITIONS

God is definied as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [1]

Created is the past participle of create which is to bring (something) into existence. [2]

DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material which is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. [3]

RESOLUTION:  God created DNA.

PRO has offered no explanation for thesis.  PRO's points don't help much for defining these.  CON interprets the resolution to mean GOD made the acids that make up chromosomes.  We should not that neither the God of Abraham or any of his prophets, apostles, or disciples have documented such a claim.  CON is assuming that PRO believes that the God of Abraham created everything and so PRO is assuming that DNA is just part of that everything.  PRO has not taken any time to establish the existence of God or God's role in creation.  CON does not take these elements for granted.  PRO must prove the existence of God to win this debate.

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia advises:

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.  This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". [4]

Since PRO is make an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on PRO to justify and substantiate God's works with extraordinary evidence.

Point 1

"Religious people have genes that are all rainbows sparkles and sunny. But that same gene in atheist is all dead has rain clouds going all over it and is just depressing looking. but sure that does not prove god exists.   it is in Paul's post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/455/this-should-not-be-in-the-science-forum Paul post. in the video he post's about them trying curing religious with vaccines"
Paul's post is pure poppycock.

  • There is no Pentagon room #BC232.  All pentagon locations use and XXYY format where XX=(Level Letter, Bldg. Letter) and YY=(Room 0-99)  There are no 3 digit room locations in the Pentagon. [5]
  • The picture itself is from a 2010 study of temporal lesions in a patient with a history of methamphetamine abuse, refuting the video timestamp. [6] 
  • The two brain pictures are obviously of the same brain so we are not comparing different brains.
  • No rainbows sparkles or rain clouds are indicated in either picture.
PRO's evidence is 100% fabricated by inept conspiracy theory provocateurs  running multiple fundraising websites.

Point 2

Bill Gate said

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.

We always here how things found in nature are ten billion times more advance then invention done by are smartest humans. But we are still to stupid to realize that the reason why things found in nature are more advance then inventions done by are smartest people is because the one creating it is a billion times smarter then our smartest people.aka god

Bill Gates wrote that in his book,"The Road Ahead" in 1996.  What was true of computers in 1996 is seldom true today.  For example, between the publication of "The Road Ahead" in hardcover and its release that fall in paperback, Gates  realized he had "vastly underestimated how important and how quickly the internet would come to prominence," and entirely updated his book (as well as redirecting the course of Microsoft).

Since 1996, the maximum number of instructions carried by DNA has remained constant around 3 billion.
Obviously, software capacity exceeded DNA complexity at least by the time that the human genome project coded and sequenced DNA in 2001.

Of course, advancement is all about complexity, most modern coding is far more efficient than DNA's super-redundancy.

PRO assertion that natural coding is "ten billion times more advance [sic]" than human coding is based on 20 year old information and no longer true.


point 3

our actions effect our DNA

so if a kid decides to not obey his parents and steal from a cookie jar. That effects his genes and That action is going to be passed down to his children.
I am an alcoholic My DNA changes and my kid is most likely  going to be an alcoholic.
If i have sex with a bunch of females. MY DNA will change and my  children would get that DNA and would repeat that.
If i do a bad thing like watch porn and get addicted to it. my genes will change where my children would most likely be addicted to porn 3 to 4 generations.

CON challenges these assertions- PRO must show that minor acts of disobedience, alcoholism, and number of sexual encounters are genetically recorded.


Sins of the father are the sins of the son.
This is exactly how many generations the bible said the the sins of the father would effect there kids.
Bible says that sin will be past down 3 to 4 generations
Scientist say genes we get by doing sin will be past down 3 to 4 generation.
3 to 4 generation exact same number
CON sources an evangelical church specializing in defining proper sexual behavior.  The source does assert that genetic modifications are evidence of curses from God.  We know that genetic mutations have the capacity to endure for far longer than a few generations.  What science supports the idea that genetic changes only last 3 or 4 generations?

Also, PRO's source, Dr. Ted Roberts, explicitly states:

"The good news is that even if epigenetic modifications are passed onto your offspring, they are reversible. In other words, it is possible to break the curse."
God's curses can (astonishingly)  be reversed by buying Robert's 6 DVD set of Robert's sex advice for the low, low price of $200.  IF Robert's claims is true and God's works can be undone by purchasing DVD, then the God described does not match in power the God of Abraham offered by PRO, who's will and works are reportedly irresistible by mankind. [6]

point 4

There DNA repair foods. Why would plant's have properties that repair dna. Firstly the creator would have to have knowledge on what DNA is in order to create something that repair dna. and how does it have knowledge on how to repair it.


The kiwi fruit industry wanted to know what medicinal purposes there plant had. so they funded a bunch of experiments. They found that when you consume a kiwi you repair 5 genes.

By video 2 They went forward with there experiments. But with other fruits and they found that the group that ate 4 different kinds of berries with  kiwi  repaired 25 genes. They ate bilberry raspberry blackberry kiwi and strawberry and repaired 25 genes. 5 genes per fruit.precise number 5


Individual cells have an inherent capacity to repair their own DNA.  CON finds no evidence that Kiwi (or any fruit) directly impacts these processes.

turmeric was given to smokers and there DNA damage rate was returned back to a normal person.

This is false.  Wikipedia reports:

"According to a 2017 review of over 120 studies, curcumin [turmeric] has not been successful in any clinical trial, leading the authors to conclude that "curcumin is an unstable, reactive, non-bioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead". The US government has supported US$150 million in research into curcumin through the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and no support has been found for curcumin as a medical treatment." [8]

PRO never connects evidence to thesis.  So even if PRO had proved that all religious folks have sparkly rainbows in their brains, PRO never explained why this evidence of creation by the asserted Abrahamic God (Buddha was religious, for example, so Buddha would have had the alleged rainbow brain.  But wouldn't Buddha's rainbow brain serve as evidence disproving an Abrahamic God as supreme?  In any case, all four of PRO's arguments have been shown to be false, based on sloppy or outdated information or full out lies propagated to bilk money from the gullible.   PRO's entire case collapses into a foundation of pure bunk.









Round 2
Published:
Thanks for taking this

Point 1
Who said this happened at the pentagon

No rainbows sparkles or rain clouds are indicated in either picture.
that was a metaphor
Point 2

Con brings up that it was 18 years ago when bill said that OK.
Harvard cracked into DNA storage and discovered one gram of DNA holds 700 terabytes worth a data.
My modern computer can barely hold 20 GB
clearly DNA is more advance then today's computer

The human brain is like a car engine/computer.

Saying an explosion brought a human is like saying an explosion brought a airplane. People seem to not get the reality of this statement of fact.

Saying an explosion created the human brain is like saying an explosion created an 2019 hd computer. people do not get the reality of this statement of fact.

Point 3

CON sources an evangelical church specializing in defining proper sexual behavior.  The source does assert that genetic modifications are evidence of curses from God.  We know that genetic mutations have the capacity to endure for far longer than a few generations.  What science supports the idea that genetic changes only last 3 or 4 generations?

Yes some mutations are forever. But this is not a mutation this is the turning of and on of genes. I had yellow hair when i was little. But as i got older that gene turned off.

Con goes on about them selling stuff at a high price. there is nothing wrong with that.

Point 4
Individual cells have an inherent capacity to repair their own DNA.  CON finds no evidence that Kiwi (or any fruit) directly impacts these processes.


Watch last 30 seconds of last video


point 5
Turmeric has been under attack by big pharma because of the threat it poses.

Even the mayo clinic talks about turmeric


RO never connects evidence to thesis.  So even if PRO had proved that all religious folks have sparkly rainbows in their brains, PRO never explained why this evidence of creation by the asserted Abrahamic God (Buddha was religious, for example, so Buddha would have had the alleged rainbow brain.  But wouldn't Buddha's rainbow brain serve as evidence disproving an Abrahamic God as supreme?  In any case, all four of PRO's arguments have been shown to be false, based on sloppy or outdated information or full out lies propagated to bilk money from the gullible.   PRO's entire case collapses into a foundation of pure bunk.

The gene is activated when you are religious. God has not seem to specifically create it for Christianity. But it is the act of being religious itself that activate this gene
Published:
Thanks, crossed.

DEFINITIONS

PRO has not objected to any of CON's proffered definitions.  R1 definitions stand.

RESOLUTION:  God created DNA.

In R1, CON interpreted the resolution to mean that PRO must prove the existence of God to win this debate.  PRO has not countered or objected to CON's interpretation.  Therefore, the onus is now PRO's to prove God.

BURDEN of PROOF

The Burden of Proof is entirely PRO's.

IN R1, PRO offered four false and baseless assertions:

Point 1

In R1,

PRO argued that the genes of religious people are shinier than irreligious genes and submitted one amateurishly doctored video as evidence.

In R2

Pro withdrew the claim, suggesting the intent was merely rhetorical:

"that was a metaphor"
Leaving Point 1 without any assertion to refute.  VOTERS and CON may safely disregard Point 1

PRO asks,
"Who said this happened at the pentagon?"
The answer is that PRO did, when PRO submitted evidence with a fake Dept. of Defense ID number and a fake Pentagon room number in the upper left hand corner.

Point 2

In R1,

PRO argued that DNA is more advanced than modern software.  As evidence, PRO relied on a 23 year old quote from Bill Gates.  Gates statement was possibly true in 1996 but certainly untrue in 2019.  Since human software is now able to encapsulate, code, and display the human genome in one piece of software, that software must be, definitionally,  more sophisticated than the subject represented.

In R2,

PRO concedes the point:

"Con brings up that it was 18 years ago (*) when bill said that OK."
* [1996 was 23 years ago]

Point 2B

PRO offers instead a new piece of evidence:

"Harvard cracked into DNA storage and discovered one gram of DNA holds 700 terabytes worth a data."
OBJECTION:  PRO has changed the standard for comparison from advancement (sophistication) to capacity (size).

OBJECTION:  PRO compares the storage capacity of one thing (1 computer) to the storage capacity of  at least 1 billion things (1 gram of DNA). 

The mean weight of one human cell is roughly one nanogram, one billionth of one gram. [1]  PRO wouldn't assert that one piece of paper has more capacity for storing the written word than a modern computer- but a billion pieces of paper might.  If I organized trillions of grains of sands into a binary code where quartzite grains represent 0s and non-quartzite grains represent 1s- I might theoretically exceed the storage capacity of modern computer but that does not serve as evidence that sand is more sophisticated than a computer, does it?

Furthermore, PRO failed to read the original study which explains that all that capacity was used to convert: [2]

" an html-coded draft of a book that included 53,426 words, 11 JPG images and 1 JavaScript program into a 5.27 megabit bitstream"
In fact, the Harvard scientist's own book entitled "Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves in DNA" [3]

I think PRO would have to agree that most modern small computers (an iphone for example) can handle storage for one 300 page book.  The fact that billions of strands of DNA must be extracted, encoded, stored, and read to emulate the job performed by 300 pages of printed paper suggests less sophistication, not more.

PRO uses his personal computer's 20Gb hard drive as a standard of comparison but the current recommended average hard drive capacity for a medium usage PC is 25 times that- about 500Gb. [4]

PRO's argument remains decades out of date and if ever true, no longer true.   Point 2 stands refuted.

PRO continues:

"Saying an explosion brought a human is like saying an explosion brought a airplane. People seem to not get the reality of this statement of fact."
PRO may count me is with the rest of "people" here- PRO's intent is entirely obscure.

Point 3

In R1,

PRO argued that sin is recorded in human DNA and transmitted down for 3 or 4 generations in accordance with biblical teaching.

CON noted that PRO's argument is refuted by PRO's source- since that source claims that trans-generational curses can be dispelled by buying $200 worth of DVDs from that source.  Since an omnipotent being's works would not, by definition, be reversible by human intervention PRO's source refutes PRO's claim: either the source is truthful and trans-generational curses are not the work of an omnipotent god (refuting PRO's claim) or the source is false and PRO's case unsubstantiated.  

Either way, PRO has still failed to offer evidence that sin is recorded in DNA & failed to show how God deactivates curses after 3 or 4 generations. 

In R2,

PRO countered irrelevantly  that DNA can switch on/off and that there's nothing wrong with selling stuff that purports to reverse God's will.  CON's argument was dropped.

Point 3 stands unsubstantiated and refuted.

Point 4

In R1,

PRO argued that eating Kiwi repairs 5 genes.  CON argued that cells repair genetic damage by replication which process  is in no way dependent upon or linked to Kiwi fruit.

In R2,

PRO countered that CON should watch the last 30 seconds of the video provided as evidence.  Of course, CON always reviews all evidence before replying.

We should note that PRO's source has a history of exaggerated claims:
"Retired physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known as a skeptic in the medical community, has written that, while it is well-accepted that it is more healthy to eat a plant-based diet than a typical Western diet, Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk, he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims." [5]
PRO has dropped the argument,  CON's Point 4 counterargument stands unrefuted.

Point 5

In R1,

PRO made a second argument under Point 4 which is now re-labeled as Point 5.  PRO argued that turmeric repairs DNA damaged by tobacco use.  CON countered that there are no known therapeutic uses for turmeric's active ingredient, curcumin and the USFDA does not even grant turmeric it's GRAS [Generally Recognized as Safe] designation.

In R2,

PRO dropped the DNA argument but offers a study that found that curcumin applied in controversial doses inhibited cancer cell growth in mice.  So PRO's first claim was that turmeric repaired damaged human cells and when that was refuted PRO now claims that turmeric kills mouse cells.  PRO's arguments contradict one another while nevertheless failing to show any medicinal effect in humans.  Further, PRO fails to show how either proposed property of turmeric might serve as evidence that God created DNA.

As Wikipedia notes:
"In vitro, curcumin exhibits numerous interference properties which may lead to misinterpretation of results.   Although curcumin has been assessed in numerous laboratory and clinical studies, it has no medical uses established by well-designed clinical research." [6]
We might also note that turmeric has been a popular subject for research fraud:

"Bharat Aggarwal was a cancer researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, who as of April 2018 had 19 papers retracted for research fraud.  Aggarwal's research had focused on potential anti-cancer properties of herbs and spices, particularly curcumin, and according to a March 2016 article in the Houston Chronicle, "attracted national media interest and laid the groundwork for ongoing clinical trials".  Aggarwal co-founded a company in 2004 called Curry Pharmaceuticals, based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, which was seeking to develop drugs based on synthetic analogs of curcumin." [6]
Point 5 is self-refuted by PRO.

CONCLUSION

PRO concludes by asserting without evidence that the shininess of genes:
"is activated when you are religious. God has not seem to specifically create it for Christianity. But it is the act of being religious itself that activate this gene." 
This directly contradicts PRO's claim in Point 1,R2 that rainbow sparkle genes were only "a metaphor."  Further, PRO's claim that religiosity is inheritable, if true, should be readily probable by survey and research but PRO finds no evidence backing PRO's claim.  Geneticist Dean Hamer made a similar claim in his 2004 book "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes," [7] but as science writer Carl Zimmer concludes:

"The God Gene might have been a fascinating, enlightening book if Hamer hadwritten it 10 years from now- after his link between VMAT2 and self-transcendence had been confirmed by others and after he had seriously tested its importance to our species. Instead the book we have today would be better titled:
"A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Per-cent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study."

PRO's tactic seems to be to ignore all contradictory evidence and to either assert without evidence or assert with new evidence just as unreliable as the disproved claims of prior rounds.  Although PRO's claims have increased, no reliable evidence has yet been submitted and no connection between evidence and proof of God has yet been drawn.  All of PRO's arguments  have been (again) shown to be nonsensical woo.

I look forward to PRO's R3 reply.

Round 3
Published:

Point 2
Con said

PRO concedes the point:

"Con brings up that it was 18 years ago (*) when bill said that OK."
No i said that clearly what he says still apply today because one gram of DNA can hold 700 terabytes worth of data. Con then goes about how one gram of DNA is not as special as a computer because one gram of DNA is made up of more things.This is con B####### me. But i will play along. No the computer is made up of more things. a computer is made of more mass then a gram of DNA. So the computer is made up of trillion time more molecule then a gram of DNA.


PRO uses his personal computer's 20Gb hard drive as a standard of comparison but the current recommended average hard drive capacity for a medium usage PC is 25 times that- about 500Gb. [4]
700 terabyte. Whats your point.Con number is not even accurate he just went out to try to find the biggest number. It does not even come close reach 700 terabytes. who has a 500 gb computer

point 3
Con then goes on about how they used a complicated way to convert the information into data in the DNA.And try's to tie it into how many tiny strands are in dna. But that is refuted.
Why can a gram of DNA hold more information then a full blown computer.Its because God created it. No matter how much con b###### me 700 terabytes is way more then 500 which is really pushing it. Because this is obviously con trying to find the largest number.
Con has failed to address my point on the generational curse's. and instead try to say it is not accurate because selling DVD for 200 dollars is so evil.

Either way, PRO has still failed to offer evidence that sin is recorded in DNA & failed to show how God deactivates curses after 3 or 4 generations. 

The video in the original source literally states that you could end the curses.Stop B#### me.

BREAKING THE CURSE
The good news is that even if epigenetic modifications are passed onto your offspring, they are reversible. In other words, it is possible to break the curse. “You can go either way. we can pass along both positive things in our life and or negative, depending on the choices we make in life”, said Jennings.
Point 5
As Wikipedia notes:
"In vitro, curcumin exhibits numerous interference properties which may lead to misinterpretation of results.   Although curcumin has been assessed in numerous laboratory and clinical studies, it has no medical uses established by well-designed clinical research." [6]

Big pharma has started a campaign against turmeric.

This should be no surprise since they are doing the same thing with legal weed

The mainstream media appears to be the ally of drug companies. Exaggerated, embellished, and possibly fabricated headlines regularly make bad guys out of natural remedies that evidence suggests protect and heal us.
For instance, a Forbes headline read: “Everybody Needs To Stop With This Turmeric Molecule.” Another publication stated: “Forget What You’ve Heard: Turmeric Seems To Have Zero Medicinal Properties.” The job of these attention-grabbing titles is to warn scientists and consumers that curcumin, and likely turmeric itself, is a “waste of money and time.”
Where is all this coming from? The basis for this attack stems from a paper published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry in January. The perspective review stated that no double-blind, placebo-controlled, human trials (randomized control trials; RCTs) of curcumin have been successful. As a result, news outlets reported that curcumin doesn’t do anything for your health at all.
That’s an over-simplistic conclusion to come to. You see, the media and some scientists will ignore anything that isn’t a RCT. In other words, the first-hand experiences of success using turmeric are deemed as “anecdotal claims.” And thought of as completely worthless. Also discarded are the thousands of animal (in vivo) and cell (in vitro) studies that illustrate the therapeutic properties of turmeric and curcumin.


point 4

PRO countered that CON should watch the last 30 seconds of the video provided as evidence.  Of course, CON always reviews all evidence before replying.
clearly not

Point 1

I don't think con would go through that much trouble to see if the room was real or not. Plus there are all those secret rooms and stuff it is one of the biggest goverment buildings. Plus if they were trying to cure religion .Would they not use  secret room. Con can not have all room number's except if he was important like the president or something. Secondly if you were trying to cure religion would you not use a secret room.


Con goes on about how some article says yes this gene is activated in religious people. But we do not know what it does. Since we can not find what it does we must assume it is useless. It is the appendix all over again.
"The God Gene might have been a fascinating, enlightening book if Hamer hadwritten it 10 years from now- after his link between VMAT2 and self-transcendence had been confirmed by others and after he had seriously tested its importance to our species. Instead the book we have today would be better titled:
"A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Per-cent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study."
Remember the appendix was thought to be useless for over 200 years. If a gene is more active in religious people it means that God made stuff to activate based off faith. Faith is hardwired. Same with my morality debates.



he also try's to say they are different brains but if you put the two side by side the difference is clearly shown. Clearly made to lure sheeple.
PRO dropped the DNA argument but offers a study that found that curcumin applied in controversial doses inhibited cancer cell growth in mice.  So PRO's first claim was that turmeric repaired damaged human cells and when that was refuted PRO now claims that turmeric kills mouse cells.  PRO's arguments contradict one another while nevertheless failing to show any medicinal effect in humans.  Further, PRO fails to show how either proposed property of turmeric might serve as evidence that God created DNA.
I never said turmeric kills the good cells in mice??


I said
"Saying an explosion brought a human is like saying an explosion brought a airplane. People seem to not get the reality of this statement of fact."
PRO may count me is with the rest of "people" here- PRO's intent is entirely obscure.

dam don't you think your special. 'pro count me with the rest of people'. Your so much better then everyone.everyone should stroke your ego. My intent is not obscure.Clear points
Published:
Thanks, crossed.

DEFINITIONS

PRO has not objected to any of CON's proffered definitions.  R1 definitions stand.

RESOLUTION:  God created DNA.

In R1, CON interpreted the resolution to mean that PRO must prove the existence of God to win this debate.  PRO has not countered or objected to CON's interpretation.  Therefore, the onus is now PRO's to prove God.

BURDEN of PROOF

The Burden of Proof is entirely PRO's.

Point 1

In R1, PRO argued that the genes of religious people are shinier than irreligious genes and submitted one amateurishly doctored video as evidence.
In R2, PRO argued that the claim was merely metaphor. 
  • PRO denied that the fake video was claiming to be shot in the Pentagon.
In R3, PRO argued that the religious gene is like the appendix, because science does not understand what it does. 
  • PRO claims the fake video was shot in a secret room in the Pentagon, consistent with the Govt.'s plan to cure religion.  Except for the obviously overdubbed, doctored video, PRO offers no evidence for secret rooms in the Pentagon or Govt. programs to eradicate religion.
  • PRO concedes CON's R1 argument, that the two brains shown side by side in the fake video are clearly of one brain.  At 9:00 in  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd6u5Los-VM&feature=youtu.be&t=468 the fake video claims to show different VMAT2 expressions via FMRI in two individuals, one religious, one not.  Con concedes here that his evidence is faked.
VOTERS will note that R1 is self-refuted by R2 and R3, while R3 also refutes R2.  PROs claims are refuted by PRO's alternate claims.
Point 1 is unclear and unsubstantiated.

Point 2

In R1,  PRO argued that DNA is more advanced than modern software.  As evidence, PRO used  quote from Bill Gates which was shown to be no longer true.

In R2, PRO dropped the software argument and argued that billions of strands of DNA can store more information (700Tb) than a small computer with 20Gb hard drive.  But since all that 700Tb of data was used to encode a single 300 page book, PRO's argument for  "more advanced" fails

In R3, misses the point and insists that 700Tb of storage used to encode one book is necessarily more sophisticated  than a 20Gb hard drive encoding hundreds of 300 page books, inefficiency be damned.

VOTERS should note PRO has failed to show that DNA is more sophisticated than software, much less explained why DNA sophistication serves as evidence of God' manufacture.

Point 3

In R1,

PRO argued that sin is recorded in human DNA and transmitted down for 3 or 4 generations in accordance with biblical teaching.

CON noted that PRO's argument is refuted by PRO's source- since that source claims that trans-generational curses can be dispelled by buying $200 worth of DVDs from that source.  An omnipotent being's curses would not, by definition, be reversible by simple human intervention.  PRO's source refutes PRO's claim: either the source is truthful and God's curses can be dispelled with a $200 purchase or the source is false and PRO's case is  unsubstantiated.  

Either way, PRO has still failed to offer evidence that sin is recorded in DNA for three or four generations or explain how that proves that DNA is made by God.

In R2,

PRO argued that DNA can switch on/off, which is neither disputed nor particularly persuasive regarding divine intervention.
PRO argued there's nothing wrong with selling stuff that reverses God's curses ignoring that such reversal argues against God's omnipotence.

In R3, PRO continues to miss the point:

The video in the original source literally states that you could end the curses.Stop B#### me.
Agreed-  CON has reasoned that any human capacity to end God's curses argues against the existence or at least the irresistability of God.  PRO has dropped two opportunities to contradict this line of thought.

VOTERS should find that Point 3 stands unsubstantiated and refuted.

Point 4

In R1,

PRO argued that eating Kiwi repairs 5 genes.  CON argued that cells repair genetic damage by replication which process  is in no way dependent upon or linked to Kiwi fruit. PRO dropped this argument

In R2,

PRO demonstrated that PRO's source has a history of exaggerating the benefits of plant-based diets (a single meat meal can cripple arteries, etc.
PRO has dropped the argument.

In R3, PRO again asserts the unreliable source without bothering to defend the source's reliability.  For further evidence, CON directs VOTERS to 1:30 in PRO's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEcPINdIg6c where Dr. Greger complains that the Kiwi industry won't fund a second study.   That the Kiwi industry funded the 2003 study further discredits Dr. Greger and his findings.

VOTERS should disregard PRO's kiwi claims as fake news.

Point 5

CON cited a fairly comprehensive, recent peer-reviewed Journal of Medicinal Chemistry studyl which found that Curcumin is not a good drug candidate, literally stating "much ado about nothing."


PRO calls the study (along with articles in  Forbes and the Houston Chronicle) lies and cites doctorshealthpress.com for evidence.

RationaWiki, for one, advises against any reliance on doctorshealthpress.com as a source of information:

"Doctors Health Press is a website promoting alternative medicine and Big Pharma conspiracy theories.  Its many articles are usually about "a new study" showing some "natural" treatment to be effective, or about some artificial chemical being harmful.   They claim their newsletter has 200,000 subscribers.  They also sell health books  and subscriptions to various paper newsletters of theirs."

"Some of the claims they make include:
  • Big Pharma, the medical establishment, and the powers that be are trying to stop you from finding about the miracle that is homeopathy — it's a good thing Doctors Health Press is here to speak out against the conspiracy! Of course, the conspirators aren't doing a particularly good job at hiding homeopathy, since it's frequently in the news, people talk about it all the time, and practicing homeopathists can be found pretty much everywhere (unfortunately), none of which is attributable to the actions of Doctors Health Press.
  • You, too, can live to be 122 like Jeanne Calment by taking resveratrol, a natural compound found in red grape skin! But wait, that's not all: Doctors Health Press has an even better compound called pterostilbene, which they will graciously sell bottles of to you with loads of free gifts.


If VOTERS  decide that  The Journal of Medicinal Chemistry is a more reliable source of credible information regarding the medicinal properties of turmeric than a website actually selling you turmeric, then VOTERS should find PRO's Point 5 has failed to persuade.

PRO concludes:

I never said turmeric kills the good cells in mice??
PRO's Mayo clinic article citied a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study which found that "controversial" doses of curcumin killed cancer cells in mice.  PRO's original claim was turmeric repairs damage from smoking, then PRO switched to turmeric kills cancer cells in mice without making any note of the distinction. 

PRO never really got around to talking about God, the subject of this debate.  PRO offered 5 DNA related points of evidence.  All 5 points demonstrated a poor understanding of DNA's size, appearance, and function and all 5 points were shown to be inaccurate and lacking in any material evidence of God.

Thanks to crossed for instigating this debate.

Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE CON.


No comments yet
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
1. Some conspiracy theorist...
Pro offers it, and con disproves the validity of it on several grounds.
2. Bill Gates said...
Con proves that Bill Gates has since updated his beliefs, and that software is more advanced than us as of 2001; refuting the idea that something more advanced is required to make something less advanced (like tool progression, we did not start at supercomputers and work our way down to the hammer).
3. Our DNA mutates every time we sin
Con refutes the crazy source for this, and pro offers no reason we should believe it in light of that.
3 (bonus) DVD salesman is greater than God
Con twists pro's words into this, and pro stands by it... Nicely done pro.
4. spam.
5. spam.
I've reviewed the main points, and am not reviewing more spam which doesn't in any way connect to the resolution.
Sources:
Con did extensive research to challenge pro's sources, and even used pro's own Harvard source to prove that he was blatantly misrepresenting the data while trying to move the goalpost away from complexity, and failing even by that standard.