Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

God Created DNA

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Ramshutu
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 3
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  sin coded in genes 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.













Evolution is not real


point 5

Mutations occur if the repair mechanisms re-attach the wrong piece of DNA back together
Why would a mistake turn a monkey into a human.


point 6

our DNA repair system sends out mechanism which prevent mutations.so evolution is impossible

cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence.
a radio paster originally said this chuck

Point 7

. Chlorophyllin is one of the most promising agents to protect against these deadly gene mutations.

Chlorophyll makes Chlorophyllin. Chlorophyll is what makes plants green. so it is impossible for all plant eaters to evolve because they eat green grass. which prevents mutations.



Published:
1.) Points of agreement.

To start with, it should be acknowledged that DNA is incredibly complex. It can replicate; it can generate a human if arranged in the correct order, in a cell, and it can produce enzymes that allow it to repair damage to itself. 

As such, for brevity - there is little need for pro to continue list all the incredible things he feels DNA does.

2.)As or More likely than God.

To refute the resolution, I will provide 3 explanations of DNA that are as or more likely than God.

2.a.) The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The FSM is another, non biblical God. If DNA is complex, and requires a creator more intelligent than humans - the FSM matches this description.

2.b.) Aliens.

Super Intelligent Aliens would have the intelligence and ability to create DNA. They would not require extra dimensions, or timeless immortality, omniscience, omnipresence, or to be able to perform miracles.

Due to having fewer metaphysical assumptions - this is more likely an explanation than God.

2.c) Natural processes 

DNA is a chemical, subject to chemical processes and is created and assembled by chemical processes within cells.

Consider A set of chemical process that produces chemical pre-cursors such as nucleotides and phospholipids, that could be assemble into chains and membranes via chemical processes which through a process of millions of years and random assembly, creates a chain of nucleotides that has the chemical properties to catalyze it’s own reaction; which then creates the first replicating genetic proto-cells, which are then able to reproduce, evolve and create life intelligent enough to ask whether it all happened by magic.

The things DNA can do could then be explained by a process of natural selection: where by changes due to copying produce changes in structure. Some changes can be beneficial and aid in survival - leading to a system which produces increasing complexity and behaviours over time.

Given that no external beings are invoked. No process that violates the laws of physics are required, and given that we know DNA can be manufactured by chemical processes already, and we have substantial evidence that this has or could occur [1][2], this process is the most likely and more likely than God.

Rebuttal - point 1

Pro makes bare assertions about the content of religious and atheist DNA. This is unsupported, and irrelevant to the resolution

Rebuttal - point 2

Pro effectively argues the following syllogism:

P1: DNA is more complex than what humans can produce.
P2: Things that are more complex than what humans can produce require a more intelligent creator to exist
C1: A more intelligent creator than humans exist and created DNA
C2: God.

Firstly, pro doesn’t offer ANY evidence or argument in support of P2. Pro gives no reasons why complexity or “intelligence” necessitates the thing being created: essentially meaning pro is beginning the question.

Secondly; pro gives no justification for how he went from C1 to C2. 

Finally: the whole premise is self refuting:

P1: God is more complex than what humans can produce.
P2: Things that are more complex than what humans can produce require a more intelligent creator to exist
C1: A more intelligent creator than humans exist and created God.

Obviously; pros argument is unsound, as it means every creator must necessarily be created by a bigger and better creator - leading to infinite regress.

Rebuttal - point 3

Pro appears to argue that epigenetic damage is proven by the Bible.

The bible states God will punish Sins of the parents to the 3rd or 4th generation of children.[3]

It is unclear why pro considers that minor epigenetic methylation on a DNA strand is substantial enough to be considered the invocation of Gods wrath as stated by the Bible. As such, pro is simply making a bare assertion.

Rebuttal - point 4

This point is a repetition of point 3.

Rebuttal - point 5

Even if Evolution is not true, and is not capable of occurring - this does not mean God created DNA. As such thus point is irrelevant to the resolution.

Rebuttal - point 6

Both mutations and evolution have been empirically observed[4][5][6][7]. Thus, pros claim that evolution can’t happen is refuted by observation.

Rebuttal - point 7

Pro uses a source that shows that a chemical helps reduce (but not eliminate)
DNA damage and mutations from carcinogens.

From this, pro the. asserts that eating grass can be reasonably expected to eliminate all DNA mutations and damage from all sources in all ways to a sufficient degree that it would prevent evolution.

This is a bare assertion and can be rejected.

Conclusion:

Pros arguments are largely irrelevant to the resolution. Pros only topical point is a clearly invalid syllogism. 

In point 2, I have presented 3 potential sources of DNA that are as or more likely than God.



Sources:


Round 2
Published:
I am sorry for taking so long on this. Sorry Ram


Con has three theory's about who created life.in my first point. I point out that only an intelligent being can create DNA and because intelligent is required. God must have done it. Cons answer this by listing 2 other being with intelligent that could have created life. Aliens and flying spaghetti monster and a last one that does not have intelligence natural process. Given that 2 of pros responses are intelligent beings it really helps to prove my point that it could not have come naturally. the reason why i believe my God is the one who created life is because of prophesy like pharmakeai.

Flying spaghetti monster
The flying spaghetti monster was created in 2005 . Anyway the flying spaghetti monster was created to show an ideology. That ideology being its silly to believe in god. An example  being a christian walks up to an atheist. Christian tells of  great god who created everything. atheist response by saying in a mocking tone. I have a god. He point to his bowl of spaghetti. He then says he created the universe and stuff.This ideology is like the believing in Santa is like believing in Jesus ideology. I do not have the ability to  explain it in a way that would make you understand why that is all wrong. All i can do is point out the many facts that show it was Satan who created these ideology. The believing in Santa is like believing in Jesus ideology was created by Satan. Prove of this is that Santa is just Satan rearranged. second proof of this is Santa last name is claws. third proof of this is both Satan and Santa are depicted as red. Satan being a little red horned dude and Santa wearing red. The spaghetti monster ideology makes fun about how silly it sounds to believe in  god and points out that there are many gods. There is also evidence that this was cultivated by Satan. After Satan and his demons were kicked out of heaven they fell to earth and started to make a plan to trick the humans into damming themselfs to hell like they were. They knew that anyone who believed in god would not be dammed. So they went on and forced man to worship them. But they did not call themselfs demons. They called themselfs Gods. The first reason they did this was ego reasons. demons making humans call them God. is like if my boss at work started forcing me and my fellow employees to refer to him as master. Both are ego thing to do. The second reason they did this was to mess with gods word. When they started there was only one God. But each Demon calling themselfs god and having there own religion. It really muddied the water's. and created questions like Which religion is right. Anyway the last one is about how beleiving in  God sounds silly.your right believing in Jesus does sound silly. But it did not sound that way 200bc. So the ideology was made over time to sound silly today.
anyway spaghetti monster was created by a person to mock Christians so it can not happen.
bobby was not around when life was created.




False alien invasion

So the theory says there going to do it again. just like How Demons came down and called themselfs god. in order to muddy the water with all the religion. The demons are going to come back but this time there not going to call themselfs Gods. They are going to call themselfs aliens. There going to do this to get rid of religion. they are going accomplish this by claiming they created life. Remember Demons look like humans but with wings.so they look like humans. you know how in the bible it says god created us in his image. Since the demons look like us they can say they created us in there image. Promoting the idea that they created life. It is also to explain away the rapture with a fake abduction. And they can say all the religions were just them. Which would be correct except for the bible. TV  Shows like ancient aliens do this. Where they show all the evidence that demons calling themselves god and created religions. But just say this is evidence for aliens. anyway they also say the only way mankind would unite is if we were attacked by aliens. so they can do this to bring in the new world order. This has no point i just wanted to state this. My god is right because my god has prophesy that come true. almost 2000 years ago Israel was completely destroyed by Babylon. God prophesy said the nation would be reborn in a single day. Israel was created and declared a nation in a single day in 1948 after the Hitler stuff.


Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.

Isaiah 66:7-8
“Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children.”
ten prophesy came true in 1948. How is that not divine



Natural process
When gene mutate has gone to far. you loose the ability to reproduce. God did this so animals can not turn into other animals like evolution states. so natural process  is impossible
That's why GMO food can not reproduce.

Point 3
Con does not seem to understand


Scientist say sin is past down from the father to the offspring through DNA.

Bible says in different wording Sin is past down from the father to the offspring.

Same exact thing. watch the video in the link if not understood
The bible states God will punish Sins of the parents to the 3rd or 4th generation of children.
It does not say this. he is talking about genetics 2000 years before it was discovered.God said to not punish the son for the fathers sins.
“‘What?’ you ask. ‘Doesn’t the child pay for the parent’s sins?’ No! For if the child does what is just and right and keeps my decrees, that child will surely live.

Point 4
DNA repair fruit was not answered





765 point
I list things that prevent mutations. con dismisses them. He says evolution is observable. I believe mutations can happen that is observable. but another animal can not turn into another animal is not observable.we have not observed another animal turning into another animal. We have not observed a dog turning into a horse. These thing prevent mutations. It would stop an animal turning into another animal. Since it try's to stop mutations it means mutations are a bad thing not a good thing. Why would a mistake turn a monkey into a human.

From this, pro the. asserts that eating grass can be reasonably expected to eliminate all DNA mutations and damage from all sources in all ways to a sufficient degree that it would prevent evolution.

Lies

Published:
1.) DNA is complex 

Pro does not contest thus

2.) As, or More likely than God.

Pros basis for claiming God made DNA is the complexity of DNA requiring an intelligence to make it. Both my examples meet the criteria of being intelligent enough to create DNA but are not God - and thus would refute the resolution.

2.1.) ALL HAIL SATAN

Pro asserts that the concept of aliens and the FSM are produced and manufactured by demons and/or Satan. Pro offers no evidence that Satan even exists. So this can be rejected as a bare assertion.

2.2.) Natural processes

In round 1, I provided a broad (and supported) explanation of replicating DNA based organisms can originate.

Pros response is that evolution can’t occur, due to mutations causing infertility.

Unfortunately, nothing in my argument requires sexual reproduction - or anything more than single cell organisms to exist. Pros objection is irrelevant.

Saying this, in point 6; I show examples of both mutations that don’t cause infertility and examples of evolution being actively observed.

As a result, pros argument is merely denying observed reality.

Rebuttal Point 1

Pro drops this point.

Rebuttal Point 2

Pro drops this point. This argument is fundamental as it demonstrates that pros inherent logic is inherently faulty.

Rebuttal Point 3

The bible doesn’t talk about genetics, or DNA; it talks about “visiting the iniquities” of sin on descendants to the 3rd or 4th generation of the sinner. This is a clear reference to punishment for sin.

It’s absurd for pro to argue that “visiting the iniquities” actually explicitly refers to genetic damage of DNA being heritable. If that’s what they meant, that’s probably what they should have said.

Worse; when the bible is explicit - it gets it wrong: for example, the bible claims you can feed animals striped and spotted food and it will give birth to striped and spotted children...

https://biblehub.com/genesis/30-39.htm

Rebuttal Point 4

Pro claims I did not address this. This claim was simply the same repetitive claim as point 2 (DNA is complex), and was covered there.

Rebuttal Point 5/6/7

Pro drops these key explanations

We observe mutations, we observe evolution: thus pro cannot possibly claim that mutations and evolution cannot occur. Pro asserting that evolution cannot happen, and mutations do not occur is literally refuted by reality as shown in point 6.

DNA damage maybe fixed, some mutations may lead to infertility. This doesn’t mean ALL DNA is repaired, or all mutations lead to infertility.

Conclusion:

Pro drops my explanation of how DNA can arise naturally. Pro also drops the core rebuttal of his argument.

Round 3
Published:
DNA is complex and advance. and requires more knowledge  thinking and intelligence to create DNA then it does a computer

Con agrees with me that DNA is complex. DNA is more Advance than Computer software.I prefer the word Advance more then  Bill Gates said DNA is like computer code But far more advance.Harvard was able to shove 700 terabytes worth of data in a single gram of DNA. To put this in perspective My new computer holds 20 GB Of storage. Humans used great knowledge thinking and intelligence to create my computer. But God used 700 thousand times knowledge and thinking and intelligence then the human when creating DNA. He used 700 thousand times more knowledge thinking and intelligence to create that one gram of DNA. And yes god used  exactly 700 thousand times More knowledge and thinking and intelligence to create that one gram of DNA. 1000 GB is 1 terabytes

Terabyte (TB) - 1 TB is equal to 1024 GB.



This supports my Claim

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

The reason why DNA  is a billion  times more Advance then a computer. Is because the one created it is a billion times  smarter then any human.




Firstly i said this


765 point
I list things that prevent mutations. con dismisses them. He says evolution is observable. I believe mutations can happen that is observable. but another animal can not turn into another animal is not observable.we have not observed another animal turning into another animal. We have not observed a dog turning into a horse. These thing prevent mutations. It would stop an animal turning into another animal. Since it try's to stop mutations it means mutations are a bad thing not a good thing. Why would a mistake turn a monkey into a human.



Ramshutu said this

Rebuttal Point 5/6/7

Pro drops these key explanations

We observe mutations, we observe evolution: thus pro cannot possibly claim that mutations and evolution cannot occur. Pro asserting that evolution cannot happen, and mutations do not occur is literally refuted by reality as shown in point 6. DNA damage maybe fixed, some mutations may lead to infertility. This doesn’t mean ALL DNA is repaired, or all mutations lead to infertility.

This is annoying. I did not drop my case i said we have observed mutations not evolution. Secondly mutations are not a good thing. Given the extensive list of things That try to prevent mutations how could evolution happen. Why would a mutation create something that prevents mutations. I did not say mutations do not occur. Stop twisting my words. Mutations that are smaller then evolution leads to infertility. So why would not the mutations in evolution lead to infertility. one of my example being real specific being it prevents mutations caused by the environment. not con never explained how they were actively observed just sourced a bunch of sites of scientist observing mutations. There not even the good ones spoken of in evolution. one talks about having the same genes in other animals. But that's because same creator.  Show me in real time an animal or plant evolving to there environment.That has not been observed



Satan
He does exist.The proof being  He created the ideology that believing in Jesus is like believing  in Santa.Proof of this being Santa is just Satan rearranged. They both wear red. And Santa's last name is clause.Clear manipulation by Satan.


Satan makes people rich than haunts them
You  know on how almost all the haunted houses are big mansions. why is it  always rich people and not poor people. I believe that this is because  these houses once belonged to people who had sold there souls to Satan  in exchange for wealth.

The devil made them rich they bought all there luxury  like mansions. but then Satan turned on them and started haunting them. that's why all the haunted houses are mansions and not poor people




Natural process


How can an explosion from nothing produce something. Explain how An explosion can create life.I have only seen evidence that an explosion destroys stuff. Show me evidence that an explosion can create life.Con claims They clone themselfs instead of reproducing this is even better. How can an explosion create something that clones itself

Who comes up with this stuff

So the story goes Jacob makes a deal with a man. Jacobs deal was i will Be your slave for 7 years if you let me marry your daughter and give me every black sheep and spotted sheep that is born. Man goes alright deal. Jacob was being blessed by God so every sheep that was born ended up being black spotted and speckled. God blessed Jacob so when the sheep went to screw each other they ended up being black because Jacob was blessed by god

The reason why they ended up being speckled is because God was blessing Jacob

And when they mated in front of the white-streaked branches, they gave birth to young that were streaked, speckled, and spotted.
Because Jacob made a deal that he gets every spotted sheep. But because God was blessing Jacob every sheep born was spotted

How can you think that this is what it said????? pl it amazes me how much Stuff is thrown at the bible.
Worse; when the bible is explicit - it gets it wrong: for example, the bible claims you can feed animals striped and spotted food and it will give birth to striped and spotted children...
Here man here the bible as an audio book.you need it
Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied. “But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them:
32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages.
God blessed Jacob. So every sheep that as born ended up being spotted. Because Jacob gets to keep the spotted sheep.So he feeds them then makes them breed with each other and they end up spotted because Jacob is being blessed by god.He gets to keep black sheep so god made it so every sheep born is black.


What shall I give you?” he asked. “Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied. “But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them:
32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages.
Laban replied, “If I have found favor in your eyes, then please stay. I have learned through divination that God has blessed me because of you. Name your wages and I will pay them.”
Jacob said to Laban, “You know that your livestock has fared well under my care. What little you had before I came has increased greatly and God has blessed you while I was here. But now, I need to do something for my own household.”
Laban replied, “What can I give you to keep you here?”
Jacob said, “Nothing, but if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them. Let me go through your flocks and remove every spotted sheep and goat and every dark-colored lamb. They will be my wages. My honesty will testify for me in the future whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat or sheep in my possession that is not spotted or dark-colored, will be considered stolen.

If you somehow believe you to be right about Jacobs sheep.I will challenge you to a debate on it later.

Aliens and spaghetti monster

Con dropped these points


Con said

1.) DNA is complex 

Pro does not contest thus.

My reply

You conceded this point.


1.) Points of agreement.

To start with, it should be acknowledged that DNA is incredibly complex. It can replicate; it can generate a human if arranged in the correct order, in a cell, and it can produce enzymes that allow it to repair damage to itself. 

As such, for brevity - there is little need for pro to continue list all the incredible things he feels DNA does.
Rebuttal point 3

The bible doesn’t talk about genetics, or DNA; it talks about “visiting the iniquities” of sin on descendants to the 3rd or 4th generation of the sinner. This is a clear reference to punishment for sin.
It  is clearly talking about bad actions being passed down. Again it is not talking about punishment

“‘What?’ you ask. ‘Doesn’t the child pay for the parent’s sins?’ No! For if the child does what is just and right and keeps my decrees, that child will surely live.
Rebuttal - point 2

Pro effectively argues the following syllogism:

P1: DNA is more complex than what humans can produce.
P2: Things that are more complex than what humans can produce require a more intelligent creator to exist
C1: A more intelligent creator than humans exist and created DNA
C2: God.

Firstly, pro doesn’t offer ANY evidence or argument in support of P2. Pro gives no reasons why complexity or “intelligence” necessitates the thing being created: essentially meaning pro is beginning the question.

I am saying since it took man to use intelligence knowledge and thinking to create computers. God would need to use intelligence  knowledge and thinking to create DNA since it is more advance as well as complex. Stop putting words in my mouth


My other stuff covered this.I am addressing it because of accusations.




Published:
2.) Other examples as - or more likely - than God

In R1, I presented three examples that were more likely to have brought DNA into existence:

2.1.) Flying Spaghetti Monster

Pros only argument as to why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not likely; is to invoke Satan. 

2.2.) Aliens

Pro completely drops this and presented no argument for why aliens creating DNA is less likely than God.

2.3.) Natural mechanisms

I explained the generalized evidence for an abiotic origin of DNA.

Pro incredulously asks in the last round how natural processes could produce life: which was covered in this section in R1.

Pros only presented objection to this is that evolution can’t happen - even though it’s observed to happen, and my argument is not directly related to evolution.

Rebuttal point 1: Atheist DNA is different for religious DNA

Bare assertion, pro hasn’t defended it.

Rebuttal Point 2: faulty syllogism.

I showed that pros logic is inherently faulty, that his argument is a faulty syllogism which requires an infinite chain of creators.

Pro appears to concede that this his syllogism in the last round, and takes it further by asserting without any further analysis that the conclusion must be God.

My argument here clearly shows the faulty Logic Pro is using; and pro has not defended it.

Rebuttal Point 3: DNA damage

As stated the bible talks about “visiting iniquities”, it doesn’t specify DNA damage, but explicitly talks about punishing subsequent generations for what their parents did.

Likewise, Jacob changed the colour of newborn lambs based in the colour of the food they ate.

Pro is simply claiming the Bible represents biology in the first case by preferentially interpreting the passages, but dismissing the second as a magical blessing when it doesn’t agree with biology .

Not only does the bible not say anything about DNA damage, but pro is clearly attempting to cherry pick.

Rebuttal Point 4: DNA repair

This is repetition of the same “DNA is complex” point.

Rebuttal Point 5/6/7

Mutations and Evolution occur: this was shown to be an objective and demonstrable fact in R1.

Pro has simply gone through this entire debate by repeatedly asserting that evolution cannot happen.

As pro has not addressed why humans continually observe evolution if evolution can’t happen : pro has dropped this point.

Pro also has not addressed the logical error of assuming that just because some mutations produce infertility and some DNA damage is repaired, doesn’t mean it all is - thus pro has dropped this too.

Voting issues:Arguments:

In point 2, I offered 3 examples of things as or more likely than God. Pro has offered no coherent objection to any of them.

In Rebuttal point 2, I demonstrate that the key underpinning argument for pros position is logically faulty. Pro has not addressed this.

As a result, pro has not rebutted any of my case, whilst his justification has been destroyed.

Arguments must be given to con

Sources:

I presented multiple key sources from both scientific journals and science media to justify the natural origins of life, DNA; and to show evolution occurs.

Pro has continually used biblical and religious sources: and has only used scientific sources for trivial facts that he has then spun into absurd claims.

As my sources clearly directly support my contention where as pros do not: sources must go to con.

Spelling and Grammar

Cons arguments have been concise, ordered and linked directly to the arguments made. 

Pros arguments have been jumbled mess of points that are neither ordered, nor maintain any coherent numbering; it is near impossible to tell which new and old points are related to what original points he made.

As this clearly makes pros debate near impossible to follow coherently, S&G should go to con too.

No comments yet
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con simply has much better sources and their logic stands much better.
Pro's position on the topic requires that he disproves all other possibilities which is much harder to do than prove a single other possibility. That is like trying to get someone to buy a single style of glasses with one million other options. Pro may want to keep this in mind for his future debates. Don't set yourself up for failure.
False alien invasion -- "How Demons came down and called themselfs god" "The demons are going to come back but this time there not going to call themselfs Gods" "Remember Demons look like humans but with wings" "Which would be correct except for the bible. TV Shows like ancient aliens do this. Where they show all the evidence that demons calling themselves god and created religions" "My god is right because my god has prophesy that come true. almost 2000 years ago Israel was completely destroyed by Babylon." "Israel was created and declared a nation in a single day in 1948 after the Hitler stuff." -- I feel like this is a good example of why pro's arguments stand less well. While this might make sense to Pro's logic and experience it makes hugely less to Con's. Con is atheist and doesn't believe in demons in the first place, so when points like "cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence" because a radio pastor said it and using that as a source, it doesn't do too well against them. Maybe like trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in santa that elves are real, you have to speak in your opponent's terms and on their field to convince them of something.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Firstly, Pro's style and inherent colloquialism makes a clean reading of his syllogism much more difficult to their obvious disadvantage. However, this is unrelated to the argument and is simply a thought for the Pro to consider in future debates.
Con consistently provided sound rebuttals and standard (yet sound) arguments to defend their position. Future recommendations to the Pro would include wording thoughts such that they provide a clear and understandable logical progression. This would also help mitigate some of the stray fallacies not addressed but apparent in their reasoning.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Yet another troll debate abusing Poe's Law to mock religious people...
First of all, credit to pro for the improvements on S&G.
I admit I enjoyed the religious people bleed rainbows opening, but I do wish it had pictures...
So the core of pro's case is that DNA doesn't change, except he argues it spontaneously changes every time we drink or have sex, we pass down altered DNA more likely to repeat those things (which would mean gay people don't exist, and everyone is trying to bleep their own mothers). Con of course lays on proof that DNA does change generation to generation, and links it back to our most likely origin.
Con also counters that the claim God did it, begs for other such gods to be considered; so he brings in the FSM and Aliens. Pro's defense via assertion against the FSM is that all gods are "each Demon calling themselfs god" [sic], and fails to offer any suggestion for why God would not be one of these. Con merely points out that Satan hasn't been proven (and no, Santa Clause does not prove Satan, even if he was inspired by the myth, myths inspiring more myths proves nothing).
Con also offers a syllogism, to which pro drops; that alone could cost pro the arguments (if everything above did not already).
Sources: The existence of a guy named Pastor Chuck v. government and educational sites about evolution; one is just kind of there not doing anything, and the other supports arguments.