God Created DNA
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.
our actions effect our DNA
Mutations occur if the repair mechanisms re-attach the wrong piece of DNA back together
cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence.
. Chlorophyllin is one of the most promising agents to protect against these deadly gene mutations.
Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.
The bible states God will punish Sins of the parents to the 3rd or 4th generation of children.
“‘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.
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.
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.
Terabyte (TB) - 1 TB is equal to 1024 GB.
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
765 pointI 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.
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.
And when they mated in front of the white-streaked branches, they gave birth to young that were streaked, speckled, and spotted.
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...
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.
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.
1.) DNA is complex
Pro does not contest thus.
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.
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.
“‘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 existC1: A more intelligent creator than humans exist and created DNA
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.