Instigator / Pro
9
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1548

God colored animals intelligently

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

I have to prove god chose to color animals intelligently.

Here are some Painting in this google docs. To where there colors were chosen intelligently.To get the idea of what i have to prove god did with his animals.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/147_flFnmew32RKdsf65iDES77VY3NuAmyAPnBI_mEFs/edit

Cons job is to tell me why my animals colors were not picked the same way as these drawing's of dragons.

I will put my debate in a google docs. So i can use picture's feel free to do the same.

I procrastinate. Will be long debate

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Simply put, "repeatedly asserting that life was coloured by God is neither a rational nor sufficient to meet his burden."

Conduct for forfeiture. Admittedly very confused by pro's outburst "Are children who clean chimney black children"?

On arguments, con was able to effectively counter the painter comparison made by con. Were con to show God coloring anything, he would likely win, but us having seen the painter and not seen God, leaves us with no reason to suppose God was involved. Repeating a million times that God did it, is not evidence that God in fact did anything.

A highlight of the debate was con explaining the generational decay on hypothetical self-replicating paintings, which might slowly adapt to their environment in response to various pressures. He opened up a potential concession had pro been able to explain how to identify which were colored by God and which were from random chance; to which pro refused to show the difference. Tying to pro's own arguments he later tried to reject, made this particularly effective.

Sources which showed how animals (such as dogs) change color across generations without God (not to mention that sad one about white furred animals dying out), tipped the debate such that the burden of showing God's recoloring became necessary for pro to be taken seriously; but he stuck to assertions rather than giving evidence. Pro in quoting some of these references without responding to them, only enhanced this impact. In contrast (this is where pro really lost it), pro used a source to show that moths have not changed but merely look different due to exposure to smoke... Said source actually insists it's a genetic thing, so even pro's own evidence is against him.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con ff the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct