There is evidence of Intelligent Design In nature
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
If something I say, likely trying to over explain or answer questions you didn't ask, and you have the patience, you'll never offend me to ask me to pump the brakes.
I recognize where im starting at and feel I have gotten better (with a long ways to go).
I only hope to set fair expectations.
- Scientific Theory - a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation [2]
- Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable [3][4][5]
- Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid [6].
- Real - having objective independent existence [7].
- Nature - The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations [8].
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Beta decay is one process that unstable atoms can use to become more stable. There are two types of beta decay, beta-minus and beta-plus.During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.
Water is a "polar" molecule, meaning that there is an uneven distribution of electron density. Water has a partial negative charge near the oxygen atom due the unshared pairs of electrons, and partial positive charges near the hydrogen atoms. An electrostatic attraction between the partial positive charge near the hydrogen atoms and the partial negative charge near the oxygen results in the formation of a hydrogen bond...The unique physical properties, including a high heat of vaporization, strong surface tension, high specific heat, and nearly universal solvent properties of water are also due to hydrogen bonding.
"The volume of finely tuned parameters which support life and the degree of fine tuning, in my opinion, are more than enough to claim as evidence for design.The sheer scale, specificity, and application of Laws which remain consistent all support for this design to be intelligent. "
- R1
"I'm happy to take one and discuss it specifically in depth. "
- R2
" I would argue the burden here is for me to show there is evidence which, at any level of probability, suggests intelligent design. Thus satisfying the existence of evidence or 'there is evidence of'."
- R3
"But I think theres a case to be made that the probability of intelligent fine tuning given the degree of fine tuning across not just one or two constants, operating at a highly varied scale, is non zero."
- R4
"But again, using probability theory allows for a statement which supports this fine tuning as being evidence, how ever weak, but evidence none the less."
"No qualifications were set for likelihood or strength. The simple existence. A non-zero chance."
"I'm happy to take one and discuss it specifically in depth. "
""But I think theres a case to be made that the probability of intelligent fine tuning given the degree of fine tuning across not just one or two constants, operating at a highly varied scale, is non zero."
- "R4
"But again, using probability theory allows for a statement which supports this fine tuning as being evidence, how ever weak, but evidence none the less."
Quote
- CR1
" We expect order and fine tuning in something like a computer."
- CR2
"I would argue that for an opposing view to be considered, there would have to be some form of facts suggesting it to be the more likely description of reality"
"Or, facts which directly contradict the intelligent design argument. Would you have any to offer?"
- CR3
"How would showing a likihood of design va random. The only thing truly preventing us from creating a even potentially realistic statement is, for any worldview, these are the how did nature start level questions which no world view has proved to be true."
- CR4
"For proof yes. How does a non zero chance of existence exist without evidence?"
- CR5
"What would a standard be to judge the possibility of a being existing outside the Universe?"
" We expect order and fine tuning in something like a computer."
- CR5
"What would a standard be to judge the possibility of a being existing outside the Universe?"
The towel is thrown.
Concession on Pro's part, with a lack of sources as well. Therefore the winner is con
Concession, and Pro didn't source his claims, as Con pointed out. Even so, Pro is improving. I would suggest learning how to source arguments next.
Concession
"At this point I simply must conceed. I have no argument from design within nature to present further. "
The word 'conceed' clearly is a typo of the word 'concede' based on context. Pro has officially conceded the debate in their final Round so I hand the win to Con.
How would you define "proved" for something like the existence of a being who created and exists outside of our Universe?
I would say greater evidence of Unintelligent Design, but hard to say there's no evidence, even if said evidence falls well short of being proof.