life is created intelegently
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- n.The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
- n.The faculty of thought and reason.
- n.Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
The theory of intelligent design simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
secret information that is collected, for example about a foreign country, especially one that is an enemy; the people that collect this information
Intellect is the ability to understand or deal with ideas and information.
Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
showing intelligence, or able to learn and understand things easily
the creator of the predators gave these animals big sharp teeth
the creator of the mountain goat gave the goat special feet that make it easier to mountain climb.
The Austrian monk Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was the first person to describe how traits are inherited from generation to generation. He studied how pea plants inherited traits such as color and smoothness, and discovered that traits are inherited from parents in certain patterns.
Darwin's concept of natural selection was based on several key observations:
- Traits are often heritable. In living organisms, many characteristics are inherited, or passed from parent to offspring. (Darwin knew this was the case, even though he did not know that traits were inherited via genes.)
- More offspring are produced than can survive. Organisms are capable of producing more offspring than their environments can support. Thus, there is competition for limited resources in each generation.
- Offspring vary in their heritable traits. The offspring in any generation will be slightly different from one another in their traits (color, size, shape, etc.), and many of these features will be heritable.
Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:Some lice are already resistant to insecticides Insecticides mutate non-resistant liceResistant strains of lice were always there — and are just more frequent now because all the non-resistant lice died a sudsy death. Exposure to lice shampoo actually caused mutations for resistance to the shampoo.Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.The Lederberg experimentIn 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:
- Bacteria are innoculated 1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the "original plate."
- Bacteria grow into colonies 2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies.
- Bacterial copy exposed to penicillin 3. This layout of colonies is stamped from the original plate onto a new plate that contains the antibiotic penicillin.
- Survivors 4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance.
- Survivors on the original plate 5. The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, "did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin?" The answer is no:
When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live — even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before.So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.
For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:
A mostly incoherent debate that is not much fun to read.
Round 1- Arguments to Con
Pro opens with "here is a (very long) list of things god created and also man created. No discernible thesis developed.
RatMan Ks around for a while K1=misspelled title, K2= let's define ID, K3=off definition.
Round 2- Nothing and Everything
As a kind of found poem, Pro's R2 works to a surprisingly moving degree:
(with a little editing)
The houses were getting all flooded
and so they house-evolved and over
millions of years they moved
away from the ocean
so they would not get flooded.
the house evolution
people then moved
to metal houses and how
they house-evolved.
For language a serial killer might write I think Pro's fourth graph serves excellent material:
"firstly if evolution is true were are all the meat eaters who died because they have small teeth. we should have bones of small teeth meat eaters because they when extinct according to evolution. there is none because god created the meat eaters with big teeth because he intends for them to hunt. same reason why a murder uses a sharp knife and not a dull one. do you believe that over millions of years the murder persons knife became sharp because all the dull knifes could not penetrate the killers victim so the dull knife over a million years turned sharp so that it can kill no that is silly"
But I don't think it can be fairly said any thesis is discernible or inferable, Pro's argument is best described as a long list of things in poetic juxtaposition. I'm pretty sure Pro's trying to sell us some turmeric there at the end of R2. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if this debate isn't only about whether or not I would like some turmeric.
RatMan Ks, Ks, Ks,
I think RatMan's
"Turmeric having healing powers and even antibacterial properties is not proof of ID."
is probably sufficient to to refute whatever Pro's offered so far.
Round 3 Thesis, at last
Pro asks:
"is not turmeric traversing the brain via 270 pathways showing high intelligence?
if not what is?'
One of several obvious answers would be blood. Blood is traversing the brain pathways, not turmeric....not necessarily turmeric at any rate and certainly not turmeric only.
Pro posts a link to something called "free, printable mazes for kids." I would not advise people to click on that link or any other. I smell a minotaur. DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS, PEOPLE ! in fact, I'm not sure I still want to be voting on some potentially underpoliced debate.
Fine poetry re-commences:
Can a rock put together a twenty piece puzzle?
Can the rat traverse a rock maze?
Can a god put together a twenty piece puzzle
shall the twenty piece puzzled be praised?
RatMan Ks....Ks, Ks, Ks.
Round 4 Horrible Stupid Stuff
Horrible stupid stuff totally unrelated to this debate.
Highlights?
"here is i pet goat 2 the satanic video. its a bit brain washy so be careful!"
(I prefer to read this part out loud in a high, nasal voice. Try it now. See?)
RatMan Ks horrible stupid stuff cuz wtf, right?
Round 5 Grand Guignol
We've entered a sort of end of the river, Heart of Darkness scenario now.
Pro admits spelling intelligence wrong and is now probably going to prepare for the end of humanity.
Pro blames Satan and wishes he'd talked more about turmeric.
[In my mind, I am Marlon Brando, self-tattooing my bald pate as I recite:]
God
Being Aware
That non-white
bears would not
survive well in the snow
God making
them white
in the snow white world
would fit perfectly
with intelegence [sic]
Con Ks his ways to victory. Mistah Kurtz? -he dead.
Sources to Con because Pro posted weird links to irrelevancies like homeopathic pharmaceuticals and brain washy mazes. I'd award points if I could.
Conduct to Con because Pro creeped me out with weird links to irrelevancies like homeopathic pharmaceuticals and brain washy mazes, interfering with this debate's readability. I'd award points if I could.
(don't click on any links, people)
Pros entire argument is predicated on the idea that A is suited for B, and as a result A was intended to be used for B.
Pro actually does a good job of making this feel intuitive by using examples of human design to illustrate the point. However it is a bit old argument from incredulity at its heart - relying on incredulity as to how such seemingly matched functions could somehow not be designed.
Cons response in his opening round is basically demanding pro actively prove that there is a creator that intentionally designed life. I agree to a point - but I expect con to provide his own proof.
Pro mostly ignores cons argument and simply throws more examples and implausibilties - the same old argument from incredulity.
Con does better in R2: he provides a very generalized argument from evolution. But it’s a bit of a mess - he doesn’t cover the main issues pro raises, by taking just one specific example, and providing an evidenced explanation (not of the evolution itself - but how that trait can arise using evolutionary principles). Cons explanation here is so generic it’s more like waving a magic wand than an explanation.
Pro goes on to raise a series of issues with pros argument, and while a bit repetitive clarifies his issue: his brain example and pathway was a bit sloppy, but his argument about tracing DNA was good, at setting up a falsifiable question.
Con at this point should have knocked this debate out of the park, as tracing ancestry should have been trivial, however cons round 3 seems mostly irrelevant to the debate - talking about mutations being random rather than dealing with any of the issues raised.
The next round was accidentally skipped due to the posting - and isn’t being considered as there are no argument.
In the final round, pro raises a series of similar issues to the ones already raised and answers cons question about why evolution happens if it doesn’t need to. Pros response was that life doesn’t evolve. This is not a great answer, but is unrefuted by con - as are the remaining points.
Other than objecting to pro raising additional points (which are mostly variations on the same point) - con has no response.
While I believe pros argument is factually lacking, it is still based on what appears to be an intuitive basis.
Con plain and simply doesn’t do enough to explain why pros examples are wrong and provides not much more than a generalized explanation that doesn’t fully address the points made by pro. The inability of con to rebut directly refute any point raised in R3 - and to not offer any real argument after his round 2 (R3 appears to be almost completely irrelevant), basically makes it impossible for me to take his side - on one of the few topics I feel can almost invariably be a complete slam dunk win for con with only a trivial amount of effort.
This debate was just sad. Con barely tried to refute anything, and Pro’s points were not well articulated and he ended up repeating himself a lot.
R1
Pro shows examples of fine tuned creatures that look as if they were intelligently designed. Con refutes this by showing evolution as a counter theory. My problem firstly is that Con is relying on copy-pasted quotes for almost the whole entirety of his arguments. That’s lazy debating. Secondly, he doesn’t elaborate on evolution at all.
R2
Pro uses a hilarious housevolution example that I thought was very clever. It was clearly hypothetical, but Con responds by explaining how houses are actually built. He ignores the underlying message of the hypothetical situation and doesn’t address what Pro is actually trying to say. He then shows how ID works and falls back on natural selection some more. Once again, he doesn’t explain the evolution point fully in its relation to the debate. This was very annoying.
R3
This was much better for Con. Pro essentially reiterated the same arguments, but Con elaborated on the evolution theory and showed experiments where new genes popped up in a gene pool. This was a much better counter to Pro.
R4
There’s nothing to judge here because Pro accidentally posted a different debate argument into it.
R5
Pro reiterates more arguments and also addresses some of Con’s points. Con doesn’t even bother to respond, so I have to give this round to Pro. You must respond to as many points as possible.
Conduct
Con relied too heavily on quotes for the majority of his argument, he frequently was a little rude to Pro, and he cursed. This was very annoying to me. In addition, he didn’t bother to write arguments for the last two rounds. On the other hand, Pro accidentally posted the wrong debate argument.
Grammar
Pro’s grammar and spelling was horrible. Con would get this point if the voting system was regular.
So, overall, I have to give arguments to Pro. Con simply failed to rebut them enough, and he relied on quotes way too much. This was a very disappointing debate, and I think that Con could have easily won had he tried to rebut in all of the rounds and explained his pointe in his own words. In addition, his conduct was worse, but Pro’s grammar was worse. These cancel out, leaving just arguments, so because of that, Pro wins.
First vote, yeeeeee
i posted the wrong rebuttal. that suppose to go to a conspiracy debate im doing lol.
If all intelligence came from intelligence, then who made that intelligence?
Who made the intelligence of the intelligence?
Who made the intelligence of the intelligence of the intelligence?
Who made the intelligence of the intelligence of the intelligence of the intelligence?
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
i would disagree with that. intelligence is a being who is capable of thought and able to hold knowledge then apply said knowledge.
Id say intelligence is defined by observation and human perspective. The notion of God undermines randomness and gives rise to the potential of predestination and fatalism. If we can prove humans are omniscient and therefore contribute and define intelligence through knowing rather than perceived observation, then we can conclude the existence of a guiding force or God is non existent.
When people are so frail that they have to make up fairy tails that violate every law of the universe just to get through the God Damn day I get sad and lose hope in humanity.
Intelegently isn't even a word therefor pro automatically loses.