Instigator
Points: 2

life is created intelegently

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
crossed
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Points: 1
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:



definition of intelligence

intelligence
  • n.
    The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
  • n.
    The faculty of thought and reason.
  • n.
    Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.

what do all these examples have in common



the creator must have had knowledge that the dog would be hot during the summer so he applied this knowledge and made it so the creature to shed its fur during the summer.



smart humans have knowledge that building a house on a beach is not smart because of flooding so they applied this knowledge and build a house away from the water.


humans in fire country have knowledge that wood houses are flammable so they applied this knowledge and made there houses out of metals


the creator  of the rabbit must have had knowledge that white fur makes it easier to hide in the snow so he designed the rabbits fur to change from brown to white during the winter time and brown during the summer time.


 the creator of the mountain goat gave the goat special feet that make it easier to mountain climb..because he knew it would need them because they live in the mountains


the creator of the car gave the car round wheels because he had knowledge that square wheels do not roll.


the creator of the predators gave these animals big sharp teeth because it needs to kill others.


the murder made his knife sharp because he needs it to kill others

the butter knife is dull because the creator of the butter knife knew it would not need to cut threw anything thick

the creator of herbivores gave them dull teeth because the creator knew that they did not need them to eat flesh so he made it dull.


all these examples are example   of things that are intelligently created. some by man and some by god. god is real thus hell is real repent.

sources


Published:
Semantic Disagreement
Intelligent Design is a phrase and the context of 'Intelligent' (which is misspelt in the resolution and on that alone Pro could be justified to lose) the term means something far superior to normal reasoning or acquire knowledge. In fact, the first definition of the three is completely incorrect and that dictionary website needs to remove it, as they are describing 'intellect' not 'intelligence'. 

Intelligent Design refers to:

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.

^ This is a source on the side of Pro, I will also provide another wording now:
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.

^ This source leans strongly to Pro's side but qualifies as fairly neutral.

When discussing 'intelligence' in the context of this debate with regards to the design and creation of life, we cannot possibly be referring to the first 2 definitions (the first of the two being 'intellect' not 'intelligence'). I will explain why, now.

I want to completely disregard the first definition as being 'intellect' but first I want to explain why you may think that it qualifies as 'intelligence'. The term 'intelligence' as a noun is a slang-term invented by Secret-Agent type Intelligence Agencies that became official English due to them. It is also used by the police, following suit of those organisations, when taking on complex cases. Intelligence as a noun refers to:

secret information that is collected, for example about a foreign country, especially one that is an enemy; the people that collect this information

And this is linked not to the 'intelligence' adjective but instead to 'intellect':

Intellect is the ability to understand or deal with ideas and information.

Instead, the adjective 'intelligent' is actually this:
Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
showing intelligence, or able to learn and understand things easily

So, the fact that the creation and design of it is rational or has logic to it is not enough to say that it was designed intelligently, let alone 'created' in such a manner. Instead, you need to prove that it's very actively done so by an entity (or entities) that were particularly superior to most in the detail and complexity they designed it with beyond what you'd expect of a design that could have logic that doesn't occur by accidental, natural selection.

When Pro lists things like this:

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.
This is completely ignoring that the following concepts justifying the traits in the predators and mountain goat:

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.

Round 2
Published:
alright i do not care what definition of intelligence we use it will all come to the same conclusion .con must answer this what do all my example in my last post have in common.


let me tell you two story's one will feature mans creation the other would feature the creation of god.



mans creation
once upon a time there were humans.  the human that lived near
the beach were intelligent they knew that there houses would be flooded if they built them on the beach so they built them far enough away from the beaches were the houses would not get flooded. another group of people lived in fire country these people two were intelligent. these people knew that wood houses would be destroyed by fire so the intelligent humans made there houses out of metal. these 2 groups of people started to war against each other and nearly eradicated there entire species. the survivors ran in the jungle and lived in the jungle for  thousands of years. over time they forgot that there ancestors built the houses i listed above. these people believed that the houses were formed naturally and they came up with this crazy theory called housevolution. housevolution explains how the houses were formed naturally. the houses on the beach adapted to there environment so over million of years. the houses were getting all flooded so it housevolved and over millions of years and moved away from the ocean so it would not get flooded.the housevolution people then move to metal houses  and how they  housevolved. you see over millions of years the houses were getting destroyed by the fires because it was originally wood so over million of years they housevolved and the houses turned/adapted to metal so that they can survive better in there environment which is fire country. so as a result of this a never ending debate between the housevoluton and creationist began housevolutionist believe that the wood houses  evolved to there environment and became  metal houses that are able to protect themselves from the wildfires.


gods creation
in the beginning god created animals. god was intelligent so he created the polar bear white so that it can hide in the snow. he also created the dog with fur that sheds during the summer because god knew that summers are hot and it would need a way to cool down. god also created the  owl with night vision because nighttime is dark and they would need a way to see. later god takes a nap and wakes up thousands of years later to have to falseness being said against him. those crazy humans he created have created a theory about how life was created  . because they forgot about him. this theory is called evolution it say s that over millions of years the polar bear could not survive in its snowy environment to well so it evolved and its brown fur turned into white fur , so that it can hide better in its environment. the owl was having trouble seeing so over millions of years it evolved and gained night vision so it can see better,. and because of this the evolution vs creationism has been waged


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

and if it was only animals i can see how you would make the claim the survival of the fittest thing happened but it is not because turmeric can heal a damaged brain via 270 pathways as effective as 14 drugs combined


Published:
This housevolution utter nonsense is a strawman fallacy that I, as Con, am neither defending nor proposing... What houses experience is however based on societal evolution (Ev) so perhaps Pro is somehow referring to that being non-genetic. Societal evolution being genetic partially and sociological partially is really nothing to do with this debate but is one of many examples where people who propose Intelligent Design (ID) as an absolute truth keep ignoring the other side by strawmanning what is being said. Houses evolved because the people building them evolved with taste and even knowledge of how to efficiently keep people inside warm (double glazing, thicker walls without air-gaps etc.) in fact even though Pro brought up a total strawman, I have been able to fully elaborate on it and why it still is linked to Ev and not to ID.

ID is based on ignoring that patterns, trends, relationships between things and positive results being linked to consistent traits all are absolutely able to (and far more rationally likely to) result from beings that lacked the traits suited to the environment dying off over time as well as, by pure coincidence at first, there being some sort of pattern (such as number of chromosomes in a certain species' DNA strand or even that randomly a lot of one group had brown hair of a specific chestnut colour) and that simply because the common trait didn't hinder their survival it got passed on. This would mean things such as chin shape being varied across the species yet similar among many of the same ethnicity (not race but races with in race like being slavic as opposed to norse or even chins based on being Japanese and Russian mixed gene-line [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201411/the-past-is-written-your-face] in some etc)

Natural selection works to explain links in traits that help survival (sharp tooth of the predator, legs of the mountain goat) while also reversing the burden of proof onto the ID-advocate for traits that are not necessarily explained away by natural selection such as chin shape. Common traits that didn't help survival but also didn't hinder it would naturally be passed on if many of the ethnicity had it, simply because nothing was there to encourage an alteration.

Turmeric having healing powers and even antibacterial properties is not proof of ID, it also wouldn't be ID even if a holy scripture said to use it for that purpose or that turmeric was holy since that could be entirely based on seeing it had healing properties in the first place or simply be a lucky guess that was never removed from scriptures in later editions as it proved true. Turmeric has no evidence of being designed for us and the first humans to try it out for that purpose have showed no signs of being told to do that by a supreme creator or designer of reality, so far as I can see and I am confused what Pro meant by that entire line of reasoning.
Round 3
Published:
con accuses me of producing a straw man argument when in fact he is the one with the straw man argument. he seems unable to answer a simple question what do all my examples above have in common. the housevolution thing was me comparing a man made object to the ones found in nature. and the things that make the man made object intelligently created aka the house are found in the average animals.


con seems to believe that natural selection happened instead of what i have proposed. he believes that there were once small teeth meat eaters but they all died out and evolved to be big teeth meat eaters. were are all the bones of the small teeth meat eaters that adapted to there nature and grew big teeth. con seems unable to answer this question.


con just proves my point con brings up that we can trace our ancestry back and see the different characteristics that have been passed throughout the generations even the traits that we do not use, so if i had Asian ancestor thousands of years ago we should be able to see them with my DNA. so should we  be able to to trace the ancestry of a large tooth meat eater and see small teeth DNA.

why stop there why can i not have mutant children with a gorilla.my couple millions great grandpa was a monkey. so why can i not reproduce with a monkey.

con said
Natural selection works to explain links in traits that help survival (sharp tooth of the predator, legs of the mountain goat) while also reversing the burden of proof onto the ID-advocate for traits that are not necessarily explained away by natural selection such as chin shape. Common traits that didn't help survival but also didn't hinder it would naturally be passed on if many of the ethnicity had it, simply because nothing was there to encourage an alteration.


but the trait that did not survive should still be in there dna.



con said in round one

Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.



is not turmeric traversing the brain via 270 pathways showing high intelligence
if not what is.


the bible does speak of the turmeric. nothing about its properties that i know of.


alright you believe a bunch of chemicals created the universe. which is like saying a rock or a hurricane created life or even an explosion. but lets assume your right

saying a bunch of chemicals created medicine that can traverse the brain 270 pathways is like saying a buch of chemicals can traverse a rat maze.




brain
can a bunch of chemicals traverse the brain via 270 pathways.


can a rock traverse the brain via 270 pathways


can a hurricane traverse the brain via 270 pathways


can an explosion traverse the brain via 270 pathways


can god traverse the brain via 270 pathways. he can


why is god the only one able to do this


puzzle
can a bunch of chemicals put together a 200 piece puzzle


can a rock put together a 200 piece puzzle


can a hurricane put together a 200 piece puzzle.


can god put together a 200 piece puzzle


rat maze


can a bunch of chemicals traverse a rat maze


can a rock traverse a rat maze


can a hurricane traverse a rat maze


can god traverse a rat maze
Published:
I have three different strategies to take here; cover how intermediary species who can mate with both die off, tribalism of animals and such but I'm gonna just combine 2 strategies; emphasising the randomness of mutation and the lack of design behind the very things that cause the 'good traits' to not be the norm.

Mutations are random, at some point a freakishly bigger toothed creature will show up among the gene-pool of a species (whether predatory or not).

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 lice
Resistant 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 experiment
In 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:

  1. Bacteria are innoculated 1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the "original plate."
  2. Bacteria grow into colonies 2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies.
  3. 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.
  4. Survivors 4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance.
  5. 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.
Evolution.berkeley.edu. (2019). Mutations are random. [online] Available at: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07 [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Genes get lost, what does it matter if genes are not staying in the species as they reproduce? Point requires no proof against as it had no proof why it mattered.

Final question:

If the design is intelligent, if everything falls into place in a complex puzzle with strict patterns then why is it true that we needed to evolve at all? Why did the polar bears made without white fur need white fur? Why did the seals they caught fail to avoid being caught while others succeeded in starving the polar bears of food by being better built seals for the job of avoiding being preyed upon by polar bears?

Why does life need to prey on itself in order to sustain itself?

Checkmate, this design would be unintelligent even if it is really designed.

Round 4
Published:
firstly pro has knows almost nothing about the conspiracy theories just the ones the mainstream media has told him about aka flat earth and maybe vaccines. the mainstream media has turned conspiracy theory into a trigger word so if someone speaks that word they immediately think of what the mainstream media said about them and ot look into it. the main 5 conspiracy theory's are fema camps chemtrails agenda 21 pizziagate and the filth spot goes to either 911 vaccines and or 5g internet  i can not decide. i want to kick something out of the way flat earth is not even one of the main conspiracy theory but it has been talked about by the media to discredit the ones above.




firstly i just want to say how many of the conspiracy theory turned out to be true. Nazi Germany put fluoride in the drinking water of the Jews to make them more stupid and docile.conspiracy theorist then started claiming they do the same to us.the us government admits they put fluoride in our water but claim they put it in there to help with dental hygiene.



chem trails and 911


chem trails
 the  theory talks about how the government is spraying us with heavy metals and neurotoxins via airplanes.


here some of the main points of it. the government has panted equipment that is used to spray chemicals/ aerosols on us. they also have patents for weather modification which supports the haarp conspiracy theory. I'm probably not going to go into harrp. there displayed publicly on google patents


so NASA has stated that they are just spraying bipolar medication on us which if you see my prescription medication is poison thread you know that that is a bad thing



also it is impossible i have tried to buy herbs without heavy metals like mercury lead aluminum. why is almost every square inch of this planet do you find mercury lead on the ground. how do farmers who merely grow ginzeg end up with mercury and lead in there soil in unless it is coming from the airplanes.

they want to block out the sun to prevent global warming



911




so 911 conspiracy were do we begin




as you may know many tv shows predict many Tragedy before they happen this is called predictive programing. i will explain later why they do predictive programming. but lets just stick with what it is. predictive programing is the elites putting the tragedy there going to do in a movie or tv show. and then committing the act. for example the Simpson had Bart hold up a magazine with a big 9 next two the tin towers making it look like 911


there is an amazing video on it done by odd reality a guy with 250k subscribers


video about predictive programming.


they did not see the future. they knew that 911 was going to happen because they did it.




do you know what George bush  moments before 911. he was in a classroom when notified that 911 was happening. they were reading a book called the pet goat to the kids which is a reference to the satanic video i pet goat. and before the guy came in to quote on quote notify the president of 911. the teacher was having the kids sound out words those words were kite hit steal plane must.then the guy come sin and says 911 is happening.they were having the kids do a satanic ritual.




here is i pet goat 2 the satanic video. its a bit brain washy so be careful.


notice in satanic video i pet goat 2  it starts off with George bush is in a school classroom predicting future events or events they caused. moments before he was notified of 911 George bush was reading a book called my pet goat was in a classroom before he was notified of 911. both videos and George bush being notified the teacher is fat black chick


that's a creepy coincidence



theirs aborted babies in vaccines

and i could not think of a way to present fema camps without spamming you with videos on the subject but if your curious here.

Published:
You tell Pro doesn't know about conspiracy theories but I am Con and I know very much about conspiracy theories. Outside of this debate, I actually am a flat earther and I believe some things I won't type here about some events and organisations up-top and along the middle of the political and economic food-web of our 'human world'.

I don't know WHAT that has to do with intelligent design apart from flat earth theory as it's linked strongly to ancient alien theory and would mean we're a simulation designed by them and all.

So, inside this debate I am going to defy myself outside this debate and call flat earth straight up bullshit. We are not in a simulation, this is real and it's all random.

Checkmate.
Round 5
Published:
i accidentally posted my argument for my conspiracy debate here. i also spelt intelligently wrong. i have screwed myself up. i probably going to take a break after this to clear my head.probably going to prepare for the end of humanity. i was going to try to bring up how con keeps avoiding my question about what all my examples above have in common and the turmeric thing but whats the point con has won this debate because i screw up bad. i blame Satan


anyway i going to try to say what i have been trying to say before i sweep this under the rug. my points have not been disproven



god created the polor bear white so that it can hide better in snow


god created the dog to shed its fur during the summer because he knew summers are hot


god created the mountain goat has feet that make it easier to climb mountains


god created the owl with night vision because night is dark


these are all examples of one using intelligence or intellect i do not care comes to same conclusion

knowledge part
god being aware that non white bears would not be able to survive that well in snow



apply knowledge part
god making them white so they can live in snow


fits perfectly
with intelegence


the body can distinguish between good and evil

our body kills the bad germs but spares the good germs

if god created the universe then it would make sense that he would be able to tell the difference between good and bad


but if a bunch of nothing created the universe like science says then it would make more sense that they would kill all germs not just the bad ones

for example when you wash your hands with soap the soap is not able to distinguish between good and bad germs it just kills them all. thus since it can distinguish it. it means god designed it.




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:

or a third god created them to build immunity to chemicals.

how does the immune system of the lice know that the lice killing chemicals is bad for lice and they should try to block it and thus become immune.

how is the lice immune system aware that lice killing chemicals is bad and they should put blocks in them to negate the effects. i mean it should work both ways why do the lice block the effects of everything things both good and bad.

the only time we become resistant to something good and i use that loosely because i believe it is bad. is pharmaceutical drugs people are becoming resistant to them. doctors are freaking out but does that not prove that they are a bad thing because the only thing we become immune to is bad things like germs. so why is drugs the only good thing and all the other are bad. probably because they are not good but bad.

why are all these evolution mutations good. mutations are always bad that's why are body is built to prevent them because it is somehow aware that it is bad and w should block them. but evolution which is a theory suddenly brings in good mutations. if god is not real wouldn't the body block good as well as bad mutation. because a bunch of chemical can not distinguish between good and bad.

 con said
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.

my point the body can distinguish between good and bad.

then it just the rest is just about the lice study


If the design is intelligent, if everything falls into place in a complex puzzle with strict patterns then why is it true that we needed to evolve at all? Why did the polar bears made without white fur need white fur? Why did the seals they caught fail to avoid being caught while others succeeded in starving the polar bears of food by being better built seals for the job of avoiding being preyed upon by polar bears?

Why does life need to prey on itself in order to sustain itself?

Checkmate, this design would be unintelligent even if it is really designed.


they did not need to evolve. there was no evolution the polar bear has always been white god designed it that way so that it can hide in the snow better so that it would not be seen by the seal and die.
Published:
Pro is bringing brand new points this late into the debate. Even if he didn't accidentally post his "conspiracy theory debate" Round 1 in this debate's R4, he still would be bringing totally brand new points in the last Round. This is not the same as a rebuttal, it is him quoting something I say and pretending to rebuke by bringing completely new, and frankly nonsensical, points.

I'm not even sure what on Earth Pro is arguing at this point. I have won and it's over. All that had to be said by the Con side has been said.
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
First vote, yeeeeee
#7
Added:
i posted the wrong rebuttal. that suppose to go to a conspiracy debate im doing lol.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @crossed
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.
#5
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
i would disagree with that. intelligence is a being who is capable of thought and able to hold knowledge then apply said knowledge.
Instigator
#4
Added:
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.
#3
Added:
--> @crossed
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.
#2
Added:
Intelegently isn't even a word therefor pro automatically loses.
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
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)
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
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.