Instigator / Pro
11
1428
rating
57
debates
28.07%
won
Topic

life is created intelligently

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
14
1672
rating
283
debates
66.96%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
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.




god made animals specifically to live in environment

god created the polar 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 and less fur would cool the dog down

god created the dog to grow more fur during the winter so that it can keep warm. inter coat

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 and the owl would need a way to see.


predators have big teeth because god intended them to hunt.

god created the cats with scratchy tongues so that they can clean there fur better and lick all meat off bones easier


god created the bat with echo location so that it can roam easier at night because at not you can not see


god created the bat with black coloring so it can hide better at night


god designed the beaver with big teeth so it can chew down its trees for dam.

in all these examples god is  using intelligence or intellect.


examples of man made things or others  so you can see they use the same logic

a man in fire country makes is house out out of metal so his house does not burn down


some people do not use aluminum pans because they know that aluminum pans leach aluminum into food.


smart people do not put there house on a beach because of flooding issues

china knows that labor is expensive so they enslave children and have them work for them because the know its easier.

Facebook was created addicting so that more people would use it.

google was created free so that they could get people to sign away there souls easier with there terms of service.


china use to lace its products with lead because they knew the Americans would buy them because its cheap.


do you believe evolution


do you believe that all the dogs who could not shed its fur during the summer died out.

why would  the dogs who could not shed its fur during the summer die out. because i do not believe lacking the ability to shed its fur would cause them to go extinct. extra furry doggy should not die out because they can can not shed its fur.

why is there a no shedding gene in dogs since that trait use to exist but died out. there is none because it never existed

is it possible that we can reintroduce this gene my do sheds to much.

do you believe that the beaver use to have small teeth but died out because it could not chew down trees so it evolve with big teeth.


were are all the fossils of small teeth beavers.

what did the beaver do before it got big teeth.

what happened to the ecosystem because there were no dams. because all the beavers have small teeth

why would small teeth beavers die out because they can not chew down trees

did Justin beaver evolve from a beaver.




sources


Con
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
mash potatoes are gross
Con
Semantic Disagreement
Intelligent Design is a phrase and the context of 'Intelligent' 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 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
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.

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.

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.