life is created intelligently
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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.
mash potatoes are gross
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.
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.
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.
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: "mash potatoes are gross" isn't a debate. It could have been put in the comments. R2 was effectively forfeited/waived by Pro. Combined with R3 forfeit, 2/3 forfeits; conduct to Con.
Pro mostly named traits and characteristics of animals that suited their environments, coupled with a claim that a being had to have intelligently created those animals with their features. His claim is unfounded, and all traits, as far as I could tell, had equal claims to natural selection. BoP requires a claim with more basis than an opposite claim. Even if there is a basis, Pro needs to show them. Argument to Con.
Pro's sources described animal characteristics, not corroborated claims. Con's sources showed relevant theories and definitions. Sources to Con.
Pro leaves off proper capitalizations and punctuation.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify awarding sources and S/G points. To award sources, the voter must (1) explain how the sources impacted the debate, (2) analyze at least one source specifically, and (3) compare each debaters' source and use of them. The voter only performs the third task. To award S/G, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debater's S/G. The voter does none of these tasks. Argument points were borderline, which means we default to treating them as sufficient. Conduct points were sufficient.
This is not a full forfeit.
Could I have a clarification please!:
“A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited”
In this debate no argument was presented, but not all subsequent rounds were forfeited. Would this qualify as a full forfeit?
yes lets do this again
We can rematch if you'd like. I'd prefer more than 5,000 characters if we are to properly battle.
i am on schools computers
my internet broke