Instigator / Pro
crossed's avatar
5
crossed
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1195

Life is created by God

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Religion
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
oromagi's avatar
14
oromagi
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
crossed's avatar
crossed
Pro
#1
talking point 1


There is this misconception that many people believe. They believe  scientist spend years making revolutionary life saving prescription drugs that treat all kinds of diseases.
It is believe that scientist created these drugs and they used a lot of thinking knowledge and intelligence to do so.

This is true  sometimes  but most of the time this is not what they do.Most of the time they just find a plant with amazing health properties and make a synthetic version of it. There synthetic drug has a lot of side effects like changes in behavior and thinking' thoughts off suicide' and yellow eyes and skin etc and is not revolutionary and or life saving. That is 100 percent false.



To date, 35,000-70,000 plant species have been screened for their medicinal use. Plants especially those with ethnopharmacological uses have been the primary sources of medicine for early drug discovery. Fabricant and Farnsworth, (2001) reported that, 80% of 122 plant derived drugs were related to their original ethnopharmacological purposes.

This is from a .gov site so no arguing with this this.

But the question still stand if scientist are not using thinking intelligence and or knowledge to create this medicine then who is.
it would have to be the one who is creating the plants. God created plants he must have been the one who used thinking intelligence and knowledge to create these medicine. not the scientist.



Evolution can not use thinking intelligence and or thinking to create life saving medicine. so evolution could not have done it. creating some of the plants would take great intelligence








I  would even say that it is a fact that god put medicine in plants. There has been thousands of study's on the medical properties in plants i mean almost every day you her about a plant with medicine in it. Every culture used the medicine in plants the Indian used medicine in plants
the Chinese use to use medicine in plants etc almost every culture use the medicine god put in plants. we did this up until the 1900s throughout all of human history.


People are always talking about how great modern medicine is and that we are living longer because of drugs and these scientist are so smart they  use there great knowledge to make these drugs that traverse  the body and fixes kidneys and hearts etc. When it is god who used his his great knowledge to create medicine that traverses the body and fixes kidneys and hearts. All man did was add absurd side effects like thoughts of suicide yellow skin and eyes etc. primitive man had access to the same medicine  we got except are is synthetic and less effective and a billion times more dangerous.The stuff god created did not cause thoughts of suicide. He created plants with insane medical properties in which we derive are synthetic garbage from and then claim we created it and claim people will live till there 100 with this crud.but all it is is a bootlegged version of what is found in a stupid flower.



modern medicine is a bootlegged version of what god created.




70 percent of new drugs come from mother nature

this is what the title of this article says



Primitive man used plants as medicine. Which meas they had 70 percent of modern medicine back in the bc times. Except there was not synthetic and was not a billion times more dangerous and there medicine did not kill them. there medicine was more effective and no side effects


It is believed that scientist used great intelligence knowledge and thinking to create medicine. They did not create it but found it. But someone still has to use great intelligence knowledge and thinking to create this stuff. So who put medicine in plants. it would have to be god. he created these plants and thus the medicine.


it is a fact that god put medicine in plants








talking point 2
Perfectly synced space






A book i was reading at 11   night ago." The book of nature" said something that reminded me on how perfectly aligned are solar system is . The book of nature is a book that was written in the 18 century by a  fellow named John Mason.
the book is in the public domain because it is so old. but it says this on page 50. I have not read far so i do not know were he was going with this.


part of page 50


the philosopher beholding now,as the prophet beheld formerly,that the almighty architect has literally
adjusted everything by weight and measured the waters meted out the heavens accurately comprehended the dust of the earth, "weighed he mountains in scales and the hills in a balance




It is basically saying that god took into account stuff like the weight on the leaf and he weight it just enough so it can float around.


It seems he does not claim this anymore because he says "beheld formerly". But this is exactly what god did with the solar system. he literally adjusted it and measured it till everything was in the perfect spot with no flaws. the sun is in the perfect spot if it was  closer or farther  away we would either freeze to death or burn to death. god measured it out. Plus you need to bring into account that the sun is coordinated with the moon. It being this perfect and being created by nothing. Is like if i won the lottery ten billion times. so it is impossible
for nothing to created life.




in the article called


The perfect balance of the solar system




It talks about how perfectly aligned the solar system is.






The sun and moon are perfectly synced. The sun is not to hot or to cold. god measured it till the sun and moon were in the perfect spots. everything is perfectly synced. the article talks about how even the planets could not have formed over a long time but had to be created rapidly


in the article
It so happens our sun provides the perfect conditions. It’s not too small (i.e., too dim or too cool) or too big (producing unfortunate charbroiled results from simply being too hot). Compared to the intense and violent activity seen on other stars, our sun is remarkably even-tempered and well-mannered—it doesn’t flare or pulse like other stars. When solar flares do occur, they are not so violent as to vaporize our oceans…or worse



On the local level, our moon is equally amazing, leading two secular authors to ask, “Who built the Moon?” Knight and Butler state, “The Moon is 400 times smaller than the star at the center of our solar system, yet it is also just 1/400th of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.” Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible. The authors also say, “By some absolutely incomprehensible quirk of nature, the Moon also manages to precisely imitate the perceived annual movements of the Sun each month.
Wow so the sun is something billion miles away and the moon is something million miles away. But if we look at it from earth they come out to be  the same size. the sun is bigger then the moon but because god measured both when glaceing it. it seems to be the same size from where we see from earth
Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

Planets Created Rapidly


But even if our neighboring planets somehow formed quickly from accumulating space dust, recently discovered exoplanets (extrasolar planets) have changed secular solar system formation theory.
there scratching there heads at what could have done this.


I will let you in on a secret it was god. They try to claim a super star did it.


There are many factors that would make a star system too hostile for life to even get started, let alone survive for any period long enough to evolve. So what sort of star provides the perfect conditions for a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe?


They are talking about that space should be hostile if nothing created life. So they ask themselves why is it perfectly balanced this should not be the case if nothing created life and they are correct. Nothing did not create life but God did. that's is why it is perfectly balanced not a super star


It talks about how perfectly synced the sun and moon are along with the stars. The chances of the solar system coming from nothing is if i won the lottery one trillion zillion times.  Those odds are impossible thus it must be god who created life. God would have fined tuned everything . a bunch of nothing would not have.

this is the link to the book of nature





oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#2
Thanks, crossed, for instigating this debate.

Burden of Proof:  PRO has failed to set any burdens for proof. Wikipedia advises: 

“When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens' razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". [1]

PRO is both instigator and extraordinary claimer in this particular so BOP is entirely PRO’s.

DEFINITIONS:

LIFE:  Wikipedia offers:

“There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.” [2]

CREATE: Wiktionary offers:

Verb
create (simple past and past participle created)

(transitive) To bring into existence; 
[and]
(especially of a god) To bring into existence out of nothing, without the prior existence of the materials or elements used. [3]

GOD: Wiktionary offers:

"A deity or supreme being; a supernatural, typically immortal, being with superior powers". [4]

RESOLUTION: Life is created by God

CON interprets this resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that some supernatural being brought some undefined set of organism(s) into existence without prior materials.  CON’s job is to interrogate and disprove PRO’s evidence.

talking point 1

PRO argues:

P1: All plants are life
P2: Some plants are medicinal
C1: Therefore, God created life

(Note:In truth, PRO’s prose does not easily allow for condensation into syllogisms.  This summary should be seen as a good faith effort at creating a contestable point.   I apologize in advance for any misrepresentation and beg correction in such event.)

OBJECTION:  non-sequitur

PRO seems to take for granted that any medicinal property serves as evidence of God.  PRO goes so far as to attribute (without evidence) any positive property to God and any negative property to doctors. PRO ignores the fairly obvious point that the difference between most positive and negative effects of drugs is a function of dosage:  aspirin is fatal at sufficiently high dosage, cyanide is harmless at sufficiently low dosage, for example.  

In fact, if it were true as PRO argues that 

P1: every toxic effect of any drug is the work of humans,

When we also know that 

P2: every drug is ultimately  toxic at some dosage [5]

Then we’d be forced to conclude

C1: Every drug is the work of humans

Which we also know is an inaccurate overstatement but it serves to demonstrate the irrationality of Pro’s unwarranted assertion.

  • No evidence is offered by PRO  to establish medicine as of exclusively divine origin.

talking point 2: Perfectly synced space

PRO argues:

P1:  Stellar objects are perfectly synchronized, aligned, and balanced
P2:  The odds are infinitesimally small  that a perfectly balanced solar system might form from nothing
C1: Therefore, God created the solar system (including, we are left to presume, life)

OBJECTION: Non-sequitur, also, but in this case neither premise is particularly true.


         But PRO never identifies which stellar objects are synchronized in what sense.  Are any planets traveling or rotating at the same speed? No. CON can’t identify           the synchronicity to which PRO refers.

  • Alignment has many meanings but context suggests objects forming in a line but PRO never identifies which stellar objects form in a line.
  • Balance has many meanings but context suggest an equal distribution of weight on opposite sides of an axis but PRO never identifies that axis or which objects are alike in mass.
PRO offers two pieces of evidence:

  1. The first is really no more than some philosophical musings by John Mason Good, a London apothecary who wrote magazine articles on medicine and religion.  Good offers no particular insight regarding the solar system but expresses his amazement at the regularity of certain proportions in chemistry in poetic and theological terms.  CON sets this evidence aside as irrelevant.[7]
  2. The second is an article entitled “The Perfect Balance of Our Solar System” which suggests in 2015 that  identification of exoplanets prove that Sol’s system is uniquely well tempered for life.  [8]
  • The article quotes many actual scientists but none of those quotes actually connect back to Sherwin’s thesis.  
  • Sherwin never addresses the fairly obvious fact that astronomers are not yet able to characterize or catalog the solar systems of even nearby stars.   While it was  true before 2014  that many exoplanets identified were “hot Jupiters”- big gas giants rapidly orbiting their stars, that was because most exoplanet identification relied on detecting a planet’s gravitational effect on its star or by detecting changes in a star’s light as a planet transited between its star and Earth.  Either way, big planets close in was what was detected because they create bigger wobbles in stars and occlude more of their stars light more often.  

“On 26 February 2014, NASA announced the discovery of 715 newly verified exoplanets around 305 stars by the Kepler Space Telescope. These exoplanets were checked using a statistical technique called "verification by multiplicity".  Prior to these results, most confirmed planets were gas giants comparable in size to Jupiter or larger as they are more easily detected, but the Kepler planets are mostly between the size of Neptune and the size of Earth.” [9]


  • Sherwin concluded he knew enough then about other star systems to discern Sol’s uniqueness but no scientist would pretend even four years later  that we have yet defined or cataloged even one alien planetary system as yet much draw conclusions about “normal” systems vs ‘unique” systems.

  • PRO quotes Sherwin concluding that our Sun is uniquely designed for life, ignoring the preponderance of evidence that life adapts to a  fairly wide range of environments and no solar maximums or minimums have yet been established that might surpass life’s adaptability.

  • PRO quotes Sherwin quoting some other authors, ““The Moon is 400 times smaller than the star at the center of our solar system, yet it is also just 1/400th of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.” Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible.”

The Sun’s diameter @ 864,340 miles divided by the Moon’s diameter @ 2159 miles equals 400.34

The Sun’s avg. distance from Earth @ 92,960,000 miles divided by the Moon’s avg distance from Earth @ 238,855  equals 389.19 which is not only not a precise match it’s still off 2.5% after rounding.
 
Sherwin’s article is pretty obvious baloney that offers zero scientific insight regarding the “perfection” of solar systems.


PRO twice offers odds on creation:

" Is like if i won the lottery ten billion times. so it is impossible for nothing to created life." 

and

"The chances of the solar system coming from nothing is if i won the lottery one trillion zillion times.  Those odds are impossible thus it must be god who created life."

Of course, there is no number "zillion" so I assume the numbers are merely figurative but then they also do not forward PRO's case.  Additionally, doesn't " life from nothing", "solar system from nothing" more accurately describe PRO's position?  Science posits that solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago in a 9 billion year old universe.  Life began forming about a billion years later.  If God just spake the Sun and the Earth and her inhabitants into being, isn't that far more "something from nothing" than present scientific theory?

P1:  Stellar objects are perfectly synchronized, aligned, and balanced
P2:  The odds are infinitesimally small  that a perfectly balanced solar system might form from nothing
C1: Therefore, God created the solar system (including, we are left to presume, life)

CON accepts none of PRO's evidence that Stellar objects are "perfectly" synchronized, aligned, and balanced.  Not only is this evidence without scientific merit, it also doesn't link to synchronicity, alignment, or balance.  PRO's P1 stands unproven.

None of PRO's evidence that our solar system is perfect or unique is sustainable and so fails to prove life's creation by God.

PRO has offered nothing credible to establish that some supernatural being brought life into existence. PRO's case stands both unproven and unprovable.

Thanks again for instigating.  I look forward to PRO's R2.



Round 2
crossed's avatar
crossed
Pro
#3
the moon is 27.3 the size of the earth

And as staggering as it may seem, the circumference of the Moon is 27.322% that of the circumference of the Earth!

it takes the moon 27.3 days to orbit around the earth

It takes 27.322 days for the Moon to fully orbit the Earth. That means that 366 orbits of the Moon around the Earth take an absolutely even 10,000 days!


The number 27.322, which we have just observed is the number of days it takes the Moon to orbit the Earth is highly significant, both singly and in its multiplies  in the Earth, Moon, Sun relationship. For example, the Sun is exactly 109.288 times the size of the Earth - which is 4 X 27.322.

Even modern measuring systems were taken into account because the circumference of the Moon in kilometres is 10928.8 kilometres, which is 400 X 27.322. (And there is that '400' again, which you may recall is the number of times bigger the Sun is than the Moon.) 








I discovered this in a comment done by Moonatic

on this site. though Moonatic believe that the aliens created life. this still proves intelligent design


Moonatic • 7 years ago

"The moon is not a natural satellite. It's orbit is by intelligent design. The moon itself is clearly an intelligent design. There are no coincidences, just opportunities for the smart to be seperated from the stupid. It totally eclipses the sun...I mean...HELLO. The odds of that happening are flipping STUPIDLY improbable. Add to the fact the moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth and just so happens to be 27.3% the comparitive size of the earth!! YES, THAT'S RIGHT. READ IT AGAIN MORONS. I mean...wake up. The earth has 365/366 days to orbit the sun and yet it is 366% larger than our moon! I MEAN.....WTF"

He then goes on about aliens creating the universe but still. This proves life was created intelligently


 I could not find wear you got your numbers on the sun and moon but this is a .org site and they are not Christians and it says what i previously stated



a .org site is more reliable then Wikipedia. so mine is more true in fact both of my site were .org




The Sun’s diameter @ 864,340 miles divided by the Moon’s diameter @ 2159 miles equals 400.34

The Sun’s avg. distance from Earth @ 92,960,000 miles divided by the Moon’s avg distance from Earth @ 238,855  equals 389.19 which is not only not a precise match it’s still off 2.5% after rounding.
 
Sherwin’s article is pretty obvious baloney that offers zero scientific insight regarding the “perfection” of solar systems.

these are precise numbers

.The sun being 400 time bigger then the moon and 400 times farther away


.There being the exact same number of protons as there are electrons



.Gravitational and inertial mass are numerically exactly the same.


.Stars rotate at the exact same rate as galaxy arms.

the moon is 27.322 the size of the earth and the moon takes 27.322 days to orbit around the earth. 27.322 days make a perfect 10000 days


you read that right


taken from here. this is a .gov site so it is very reliable

The sun is 400 times bigger then the moon and 400 times farther away from the earth making them both the exact size from the viewpoint of earth. he measured this. plus the 400 number is a precise number.
the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses

Gravitational and inertial mass are numerically exactly the same.

The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..."

There are the same numbers of electrons to protons.

- there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros)
- the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe

The guy in the article talks about how perfect this is.he uses an example.” so if we were to look at all the human beings on the earth and we found out that it was exactly 50 percent to 50 percent. Not to the nearest million or thousands but exactly one man for one woman. Out of 7 billion people in the world that would freak us all out.” We would be like who is counting us. But this is the case with protons and electrons exactly one proton for one electron. So who counted them out. It was God


stars rotate at the exact same rate as galaxy arms

“Thus, most stars located between spiral arms do not remain there for long, but would eventually be swept inside a spiral arm. Only at a certain precise distance from the galaxy's center, the "co-rotation radius," can a star remain in its place between two spiral arms, orbiting at precisely the same rate as the galaxy arms rotate around the core ( Mishurov, Y.N. and L. A. Zenina. 1999. Yes, the Sun is Located Near the Corotation Circle. Astronomy & Astrophysics 341: 81-85.). Why is it important that we are not in one of the spiral arms? First, our location gives us a view of the universe that is unobstructed by the debris and gases found in the spiral arms. “


herbs

Since it takes a scientist years of thinking intelligence and knowledge to create drugs that heal people.The same kind of  thinking intelligence and knowledge would be needed to create medical herbs.


the fact that turmeric can go in the brain and repair damage done by schizophrenic medication is pure intelligence.



turmeric's antioxidants have been found to reverse the effects of damage caused by pharmaceuticals, particularly in the treatment of schizophrenia. Commonly-prescribed antipsychotics often cause involuntary muscle movements and severe behavioral changes



the apple when consumed feeds the good bacteria and not the bad. that is intelligence




sweet flag roots go up into the brain and fixes the part of your brain that deals with stuttering. that is intelligence




turmeric roots create new stem cells. that is intelligence.and revitalize neurons




are appendix attacks bad germs but is a safe house for good germs. that is intelligence





Now i do not believe that the apple is an intelligent life form.
We call are retarded people vegetables for Pete sake.
But i believe are Creator is intelligent
I believe god designed the apples to feed the good bacteria and not the bad.  Because he had knowledge that good bacteria is good and bad bacteria is bad




I believe it was god who designed sweet flag roots to go up into the brain and fix the part of the brain that deals with stuttering. He would have had to have knowledge of the brain in order to traverse it like that and would have to have knowledge on how to heal it in order to help the brain.



and john mason did not right an article he was a phylosopher who wrote a book in the 1800s
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#4
Thx, crossed

Pro has not objected to my R1 DEFINITIONS, BoP, or interpretation of resolution.  Therefore,

RESOLUTION: Life is created by God

CON interprets this resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that some supernatural being brought some undefined set of organism(s) into existence without prior materials.  CON’s job is to interrogate and disprove PRO’s evidence.

stands as unchallenged.  PRO has accepted the entire Burden of Proof here.  Furthermore, PRO did not object to my condensations of PRO's argument so let's assume those were fair summaries reflecting PRO's intention.

talking point 1

In R1, CON condensed (without objection) PRO's argument to:

P1: All plants are life
P2: Some plants are medicinal
C1: Therefore, God created life
but CON showed that health benefits are also a function of dosage which is determined by health professionals and health consumers, not God.  Most medicine is poison at another dosage.  Unless PRO can show that God is also in control of dosage, the medicinal qualities of plants are shown to be a function of human experience and knowledge (not divine) to an essential degree.

PRO dropped this specific argument in R2 but moved on to addressing CON's claim of non-sequitur by making links between medicine and proof of God.

P1: The development of pharmaceuticals requires intelligence
P2:  Some herbs found in nature have pharmaceutical qualities
C1: Therefore God in intelligent
Of course, this syllogism assumes that God created the nature where herbs are found.  PRO is arguing that (assuming that God created nature) the medicinal qualities of herbs found in nature demonstrate that creator's intelligence.  Put another way, (assuming this debate's resolution is true), only intelligence can create medicine which indicates an intelligent creator.   PRO wants to treat this debate as resolved and move on to describing the nature of God for our benefit. CON objects since the resolution has not been shown to be true, the consequents are likewise unproven, unlikely, and irrelevant.

By extension, CON dismisses PRO's next four examples as irrelevant as well as mostly false.  PRO is pursuing an intelligent design angle but even if PRO could prove design and intelligence (PRO has not), neither necessarily implies the existence of a supernatural creator.  CON ignores these four examples:

  • Tumeric
  • Apples
  • Sweet
  • Appendix
PRO argues:

Now i do not believe that the apple is an intelligent life form.
PRO and CON agree here.

We call are retarded people vegetables for Pete sake.
OBJECTION: irrelevant, offensive.

But i believe are Creator is intelligent
I believe god designed the apples to feed the good bacteria and not the bad, etc.
Since the claim is not established above, presumptions of design and designer fail.  PRO belief statements do not forward evidence in PRO's case.

talking point 2

In R1, CON condensed (without objection) PRO's argument to:

P1:  Stellar objects are perfectly synchronized, aligned, and balanced
P2:  The odds are infinitesimally small  that a perfectly balanced solar system might form from nothing
C1: Therefore, God created the solar system (including, we are left to presume, life)
CON showed that PRO's sources proceeded from false assumptions and inaccurate data and argued that PRO failed to link any evidence to the resolution.  Synchronicity, alignment, or balance were not demonstrated to a degree sufficient to require divine explanation.

PRO dropped all of PRO's counterarguments save one:

"and john mason did not right an article he was a phylosopher who wrote a book in the 1800s"
The author's full name is John Mason Good.  The Book of Nature compiles a number of Dr. Good's lectures in three volumes which were published in 1826.  Con did not claim that PRO was quoting from a magazine article, only noting the activity for which Dr. Good was best known.

In R2, PRO offers additional stellar coincidences from which we are meant to infer divine intervention.

And as staggering as it may seem, the circumference of the Moon is 27.322% that of the circumference of the Earth!
It takes 27.322 days for the Moon to fully orbit the Earth. That means that 366 orbits of the Moon around the Earth take an absolutely even 10,000 days!
The Earth's equatorial circumference is 40,075. km.  The Moon's equatorial circumference is 10,921 km

10921/40075= .2725=27.25%
27.25/27.32=.9974 = not particularly precise.


27.32*366=9,999.12 which is not "absolutely even"   In fact, PRO is off by almost a full day.  Also, what is the divine significance of 10,000 days?

The number 27.322, which we have just observed is the number of days it takes the Moon to orbit the Earth is highly significant, both singly and in its multiplies  in the Earth, Moon, Sun relationship. For example, the Sun is exactly 109.288 times the size of the Earth - which is 4 X 27.322.

Even modern measuring systems were taken into account because the circumference of the Moon in kilometres is 10928.8 kilometres, which is 400 X 27.322. (And there is that '400' again, which you may recall is the number of times bigger the Sun is than the Moon.) 
The Sun's equatorial circumference is 4.379×10(6) km  The Earth's equatorial circumference is 40,075. km
4379000/40075=109.27  109.27/4=27.31 

Let's recall that the Sun’s diameter @ 864,340 miles divided by the Moon’s diameter @ 2159 miles equals 400.34.
The Sun's equatorial circumference @ 4,379,000 km divided by the Moon's circumference @ 10,921km equals 400.97 

The correlations are interesting but hardly the sort of precision that might necessitate a supernatural creator.

  • We should also note that PRO's own source material refutes PRO's resolution.
"Christopher Knight is an author who has written several books dealing with theories such as 366-degree geometry and the origins of Freemasonry. Knight appears in the two-part History Channel documentary Decoding the Past – "Mysteries of the Freemasons".  In an interview about the book Who Built the Moon?: 2005 Knight stated that the moon is an artificial construction probably built by humans with a message in "base ten arithmetic so it looks as though it is directed to a ten digit species that is living on Earth right now - which seems to mean humans." He believes that it was created to make life on Earth possible, including humans, and that the most likely builders were humans of the future using time travel."
  • PRO's next source, earthsky.org correctly reports the sun/moon ratios are only approximate, that the Moon's orbit is elliptical and slowly escaping Earth's gravity so these ratios are never precise, and that the odds of such a configuration are unknowable because we have so little data.  PRO offers this source as more reliable than Wikipedia, so let's note that PRO's second argument is soundly refuted by PRO's own source.
  • Likewise, PRO's next source credits aliens, not gods.  PRO's consolation is "this still proves intelligent design," but PRO's burden is to prove God created life. Even if PRO successfully proved alien origins, PRO's resolution would nevertheless fail.
PRO states:

"taken from here. this is a .gov site so it is very reliable"
https://kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe

  • kgov.com is NOT a .gov site.  It is the website for America's most powerful Christian radio station, KLTT broadcasting (just down the road from CON's house in Denver, CO).  This site is notoriously unreliable as a source of scientific information.
Gravitational and inertial mass are numerically exactly the same.
Essentially, PRO is saying that an object that weighs 1lb on Earth also weighs 1lb on a spaceship accelerating at 1g.  This is not so much a coincidence as it is a way of describing the universe. Newton's third law states empirically that active and passive gravitational mass must always be identical. Einstein's general theory of relativity starts with the assumption of correspondence between inertial and passive gravitational mass.  That's not a coincidence, that is how we defined the notion of gravity.  That is what travelling at 1g means- inertial mass now equals normal gravity.

- the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe
An approximately electrically neutral universe does suggest rough parity.....  What evidence, experiments, theories does PRO offer that prove a perfect one to one ratio? A universal & precise 50/50 ratio is not necessarily indicated by generalized neutrality. 

stars rotate at the exact same rate as galaxy arms 
That is false.  The Sun rotates the galactic center once every 225-250 Million years.  The rotatational speed of the MIlky Way's spiral arms is estimated to be anywhere from 220-360 million years.

Pro keeps offering rough matches and general agreements as evidence of perfect synchronicity.  None of PRO's coincidences demand a supernatural explanation.  Nor has PRO linked these weak match-ups to the "God made life" thesis.  Why would similar ratios, distances, etc serve as evidence of a supernatural beginning for all of life on Earth?

CON looks forward to PRO's reply in P3.


Round 3
crossed's avatar
crossed
Pro
#5
Bad math


Con has been trying to dispute the fact that the earth is 27.3 percent the size of the earth along with the 400 numbers. At first i thought he found some weird atheist site with there own numbers that came out differently. But it is con doing the math.




I stated that the earth is 27.3 percent the size of the earth. This is a fact just google search it and you will get this number.






here is cons numbers




The Earth's equatorial circumference is 40,075. km.  The Moon's equatorial circumference is 10,921 km


10921/40075= .2725=27.25%
27.25/27.32=.9974 = not particularly precise.


As you can see he got slightly different numbers i got 27.3 he got 27.25. But given that every site i go to says either 27,3 or 27 percent plus. Given that he is not a professional and he did not use all the numbers in his math
he is probably wrong.




Lets look at where he got the moons  circumference
Con got from Wikipedia this number
The Moon's equatorial circumference is 10,921 km


I got this number


Even modern measuring systems were taken into account because the circumference of the Moon in kilometres is 10928.8 kilometres
Our numbers are slightly off


But mine used modern measuring systems according to the article. No wonder con was number was slightly off then mine




Given that every site goes to says that the moon is   27.3 percent the size of the earth.This is true google it.





Here another site that came up to 27.3 instead of the who built the moon article


Con only used 2 numbers while this site uses a ton of numbers. In order to come to the same outcome would you not have to use all the numbers in order to see of it is correct or not


1000 feet x  360 x 365.24 = 131486400 feet = 40,077 km
109.26 = 4 x 27.321
109.2 x (11/3) = 400.4
4x 27,321 x Earth Circumference = Circumference of the Sun
401 x Circumference of the Moon = Circumference of the Sun




(11/3) x Circumference of the Moon = Circumference of the Earth
109.2 x (11/3) = 400.4 x Circumference of the Moon = Circumference of the Sun

The Moon, Earth and 273




Moon radius (equatorial) 1,738.1 km = 1080.0 miles
Earth radius is 6,371 km (diameter 12,742 km = 7,917.5 miles)
Moon/Earth Radius Ratio: 0.273 (0.27264)
Moon Revolution period (days) 27.32


so every site says the earth is 27.3 and  and con got 27.25. con is the only one that does not have 27.3 and since he is not professional i do not think he is right.But given that con checked the accuracy of this article and got nearly the same number the chances of these internet site are pretty high.





What i say is probably true since con did not use all the numbers. this one site uses 3 pages worth of math to get there numbers. con only used subtracts the circumference from the earths circumference and got a similar numbers. Plus sientist did my numbers while con did his own. how can con say his is more correct when he uses 2 lines of math while mine uses 3 pages of math. Con did not use all the number he only used some so how can his be correct if he did not use all the numbers.you need to use all the numbers to be correct.




Con did not do math like this. so how could he possibly come up with the right numbers like every other science article does. All con did was divide the earths circumference from the moon circumference


    Moon radius (equatorial) 1,738.1 km = 1,080.0 miles,
    diameter: 3,476.2 km = 2,160.0 miles,
    circumference: 10,920.8 km = 6786 miles
    Earth radius (equatorial) 6,378.1 km = 3,963.168 miles,
    mean radius 6,371.0 km = 3,959 miles,
    diameter: 12,756.2 km = 7926 miles,
    circumference: 40,075 km = 24,901 miles
    Sun radius (equatorial)
    Metric: 695,508 km, English: 432,168.6 miles
    Diameter: 1,391,016 km = 863,331 miles,
    By Comparison: 109.2 x that of Earth
    Sun Equatorial Circumference
    Metric: 4,370,005.6 km, English: 2,715,395.6 miles
    By Comparison: 109.2 x that of Earth



1,000 x 360 x 365.24 = 131,486,400
131,486,400 feet = 40,077 km

 this is truly one “cosmic” coincidence

Note: 273 x 11/3 = 1001 so the equation below
could also give close approximation of Earth’s circumference:
273 x (11/3) x 360 x 365 = 131,531,380
[131,531,380 feet = 40,091 km ]

Using Earth radius to Moon radius ratio we discover another coincidence:
(11/3) x 27.321 x 4 x 100 = 40,071 km



1000 feet x  360 x 365.24 = 131486400 feet = 40,077 km
109.26 = 4 x 27.321
109.2 x (11/3) = 400.4
4x 27,321 x Earth Circumference = Circumference of the Sun
401 x Circumference of the Moon = Circumference of the Sun




(11/3) x Circumference of the Moon = Circumference of the Earth
109.2 x (11/3) = 400.4 x Circumference of the Moon = Circumference of the Sun

The Moon, Earth and 273

I cut some out for space.I hit word cap



Close approximation of 27.3 is given by 2160/7920 =  3/11 = 0.272727

con did not do this much math like these scientist did so how can he be right. Con did not use all the numbers he only used 2 when there are  15 numbers at least used in the math he is trying to disprove.These sientist did not make a mistake. Con just does not know how to do math. he must use all the numbers to come to the conclusion.






the moon is 400 from the sun and moon


Firstly con used the average number not the exact number according to his site.


The Sun’s avg. distance from Earth @ 92,960,000 miles divided by the Moon’s avg distance from Earth @ 238,855  equals 389.19 which is not only not a precise match it’s still off 2.5% after rounding.


and he gets still a very close number from what is stated from every website you go to on this subject

This can be seen to be true since they both appear exactly the same size in the sky making a precise solar eclipse possible.







block rebuttals
i said
stars rotate at the exact same rate as galaxy arms 

con said

That is false.  The Sun rotates the galactic center once every 225-250 Million years.  The rotatational speed of the MIlky Way's spiral arms is estimated to be anywhere from 220-360 million years.
my reply

It is not talking around rotating around the sun. but how fast they spin. The milk way is the 2nd largest galaxy.Of course it takes a long time for it to move around our sun that is in our galaxy. You have proved nothing. The spiral arms are in different places if the both rotate lets say 100 miles per hour the would reach there destinations at different times..That is like if i am in Washington and your in California and we try to go to Idaho. we both travel at 100mph but because we are in different places we reach there at different times.

can a star remain in its place between two spiral arms, orbiting at precisely the same rate as the galaxy arms rotate around the core ( Mishurov, Y.N. and L. A. Zenina. 1999. Yes, the Sun is Located Near the Corotation Circle. Astronomy & Astrophysics 341: 81-85.). Why is it important that we are not in one of the spiral arms? First, our location gives us a view of the universe that is unobstructed by the debris and gases found in the spiral arms


con said
- the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe
An approximately electrically neutral universe does suggest rough parity.....  What evidence, experiments, theories does PRO offer that prove a perfect one to one ratio?
yes there is exactly the same number of protons as there are electrons.

we know this because every negative electron has a positive proton to cancel each other at



con said
ssentially, PRO is saying that an object that weighs 1lb on Earth also weighs 1lb on a spaceship accelerating at 1g.  This is not so much a coincidence as it is a way of describing the universe. Newton's third law

on the site it link is from Einstein and Nutan. it is still a huge coincidence. newton discovered that god fined tuned the notion of gravity. nutan did not discover how this came to be like con seems to be saying. he discovered that this is the way it is


nutan figured out that the mass and internal mass was the same. He never discovered how such a huge coincidence was naturally formed over time

Galileo and Newton grappled with it, and ended up just accepting it,

con says that my sources are invalid because he does not agree with there opinions.




PRO dropped this specific argument
I lumped it together with other crud.

but fine con said.


negative effects of drugs is a function of dosage
33 percent of people are in the hospital do to the side effects of medication.

will find at 1:05 in this video




P1: The development of pharmaceuticals requires intelligence
P2:  Some herbs found in nature have pharmaceutical qualities
C1: Therefore God in intelligent
Of course, this syllogism assumes that God created the nature where herbs are found
intelligence would have used

Curcumin which is found in turmeric reverses the damage done by schizophrenic medication.   Curcumin works best at treating the side effects sever behavior changes and involuntary moment.  Schizophrenic medication destroys the brain it damages many parts of it and changes ones behavior. This means that this plant used or was programmed with intelligence. We know this since it went inside the brain, traversed it without damaging anything and was able to identify which parts were broken which were not and went in and fixed it.. That is intelligence it identified which parts were broken and had knowledge on how to fix it.

knowledge is even in the definition for intelligence

he used knowledge here

intelligence
  • The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.

oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#6
Thx, crossed.

Let's recall that PRO has accepted the burden of proving that life is created by God.

PRO has offered two arguments; both of which fail as proof of God:
P1: Intelligent design is proof of God
P2: The medicinal properties of some plants demonstrate intelligent design
C1: Therefore, medicinal plants prove God
and

P1: Intelligent design is proof of God
P2: The perfect synchronicity of stellar objects demonstrate intelligent design
C1: Therefore stellar synchronicity proves God

In both arguments, P1 is entirely inferred.  PRO never explains why intelligent design must prove God.  In fact, the sources PRO uses in evidence of ID come to different conclusions than PRO about what intelligent design portends:

Moonatic believes that the Moon is an alien observation base.

Christopher Knight believes that the builders were time travelers from the future.

But if the significance of ID is open to interpretation, (as PRO's sources demonstrate), then PRO must offer a specific explanation for why his sources are wrong and PRO's interpretation (that ID must prove God) is right.  PRO never establishes a argumentative link between ID and God. PRO takes P1 as granted for both arguments and proceeds with ID talking points.  P1 may not be taken as granted.  PRO needed to link ID to God with evidence that rules out aliens and time travelers, at least.  In the absence of such links, P1 is invalid for both arguments and both arguments stand unproven.

talking point 1- herbal remedies

PRO asserted that:

"Most of the time [scientists] just find a plant with amazing health properties and make a synthetic version of it. There [sic] synthetic drug has a lot of side effects like changes in behavior and thinking' thoughts off suicide' and yellow eyes and skin etc and is not revolutionary and or life saving."
  • For example, PRO quotes an herbal supplement vendor's claims that curcumin [turmeric] reverses the damage caused by pharmaceuticals but this is false. 
In fact, Wikipedia reports:

"Although curcumin has been assessed in numerous laboratory and clinical studies, it has no medical uses established by well-designed clinical research.  According to a 2017 review of over 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial, leading the authors to conclude that "curcumin is an unstable, reactive, non-bioavailable compound and, therefore, a highly improbable lead"."
  • Pro also claims that consumption of sweet flag roots can fix stuttering but this is likewise false. 
Wikipedia reports:

"A. calamus and products derived from A. calamus (such as its oil) were banned from use as human food or as a food additive in 1968 by the United States Food and Drug Administration.  Although calamus has been used for its fragrance and ingested, it has not been studied by rigorous clinical research.  Individual medical reports of toxicity mention severe nausea and prolonged vomiting over many hours following oral uses."
  • Pro also mentions apples and appendices but these examples are not relevant to medicinal plants.  Neither of PRO's examples of are recognized as particularly medicinal by modern science. 
As counter-argument, let's remember that the anti-inflammatory properties of salicate-rich plants like willows have been understood for thousands of years but contrary to PRO's claim, the stomach irritating side effects of salicates were far more prevalent in pre-synthetic forms like willow bark tea.  Charles Gerhardt treated sodium salicylate with acetyl chloride in 1853 to synthesize a more efficient, less irritating delivery tablet that Bayer eventually called Aspirin. So here is one case where human intervention concentrated the health benefits and reduced the side effects, contradicting PRO's claim that raw, natural forms of medicinal plants are always more beneficial than synthesized medication.

PRO never showed that God made the willow bark or turmeric root but only claimed that any benefit derived by them must be attributed God.  Talking point 1 is rejected a second time as entirely unsubstantiated.

talking point 2: Perfectly synced space

Pro asserts:

"This is exactly what god did with the solar system. he literally adjusted it and measured it till everything was in the perfect spot with no flaws. the sun is in the perfect spot if it was  closer or farther away we would either freeze to death or burn to death. god measured it out. "
Of course, we know of many examples of life that have survived much colder or hotter conditions.

"Measuring about a millimeter long, the tardigrade is a polyextremophile, which means its capable of surviving numerous harsh conditions. Sarah Bordenstein of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole writes that they can withstand temperatures from  -328 °F (200 °C) up to 304 °F (151 °C), lack of water and oxygen, “boiling alcohol,” (who thought of that?) and a thousand times the radiation we can take."
  • Earthlings have not even determined whether life has ever developed on our two nearest solar system neighbors, Mars and Venus.  PRO's claim that life can only develop within Earth's orbit is shown to be unlikely but also not provable until more planets are explored.  PRO insists that it must be more than mere coincidence that the most perfect solar system for humans is also the only solar system any human has ever known but what is the value of ranking a data set containing only one single piece of data? Good statistical sampling practices recommend that for a galaxy of 400 billion solar systems, a sample size of about 385 solar systems would yield some estimates with 95% accuracy, give or take 5%- the base level from which estimates could made with some statistical confidence.  CON recommends that we forego any effort to generalize regarding the relative habitability of solar systems until about 400 solar systems have been biologically surveyed.

  • CON sets aside John Mason Good text as no more than a restatement of thesis.

  • PRO also offered an opinion piece from the Institute for Creation Research that evaluates limited exoplanet research in 2015 and concludes that our solar system is radically different from what we are seeing elsewhere.  CON pointed out that exoplanet discovery favors large gas giants, orbiting rapidly and that PRO's article was already obsolete at publication. 

  • PRO quoted Knight (Moon was built by time travelers) asserting that the solar system is perfectly designed because the Sun is both 400 times the size of the Moon and 400 times the distance from Earth as the Moon resulting in the perfect synchronicity of eclipses.  CON countered that the Sun is only 389 times more than the Moon using median distances.  PRO counters that his information comes from a .org site and .org sites are more reliable than Wikipedia, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is the most popular .org site of all.  In R3, PRO argues that 389 is still a very close number and that the perfect size match can be be ascertained visually during an eclipse.  Of course, only about a quarter of eclipses are total and even those vary greatly by the degree of occlusion- refuting PRO again.

  • In R2, PRO offered 273 as a significant number, associating the number of days (27.3)  it takes the Moon to orbit the Earth to the ratio of the Moon's "size" to the Earth's.  CON showed that if we get specific about size the numbers are not a perfect match.  For example, dividing the Earth's equatorial circumference by the Moon's equatorial circumference we only get 27.2. In R3, PRO calls CON's counterargument bad math and questions CON's sources (all numbers from Wikipedia), but never shows the mathematical error, remains vague about what measurement is being compared to what measurement, and insists PRO sources are more reliable while only offering one new source- world mysteries blog. PRO also mixes up the Earth with the Moon a few times and uses both feet and kilometers in the same equation without converting the measurements. Since the burden is PRO's to demonstrate "perfect synchronicity" as evidence, PRO needs to demonstrate at least a few precise measurements that might reinforce PRO's claim.  Instead, we are left with a muddle of scant, cherry-picked data taken from some manifestly non-rigorous websites.

  • PRO's argument that stars rotate as the same rate as spiral arms remains unclear.  In R3, PRO claims that stars rotational speeds match the orbital velocity of spiral arms but this is nowhere near true.  Stars have highly variable rotational speeds and our Sol's rotational speed (nearly 2km/s) is 110 times slower than galactic orbit speed (220 km/s).  

  • In R3, PRO continued to assert without evidence that the number of electrons and protons in the universe are exactly the same.  While electrical neutrality does imply parity, such an assumption is a long distance from establishing the perfectly matching numbers PRO is incapable of demonstrating.

  • In R3, PRO continues to assert that gravitational mass and inertial mass are not identical and therefore it is a huge coincidence that both appear to be identical in every measurement ever.  Burden remains on PRO to disprove the Theory of Relativity.
PRO's second argument remains unsubstantiated.

Args to CON, PRO never proved ID or connected to resolution
Thx to voters for their kind consideration.