Instigator / Pro
10
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1197
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
After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
point 1
We can trace our ancestry to this one female and when i say "we can" i mean everyone on this planet can trace there ancestry to this one African female. the logical conclusion is that this is the first female since everyone on the planet can all trace our ancestry to her and there is no human before her in the mitochondria eve DNA tracing. since we can all trace our ancestry to one female it means that we did not evolve/change over time but we just popped into existence. This has caused a lot of stir in the scientifically community some scientist have tried to dismiss the mitochondria eve as the first female by claiming to have bones of humans that are older then her like Lucy. instead of coming to the logical that they were wrong about Lucy. Beside the fact that Lucy is just humans parts mixed with monkey parts. seriously Lucy originally had monkey parts and the scientist dismissed it by saying were sorry. Anyway Lucy also did not originally support evolution. Lucy pelvis were not hunched like an ape but standing tall like a human. instead of coming to the logical conclusion that Lucy did not come from a monkey they claimed that the body part must have been trampled on by animals. So they made a replica of the bone then took a saw and glued it to look the way they wanted.
Anyway since we can trace our ancestry to one female. it means she is the first female and we did not evolve or adapt over time.
point 2
Page 50 of the book of nature says this
the philosopher beholding now,as the prophet beheld formerly,that the almighty architect has literallyadjusted 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
this is what god did with the solar system
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. “
everything i have said so far has been 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.
These are not the only precise numbers life is filled with them
Our body has clocks that are dialed so precisely these clocks tell our body to release hormones and other chemicals that our body needs. They release these hormones as if they are aware. Our body releases a chemicals on a precise clock. An example every 8 hours your body releases a chemicals i do not know the details
I know this because wifi frequencies expert Dr. Barrie Trower talks about how 5g doom and gloom messes up these clocks
Also animals are made with precise numbers
These animals have 2 eyes 2 ears 1 nose 1 mouth very precise numbers
Humans
Cats
Dogs
Goats
Sheep
horses
Giraffes
Monkey
Weasels
Rats
Elephants
Etc
Most animals consist of 4 legs or 2 legs and 2 arms very precise numbers
Rhino
Bear
Dog
Cat
Elephant
etc
Most insects have 6 8 12 or 24legs
I just described 99 percent of animals. These are very precise numbers
our sun moon earth and basically everything else is in a Goldilocks zone
Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiationEarth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors- Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems- Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate- the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons- the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide
point 3
70 percent of new drugs come from mother nature
this is what the title of this article says
It is believed that scientist use thinking intelligence and or knowledge to create prescription medication. We always talk about how great man is for creating modern medicine with his great intelligence, but 70 percent of the time this is not true they just poorly copied the health properties from plants. But the question still stands who used thinking intelligence and or knowledge to create the other 70 percent of medicine. It would have to be the one who created the plants that used thinking intelligence and or knowledge. God did it.
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.
point 4
"Richard Dawkins said biology is the study of complex things that seem to have been designed for a purpose"
Nothing can not design something with a purpose. only god can do that god can creates something to compliment another thing. and thing in life are designed with a purpose.
God created the humming bird with a very long beak with the purpose to use that beak to get nectar from the flower. We know this because god created he birds beak straw like so that the bird can drink all the nectar.
The beak or bill on a hummingbird is longer in proportion to their body than other birds. This is so they can reach deep down into a tubular flower
See god gave the humming bird a long straw beak with the purpose of them using it to drink the nectar.
This applies to all evolution examples. god created the polar bear white with the purpose of it to hide in the white snow.
god placed Jupiter with the purpose to shield earth
Jupiter being in its current position acts as a shield for bodies on a potential collision course with Earth from
The arrangement of planets within our solar system is both on the rare side and very helpful in protecting life on our planet.
this is the link to the book of nature
oh and the believe "that it is crazy to believe that nothing can create life" is superior to the "Believing in Jesus is like believing in Santa" ideology
Its crazy that scientist are saying that life came from an explosion from nothing aka the big bang theory and it just so happens God says that he created life from nothing. maybe the explosion from nothing was God. Gods voice thunders when he speaks and he spoke the universe into creation.
0.) Resolution and Burden
For the purposes of this debate my opponent must establish that God directly created life as we know it. As this is the positive claim, pro carries the entirety of the burden of proof and must show positive evidence that there was a direct creative act that brought about life.
With that being said: I will endeavour to show that life clearly was not created
1.) Life evolved
Rather than being created, life appears to have evolved from more primitive forms.
Organisms acquire mutations and changes from generation to generation that modify the form, behaviour or chemistry of that organism from its parents.[1]
These changes could be beneficial and allow the organism to better compete or reproduce and the organism reproduces more - and produces more copies of this change than other variations. Over time, this change becomes the norm, as only creatures with this change survive. This is sometimes called Micro evolution.[2]
When two groups of the same species become geographically separated: these organisms acquire random changes independently: if separated long enough the two groups will not be able to interbreed. Producing two distinct species from the original. This divergence - and subsequent independent changes in these new species is also known as Macro Evolution.[3][4]
This process of evolution is observed repeatedly both in the lab when examining organisms like fruit flies and bacteria, and in the field when examining various types of life form in the wild.[5][6]
2.) Evidence of Evolution
If evolution were true - evidence should of this process should exist both in the past - by review and analysis of fossils, and in the present - with the review and analysis of organisms today.
Both of these show substantial evidence to support evolution.
The fossil record shows a clear progression of life forms over time. From simple single cellular life, primitive multicellularity, complex multicellularity and beyond.[7]
We have innumerable numbers of transitional forms- organisms that show intermediate traits between two groups - between humans and other great apes, between land animals and whales, between horses and more primitive forms: even between fish and amphibians, and reptiles and mammals.[8][9][10][11]
We also have substantial genetic evidence. Our genetics show not just similarity with other animals, but key patterns indicative of evolution:
Human share as little as ten times as many genetic differences with chimps as we do with other humans. We have a dissimilar number of chromosomes from chimps (two less): until it was shown that our chromosome is a combination of two chimp chromosomes.[12]
Comparing genomes of animals as a whole shows that the amount of random and non-functional difference between the same genes and proteins of multiple organisms almost always matches the amount of time in which the two organisms being compared diverged. [13]
This pattern extends to evolutionary development too; there is no mixing and matching of developmental traits. No animal that has lungs, or a backbone has a mouth that forms before the anus. Which is an odd property to have in common.[14]
There is no reason for any of these things to be true if life were created. One would expect God to happily create six legged mammals, fusions of traits between fish and reptiles. Bats with Bird Wings, whales with Gills, etc.
If Chickens and humans are just as unrelated as chickens and yeast, there is no reason to expect fewer random non-functional differences between the former than the latter.[13]
Evolution could be refuted by a single fossil: a true chimera - such as a Centaur, mermaid, Griffin, etc : that shows complete traits from two disparate branches of the tree or life. These would require genetic compatibility between parent species - or the substantially significant traits to evolve independently in multiple disparate branches: neither of which are practically possible.
3.) Mitochondrial eve.
Mitochondrial eve (MEve) was not the first ever woman[15]. This is simply the most recent common female ancestor of all humans.
Many other females were likely alive at the same time - but it is simply the case that none have descendants alive today. With their lineages having all having died out at some point in the last 200,000 years.
4.) Lucy was part monkey.
Lucy is the first ofmany specimens of the species Australopithecus Africanus, none of the other discovered fossils have this issue.[16]
Worse, pro implies some sort of vast conspiracy of palaeontologists to create fake fossils - neglecting to mention the only reason anyone knows of any fake or misleading fossils at all - is because those same palaeontologists. Pros argument here does not make any sense and should be discounted.
5.) List or coincidences.
Pro appears to list a set of coincidences and “precise numbers” And then asserts as a result that God created life.
This is clearly an absurd non-sequitor.
For the laws of physics - there are many aspects of the universe we don’t understand - not having an explanation for why the proton-electron number is balanced does not mean God did it.
To suggest it so, is simply an argument from ignorance.
Pro must show why there is no reasonable way this proton number - and all these others - would not and could not be as they are without an omnibenevolent superbeing making it so.
On these grounds pro doesn’t even begin to meet his burden.
6.) Animals commonality
Pro argues that many animals having 4 legs/2 eyes is evidence for God.
It’s actually clear and compelling evidence againstGod - and for evolution.
Almost all terrestrial vertebrates have 4 limbs and two eyes.
This is not because God made them - but because they all share a common ancestor that had 4 legs and 2 eyes. These traits are so fundamental you cannot lose them overnight.
We additionally see animals like whales that don’t have four limbs: but their fins are remarkably arm like, and there are often whales and dolphins born with atavistic legs and pelvises - even though there is no need.
If a God created life - why limit himself to 4 legs 2 eyes? Where are the hybrid animals? Where are the 6 legged horses or feathered bats?
The lack of any such form that deviates from what could be created via evolution is a compelling argument against the existence of a God who created life as he wanted.
7.) Goldilocks Zone.
The universe is full of stars, and appears to be full of planets also. Some like Jupiter appear unable to support life as we know it.
Given that we are alive, it is clearly expected that we find ourself living on a planet that is just right for life.
It would be far more surprising - and more indicative of a creator - if we found ourselves living in a universe or planet that does not appear able to support life.
8.) Drugs
All living organisms share a common ancestor - and thus a common carbon based protein chemistry.
All organisms use proteins and chemical processes to manage their biology and affect the environment. Life uses some proteins and associated chemicals to kill, some to digest, some to regulate temperature, to increase heart rate, etc.
Given this - it is obvious to the point of near truism that we would find innumerable proteins in organisms that modify our own biological chemistry in a way we find useful.
It is also absurdly obvious that we would find innumerable proteins and compiunds in organisms that modify chemistry in a way we don’t. Venom - poisons, hallucinogens, narcotics - etc.
Even pro himself acknowledges this: on the one hand saying that life is used to create new drugs - but also creating a number of debates indicating prescription medication is poison![17][18]
Conclusion:
The evidence indicates that life was not created but evolved. I provided key evidence to show this is the case.
I also pointed out that God could easily create a single organism that invalidates evolution, but no such organisms exist.
I showed that my opponents argument is based on non-sequitors, cherry picking and misunderstandings.
As a result, I have clearly established that life was not created by God.
Sources:
[1] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
[3] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
[4] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
[5] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
[6] https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/17860/20151030/speciation-fruit-fly-evolution-causes-cascading-changes-wasp-species.htm
[7]https://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-5-evolution-and-biodi/51-evidence-for-evolution/fossil-record.html
[8] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species
[9] https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/kitzmiller-v-dover
[10] https://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html
[11] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
[12] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
[13]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_c
[14] https://www.learnreligions.com/how-embryonic-homologies-support-evolution-249886
[15] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/no-mitochondrial-eve-not-first-female-species-180959593/
[16] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
[17] https://www.debateart.com/debates/726
[18] https://www.debateart.com/debates/1032
For the purposes of this debate my opponent must establish that God directly created life as we know it. As this is the positive claim, pro carries the entirety of the burden of proof and must show positive evidence that there was a direct creative act that brought about life.
With that being said: I will endeavour to show that life clearly was not created
1.) Life evolved
Rather than being created, life appears to have evolved from more primitive forms.
Organisms acquire mutations and changes from generation to generation that modify the form, behaviour or chemistry of that organism from its parents.[1]
These changes could be beneficial and allow the organism to better compete or reproduce and the organism reproduces more - and produces more copies of this change than other variations. Over time, this change becomes the norm, as only creatures with this change survive. This is sometimes called Micro evolution.[2]
When two groups of the same species become geographically separated: these organisms acquire random changes independently: if separated long enough the two groups will not be able to interbreed. Producing two distinct species from the original. This divergence - and subsequent independent changes in these new species is also known as Macro Evolution.[3][4]
This process of evolution is observed repeatedly both in the lab when examining organisms like fruit flies and bacteria, and in the field when examining various types of life form in the wild.[5][6]
2.) Evidence of Evolution
If evolution were true - evidence should of this process should exist both in the past - by review and analysis of fossils, and in the present - with the review and analysis of organisms today.
Both of these show substantial evidence to support evolution.
The fossil record shows a clear progression of life forms over time. From simple single cellular life, primitive multicellularity, complex multicellularity and beyond.[7]
We have innumerable numbers of transitional forms- organisms that show intermediate traits between two groups - between humans and other great apes, between land animals and whales, between horses and more primitive forms: even between fish and amphibians, and reptiles and mammals.[8][9][10][11]
We also have substantial genetic evidence. Our genetics show not just similarity with other animals, but key patterns indicative of evolution:
Human share as little as ten times as many genetic differences with chimps as we do with other humans. We have a dissimilar number of chromosomes from chimps (two less): until it was shown that our chromosome is a combination of two chimp chromosomes.[12]
Comparing genomes of animals as a whole shows that the amount of random and non-functional difference between the same genes and proteins of multiple organisms almost always matches the amount of time in which the two organisms being compared diverged. [13]
This pattern extends to evolutionary development too; there is no mixing and matching of developmental traits. No animal that has lungs, or a backbone has a mouth that forms before the anus. Which is an odd property to have in common.[14]
There is no reason for any of these things to be true if life were created. One would expect God to happily create six legged mammals, fusions of traits between fish and reptiles. Bats with Bird Wings, whales with Gills, etc.
If Chickens and humans are just as unrelated as chickens and yeast, there is no reason to expect fewer random non-functional differences between the former than the latter.[13]
Evolution could be refuted by a single fossil: a true chimera - such as a Centaur, mermaid, Griffin, etc : that shows complete traits from two disparate branches of the tree or life. These would require genetic compatibility between parent species - or the substantially significant traits to evolve independently in multiple disparate branches: neither of which are practically possible.
3.) Mitochondrial eve.
Mitochondrial eve (MEve) was not the first ever woman[15]. This is simply the most recent common female ancestor of all humans.
Many other females were likely alive at the same time - but it is simply the case that none have descendants alive today. With their lineages having all having died out at some point in the last 200,000 years.
4.) Lucy was part monkey.
Lucy is the first ofmany specimens of the species Australopithecus Africanus, none of the other discovered fossils have this issue.[16]
Worse, pro implies some sort of vast conspiracy of palaeontologists to create fake fossils - neglecting to mention the only reason anyone knows of any fake or misleading fossils at all - is because those same palaeontologists. Pros argument here does not make any sense and should be discounted.
5.) List or coincidences.
Pro appears to list a set of coincidences and “precise numbers” And then asserts as a result that God created life.
This is clearly an absurd non-sequitor.
For the laws of physics - there are many aspects of the universe we don’t understand - not having an explanation for why the proton-electron number is balanced does not mean God did it.
To suggest it so, is simply an argument from ignorance.
Pro must show why there is no reasonable way this proton number - and all these others - would not and could not be as they are without an omnibenevolent superbeing making it so.
On these grounds pro doesn’t even begin to meet his burden.
6.) Animals commonality
Pro argues that many animals having 4 legs/2 eyes is evidence for God.
It’s actually clear and compelling evidence againstGod - and for evolution.
Almost all terrestrial vertebrates have 4 limbs and two eyes.
This is not because God made them - but because they all share a common ancestor that had 4 legs and 2 eyes. These traits are so fundamental you cannot lose them overnight.
We additionally see animals like whales that don’t have four limbs: but their fins are remarkably arm like, and there are often whales and dolphins born with atavistic legs and pelvises - even though there is no need.
If a God created life - why limit himself to 4 legs 2 eyes? Where are the hybrid animals? Where are the 6 legged horses or feathered bats?
The lack of any such form that deviates from what could be created via evolution is a compelling argument against the existence of a God who created life as he wanted.
7.) Goldilocks Zone.
The universe is full of stars, and appears to be full of planets also. Some like Jupiter appear unable to support life as we know it.
Given that we are alive, it is clearly expected that we find ourself living on a planet that is just right for life.
It would be far more surprising - and more indicative of a creator - if we found ourselves living in a universe or planet that does not appear able to support life.
8.) Drugs
All living organisms share a common ancestor - and thus a common carbon based protein chemistry.
All organisms use proteins and chemical processes to manage their biology and affect the environment. Life uses some proteins and associated chemicals to kill, some to digest, some to regulate temperature, to increase heart rate, etc.
Given this - it is obvious to the point of near truism that we would find innumerable proteins in organisms that modify our own biological chemistry in a way we find useful.
It is also absurdly obvious that we would find innumerable proteins and compiunds in organisms that modify chemistry in a way we don’t. Venom - poisons, hallucinogens, narcotics - etc.
Even pro himself acknowledges this: on the one hand saying that life is used to create new drugs - but also creating a number of debates indicating prescription medication is poison![17][18]
Conclusion:
The evidence indicates that life was not created but evolved. I provided key evidence to show this is the case.
I also pointed out that God could easily create a single organism that invalidates evolution, but no such organisms exist.
I showed that my opponents argument is based on non-sequitors, cherry picking and misunderstandings.
As a result, I have clearly established that life was not created by God.
Sources:
[1] https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
[3] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
[4] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
[5] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
[6] https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/17860/20151030/speciation-fruit-fly-evolution-causes-cascading-changes-wasp-species.htm
[7]https://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-5-evolution-and-biodi/51-evidence-for-evolution/fossil-record.html
[8] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species
[9] https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/kitzmiller-v-dover
[10] https://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html
[11] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
[12] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
[13]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_c
[14] https://www.learnreligions.com/how-embryonic-homologies-support-evolution-249886
[15] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/no-mitochondrial-eve-not-first-female-species-180959593/
[16] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
[17] https://www.debateart.com/debates/726
[18] https://www.debateart.com/debates/1032
Round 2
pls spend more time on the solar system and herbs topic. I feel it was sorta forgotten in your last post.
Evolution is illogical
Evolution is the most illogical theory ever proposed. Firstly there is nothing to cause evolution. What caused the mutation that turned the polar bear white.
Living in snow can not cause mutations. So what caused this mutation. If i eat fruit and vegetables that repair dna would not my evolution go backwards because i am repairing my mutations. Why don't we have good mutations anymore like the ones in evolution. if evolution is a million tiny good mutations over millions of years. then we should see good tiny mutations today that over time would lead to a drastic change. but the only mutations that exist are bad. good mutations like these are in fairy tales like evolution. Though life shares characteristics with each other it does not mean that life came from the same source. It means life has the same creator. Though this never gets answered why would a creature keep the characteristics of 4 legs but change so drastically but the fundamentals stay the same. Why don't we have bones of 5 legged creatures because evolution says that there were millions of them but they died out because it is illogical. Why are half there fossils faked. evolution scientist come up with a bunch of bones and then other scientist are like wait you have not discovered any of that yet. why are you showing bones that do not exist.
Scientist have come up with tons of fake evolution bones like "java man "piltdown man and Nebraska man. Lucy is one of many.
con said
Many other females were likely alive at the same time - but it is simply the case that none have descendants alive today. With their lineages having all having died out at some point in the last 200,000 years.
Well that's convenient if there was any female before the mitochondria eve lady there DNA would be in mitochondria eves DNA and thus here DNA would be in us. the mitochondria eve is a record of every female in a persons line, everyone on the planet can trace there ancestry to her. since no one can trace there ancestry to a female before her. It means there was no females before her she was the first one. and we did not adapt over time we just appeared there as we are today.
since there is no mitochondria females before the mitochondria eve female. it means there was no human before her. there were other females during her time but they were decedents of the eve.
this is bigger then you think
everything i have said so far has been 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.
You only tried to rebuttal the electron one. So that's the one i will do.
For an example lets say there was exactly 3.5 million females on the planet and exactly 3.5 males not to the nearest thousand. but exactly 50 50. that would be a huge coincidence we would be freaked out. the reason why we would be freaked out is because it would mean someone is counting us out.
this is the case with electrons and protons someone is counting them out. It is exactly 50 50.
this was counted out
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.
It is simple what i am claiming. A new big pharma commercial is a scientist in a lab using knowledge thinking and intelligence to create quote on quote " life saving medicine" i saw it on tv
big pharma scientist only use intelligence to create drugs 30 percent of the time. the other 70 percent of the times they just find a plant that already has the medicine in it and make a bootlegged version of it. The other 70 percent of the time still needs someone to use knowledge thinking and intelligence to create the medicine in plants.
God created the plants thus he was the one who used knowledge thinking and intelligence.
To say god did not use intelligent knowledge and thinking to create modern medicine. You would have to say chemist did not use intelligence knowledge and thinking to create prescription drugs.
con said
All organisms use proteins and chemical processes to manage their biology and affect the environment. Life uses some proteins and associated chemicals to kill, some to digest, some to regulate temperature, to increase heart rate, etc.
If only plants were that primitive. you need to rethink this turmeric physically changes your brain when you eat it. A bunch of chemicals randomly mashes to create a spice that heals a damaged brain. that makes no sense. turmeric can reverse damage done by schizophrenic medication. i know what schizophrenic medication can do to people.
the fact that turmeric can go in the brain and repair damage done by schizophrenic medication is pure intelligence.
I do not believe the plant is intelligence but god is.
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
Even pro himself acknowledges this: on the one hand saying that life is used to create new drugs - but also creating a number of debates indicating prescription medication is poison
I have tried desperately to wright this in a way that shows my detest of modern medicine. God created the medical properties. Man made an ineffective version of it that causes yellow skin and eyes and thoughts of suicide. It would be illogical for me to say they don't make bootlegged version of herbs because it is true.
New point
It really bums me that no one understand me hen i talk about this but one more try
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.
Same thing with everything other example
Goldilocks zones
saying obviously that are planets is perfect were here are we not is a cop out.
Given that we are alive, it is clearly expected that we find ourself living on a planet that is just right for life
What i am saying is a bunch of nothing can not create thing so perfect. only god could have created life
This Below taken from this
Scientists are at odds at the numbers that everything would have to be in order for life to start
* Speed of Light: c=299,792,458 m s-1
* Gravitational Constant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2* Planck’s Constant: 1.05457148 x 10-34 m2 kg s-2
* Planck Mass-Energy: 1.2209 x 1022 MeV
* Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron: 0.511; 938.3; 939.6 MeV
* Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark: 2.4; 4.8; 104 MeV (Approx.)
* Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass: (1836.15)-1
* Gravitational Coupling Constant: 5.9 x 10-39
* Cosmological Constant: (2.3 x 10-3 eV)
* Hubble Constant: 71 km/s/Mpc (today)
* Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value: 246.2 GeV
Scientists have come to the shocking realization that each of these numbers have been carefully dialed to an astonishingly precise value a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow, life-permitting range. If any one of these numbers were altered by even a hair’s breadth, no physical, interactive life of any kind could exist anywhere. There would be no stars,no planets, no chemistry, and no life. (Source: Reasonable Faith,org)
1.) Evolution is illogical.
Pro drops key points concerning evolution, pro does not address any of the evidence provided, or the examples given.
Evolution is observed to occur at the micro and macro level - and the fossil and genetic evidence show evolution over time, and equivalent relationships between organisms today.
I extend these.
1.1.) Mutations.
Pro claims that positive mutations do not occur.
We have observed mutations that confer immunity to malaria, ability to survive in low oxygen conditions, substantial muscle growth, and nearly unbreakable bones [1][2][3] and many hundreds more including HIV resistance, the ability to resist other diseases, etc.[12][13].
This claim is demonstrably false.
1.2.) No cause of mutations.
Mutations are when the nucleotide sequence of DNA is changed by inaccurate copying. They have a clearly defined and understood cause and can happen whenever a DNA strand is copied.[4]
Pro is incredulous about how polar bears can gain a mutation to have white hair. However, it happens all the time in humans, where a genetic mutation causes your hair to grow without pigment - it’s called Waardenburg syndrome or piebaldism [5]
1.3.) DNA Damage
Genetic mutations are when the DNA sequence is not copied identically to the original[4]. DNA damage is when the Chemical structure of DNA itself is modified. (IE chains are broken or methylated.)[6]
They aren’t the same thing - A genetic mutation isn’t damage to the DNA, thus pros argument here is irrelevant.
1.4.) Characteristics of life.
Evolution of animal shape works by small changes that alter the developmental sequence of the embryo. Small changes towards the end of development do not produce large changes, but do no harm. Large changes at the start have major effects as the embryo develops and so are regularly deadly.[7]
This means evolution has to work mostly by modifying existing structures and shapes in small and subtle ways.
Pro asks why there are no bones of 5 legged animals. Body plans have remained largely unchanged, because the development of embryos can’t be substantially modified to grow additional limbs in one mutation without being deadly to substantially harmful.
More to the point though. If God created life, and could create anything he liked; why aren’t there animals with 5 legs? God could create bats with feathers, animals with 3 eyes and 5 legs.
Why do we only ever find animals that match exactly the strict limitations inferred by evolution and never the type of mix and match of traits we expect from a designer?
This is a clear and obvious refutation that life was created by God - that the life that exists or existed appear bound and constrained by evolutionary limitations.
2.) Lucy/hoaxes.
Pro drops his point about Lucy, and raises more. Piltdown man was shown by scientists to be a hoax[8]. Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community through peer review[9]. Java man is a valid human species; though not an exact missing link as thought.[10]
Pro torpedos his own argument that evolution is a fraud perpetrated by scientists by providing multiple examples of those scientists acting honestly, in good faith and willing to expose mistakes and errors.
4.) Mitochondrial eve.
Pro asserts that there were no females before mitochondrial eve. This is an assertion unsupported by any evidence.
Pro ignores my explanation of mitochondrial eve; I extend this.
Pro also ignores the evidence by various hominids predating mitochondrial eve that clearly refute the idea that mitochondrial eve was the first.[11]
5.) Magic Numbers / Fine Tuning
I will wrap all these arguments into this point.
To know the universe is fine tuned, pro must be able to answer the following:
A.) How many possible combination of the values are allowed by the laws of physics?
B.) How many universes are there, or have there been.
C.) how many combinations of these values allow for life.
You could argue a lottery winner is lucky, but whether it is luck depends on (A) What the chances of a ticket winning, (B) how many people played, (C) how many tickets they all bought.
For the universe - Pro cannot possibly know A, B or C; as they are beyond the limits of human knowledge: thus pro has no basis on which to claim the universe is fine tuned.
In reality, we must exist on a universe and planet that can support life: that we do is unsurprising.
6.) Natural drugs and chemicals.
Pro fails to refute the key argument I made in the last round.
Life shares common chemistry, that has evolved through billions of years. One would expect that if life evolved, some
Chemicals produced by organisms would have a positive or negative effect on our body chemistry.
For each natural “cure” we find that alters our body chemistry positively - there is also a neurotoxic fruit, poisonous frog, or deadly mushroom protein that will kill us in seconds.
This is not intelligence - merely a product of a diverse biome produced by evolution and variation.
Simply listing all the positive chemicals and asserting that they’re evidence of a designer is meaningless. Especially when considering that 420,000 die each year from the chemicals produced by microorganisms in that very same food [14]
7.) Dumbness in nature.
Pro argues that the universe shows signs of intelligence. This is clearly false.
We live on a planet that contains vast quantities of salt water we cannot drink, deserts we’ll die of thirst in, oceans we can drown in, or ice sheets we’ll freeze on. Travel just 3 miles straight up, and you’ll die of hypoxia within minutes - 10 miles, in seconds: and this small fraction of the thin surface of the planet is the only place within billions of miles in any direction where we won’t die instantly due to heat, cold, vacuum or radiation.
This obviously doesn’t appear to be the product of sensible design with life in mind.
Conclusion:
Pro is merely repeating the same assertions in round 1, and has not addressed any of the key points raised in my round 1. The evidence shows life evolved and was not created.
Sources:
[1] https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1877876/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21578/
[5] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320129.php
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_(naturally_occurring)
[7]https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_03
[8]http://theconversation.com/a-new-twist-to-whodunnit-in-sciences-famous-piltdown-man-hoax-64470
[9]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
[10]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man
[11]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791022/
[13] https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
[14] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety
Pro drops key points concerning evolution, pro does not address any of the evidence provided, or the examples given.
Evolution is observed to occur at the micro and macro level - and the fossil and genetic evidence show evolution over time, and equivalent relationships between organisms today.
I extend these.
1.1.) Mutations.
Pro claims that positive mutations do not occur.
We have observed mutations that confer immunity to malaria, ability to survive in low oxygen conditions, substantial muscle growth, and nearly unbreakable bones [1][2][3] and many hundreds more including HIV resistance, the ability to resist other diseases, etc.[12][13].
This claim is demonstrably false.
1.2.) No cause of mutations.
Mutations are when the nucleotide sequence of DNA is changed by inaccurate copying. They have a clearly defined and understood cause and can happen whenever a DNA strand is copied.[4]
Pro is incredulous about how polar bears can gain a mutation to have white hair. However, it happens all the time in humans, where a genetic mutation causes your hair to grow without pigment - it’s called Waardenburg syndrome or piebaldism [5]
1.3.) DNA Damage
Genetic mutations are when the DNA sequence is not copied identically to the original[4]. DNA damage is when the Chemical structure of DNA itself is modified. (IE chains are broken or methylated.)[6]
They aren’t the same thing - A genetic mutation isn’t damage to the DNA, thus pros argument here is irrelevant.
1.4.) Characteristics of life.
Evolution of animal shape works by small changes that alter the developmental sequence of the embryo. Small changes towards the end of development do not produce large changes, but do no harm. Large changes at the start have major effects as the embryo develops and so are regularly deadly.[7]
This means evolution has to work mostly by modifying existing structures and shapes in small and subtle ways.
Pro asks why there are no bones of 5 legged animals. Body plans have remained largely unchanged, because the development of embryos can’t be substantially modified to grow additional limbs in one mutation without being deadly to substantially harmful.
More to the point though. If God created life, and could create anything he liked; why aren’t there animals with 5 legs? God could create bats with feathers, animals with 3 eyes and 5 legs.
Why do we only ever find animals that match exactly the strict limitations inferred by evolution and never the type of mix and match of traits we expect from a designer?
This is a clear and obvious refutation that life was created by God - that the life that exists or existed appear bound and constrained by evolutionary limitations.
2.) Lucy/hoaxes.
Pro drops his point about Lucy, and raises more. Piltdown man was shown by scientists to be a hoax[8]. Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community through peer review[9]. Java man is a valid human species; though not an exact missing link as thought.[10]
Pro torpedos his own argument that evolution is a fraud perpetrated by scientists by providing multiple examples of those scientists acting honestly, in good faith and willing to expose mistakes and errors.
4.) Mitochondrial eve.
Pro asserts that there were no females before mitochondrial eve. This is an assertion unsupported by any evidence.
Pro ignores my explanation of mitochondrial eve; I extend this.
Pro also ignores the evidence by various hominids predating mitochondrial eve that clearly refute the idea that mitochondrial eve was the first.[11]
5.) Magic Numbers / Fine Tuning
I will wrap all these arguments into this point.
To know the universe is fine tuned, pro must be able to answer the following:
A.) How many possible combination of the values are allowed by the laws of physics?
B.) How many universes are there, or have there been.
C.) how many combinations of these values allow for life.
You could argue a lottery winner is lucky, but whether it is luck depends on (A) What the chances of a ticket winning, (B) how many people played, (C) how many tickets they all bought.
For the universe - Pro cannot possibly know A, B or C; as they are beyond the limits of human knowledge: thus pro has no basis on which to claim the universe is fine tuned.
In reality, we must exist on a universe and planet that can support life: that we do is unsurprising.
6.) Natural drugs and chemicals.
Pro fails to refute the key argument I made in the last round.
Life shares common chemistry, that has evolved through billions of years. One would expect that if life evolved, some
Chemicals produced by organisms would have a positive or negative effect on our body chemistry.
For each natural “cure” we find that alters our body chemistry positively - there is also a neurotoxic fruit, poisonous frog, or deadly mushroom protein that will kill us in seconds.
This is not intelligence - merely a product of a diverse biome produced by evolution and variation.
Simply listing all the positive chemicals and asserting that they’re evidence of a designer is meaningless. Especially when considering that 420,000 die each year from the chemicals produced by microorganisms in that very same food [14]
7.) Dumbness in nature.
Pro argues that the universe shows signs of intelligence. This is clearly false.
We live on a planet that contains vast quantities of salt water we cannot drink, deserts we’ll die of thirst in, oceans we can drown in, or ice sheets we’ll freeze on. Travel just 3 miles straight up, and you’ll die of hypoxia within minutes - 10 miles, in seconds: and this small fraction of the thin surface of the planet is the only place within billions of miles in any direction where we won’t die instantly due to heat, cold, vacuum or radiation.
This obviously doesn’t appear to be the product of sensible design with life in mind.
Conclusion:
Pro is merely repeating the same assertions in round 1, and has not addressed any of the key points raised in my round 1. The evidence shows life evolved and was not created.
Sources:
[1] https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1877876/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21578/
[5] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320129.php
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_(naturally_occurring)
[7]https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_03
[8]http://theconversation.com/a-new-twist-to-whodunnit-in-sciences-famous-piltdown-man-hoax-64470
[9]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
[10]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man
[11]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791022/
[13] https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
[14] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety
Round 3
Con accuses me of not answering his questions which is what he is doing. But before that
.The sun being 400 time bigger then the moon and 400 times farther away
God measured out.
.There being the exact same number of protons as there are electrons
God counted out.
.Gravitational and inertial mass are numerically exactly the same.
God weighed out.
.Stars rotate at the exact same rate as galaxy arms.
God synced together.
Now a bunch of nothing creating something this perfect by chance is not happening.if there are a billion universes out there and the chance of this happening is good. it is not but let say it is. the chance that it is our solar system that has perfect numbers and not another solar system is zero.
Life coming from nothing by chance is absolutely zero.
So when i say god did this but with the solar system it is absolutely true.
the philosopher beholding now,as the prophet beheld formerly,that the almighty architect has literallyadjusted 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
I got another measured/ weight out talking point.
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 originally discovered the moon sizes by a fellow named moonatic who did a comment
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.
He is right
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
The moon and i quote
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
He is right that this is an opportunity for the smart to discern themselves from the stupid.
here 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
.
last post i was accused of not answering questions. But ramshhutu the one who did this.
He completely ignored my talking point about how our body hormone release clocks which are synced.
Our body's clocks usually operate in a 24 our period which is the time a day lasts. This is similar to how the the moon takes 27 days to rotate the earth and is 27 percent the size of the earth very precise.
Circadian rhythm refers to the biological tendency to operate in 24-hour cycles of sleeping and waking. It’s also referred to as a biological or internal clock, even though they’re not quite the same thing
The body sometimes fails to do the 24 hours because we get sick. But the fact that it try's to run on 24 hours means it is suppose to run on 24 hours
The system requires both types of input -- light and genes -- to keep it on track. To stay on the 24-hour cycle
Our daytime clocks reset once we see sunlight. Which is why the master clock is precisely placed between the eyes,
sun-filled mornings into a wake-up call that gets your body in gear for another day’s activities, your central master clock swings into action. The all-important timekeeper is located inside a region of your brain called the hypothalamus. Not by accident, this clock is ingeniously positioned directly above the intersection between the two optical nerves coming from your eyes—the ultimate light sensors.
20000 is a precise number it is not like 28504 or 3869 or 8536 but is a precise number like 5000 or 3000
The master clock is what controls all of your body’s biological clocks. It’s made up of 20,000 nerve cells that form a structure called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). The master clock syncs up all internal clocks.
If i go to another time zone like someplace like china . wear the clock is 4 hours again the clocks in my body will reset to the 7:30 in china because our body's are synced with nature
things ourselves that disrupt our normal rhythms, like flying to a distant time zone.the outside environment tells us it's another. In fact, jet lag can be considered one type of circadian rhythm disorder. It can be treated simply be allowing the body to adjust to the new time
mito eve
I say the mitochandria eve female means that we did not evolve or adapt. and evolution is improbable by saying they fake bone with lucy
con responds by saying there is lots of fossil evidence. and saying evolution stuff like this
human share as little as ten times as many genetic differences with chimps as we do with other humans. We have a dissimilar number of chromosomes from chimps (two less): until it was shown that our chromosome is a combination of two chimp chromosomes.[12]
Comparing genomes of animals as a whole shows that the amount of random and non-functional difference between the same genes and proteins of multiple organisms almost always matches the amount of time in which the two organisms being compared diverged. [13]
I bring up a bunch more of them fake fossils and even the BBC covered one of the articles. why would the people who brought us doctor would report that scientist faked evolution fossils if they did not. Plus i reconfirm what i have said before and it is not that they came from the same source. But that they came from the same creator. he then claims that Lucy was not mixed with monkey parts but had parts like that because she was pr-evolved. Though i missed this. This is not true she had a baboon bone from a common monkey that live in the area wear they found her. and i even say evolution is impossible because i do not turn back into a monkey by eating my DNA repair food which repair the DNA that cause me to supposedly come from a monkey. she then calls my stuff conspiracy theorist trash But does not give a reason why they are wrong. besides claiming they came out honestly which did not happen read article.
Mutations
Why would living in snow cause the nucleotide sequence to change. and make the polar bear white
Mutations are when the nucleotide sequence of DNA is changed by inaccurate copying
That is not a mutation
We have observed mutations that confer immunity to malaria
That is not a mutation our body keeps a record of all the diseases we have encountered.
"The immune system has to keep track of what is the body's own tissue and what is the microbe. If the microbe strongly resembles our tissue, the immune system may also attack the body. Autoimmune diseases
herbs
con keeps saying
For each natural “cure” we find that alters our body chemistry positively - there is also a neurotoxic fruit, poisonous frog, or deadly mushroom protein that will kill us in seconds.
All organisms use proteins and chemical processes to manage their biology and affect the environment. Life uses some proteins and associated chemicals to kill, some to digest, some to regulate temperature, to increase heart rate, etc.
And i keep saying herbs are not that primitive. a bunch of chemicals mashed together can not reverse damage done to the brain do to schizophrenic medication like the plant Turmeric does. If it was scientist mashing chemicals this could happen. if it was god mashing chemical this could happen. But a bunch of nothing mashing chemicals.it can not create a substance that reverse damaging effects on the brain do to schizophrenic medication. Yes there are poison plants god cursed the ground.
embryo
The embryo thing but that falls under same creator. Mr Heckles created fake embryo drawing that stayed in the text books forever. everyone can see what an embryo looks like since 1997. it has been 100 years
con claims that life is not balanced she sources salt water our ability to die and the cold.
This is not true salt water is perfect for saltwater fish.
the desert is perfectly suited for desert animals .
For example the desert is yellow and so the creatures in the desert are yellow. and the desert animals have better heat resistant skin.
The Alaska is perfectly suited for Alaskan animals
Same thing but with cold
We die because Adam ate from a tree.
1.) Evolution
In my opening round, I presented an opposing case for evolution. If evolution is accurate, life was not created
Pro has dropped my entire case on evolution, on evolutionary frauds, drops his case about positive mutations.
1.2.) How can Snow cause mutations.
As outlined in R1 and R2, Mutations occur at random. These mutations can impact how well the organism survives. The snow did not cause the mutation that led to white hair, but caused the conditions for that mutation to be beneficial - white hair doesn’t help a bear, unless that bear is hinting. This is the basic process by which organisms adapt to their environment.
1.2.) Ernst Heckle
Pro drops every example of evolutionary fraud, and raises another example of how science discovers and exposes frauds amongst themselves : completely refuting his positions that scientists are dishonest.
Pros argument is largely irrelevant - as Heckles pictures - though fake - were largely accurate (though embellished to support a now defunct theory he supported): the embryological patterns he noted do actually exist [1][2]
1.3.) Malaria mutation
Pro confuses learned immune response with innate genetic immunity.
The Malaria resistance mutation changes the shape of the blood cells to prevent the malaria parasite from infecting them.
I extend this point - and all the other dropped points on positive mutations
2.) Herbs.
Pro drops my entire case explaining drugs and herbs that have chemically beneficial properties are expected. I extend.
Pro asserts that herbs and drugs that come from plants are not “just chemicals mashed together”.
This appears to be exactly what they are.
The active ingredient in Turmeric, for example also has the catchy name of (1E,6E)-1,7-Bis(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-1,6-heptadiene-3,5-dione
Diferuloylmethane. Or Curcumin. It is just a chemical.[3]
If pro wanted to show that the ingredients in herbs are more than just chemicals; pro should present evidence to this effect.
3.) Fine Tuning redux.
Pros argument here has bee. to simply list as many numbers as he can, then assert that their cause is due to God.
On what basis does pro claim that the sun and moon have the size they do because of God, rather than simply coincidence?
On what basis does pro claim that the proton/electron ratio is due to God, rather than a necessity of some deeper law of physics?
Simply citing the number; and asserting its perfection does nothing to prove that God is responsible - much less was the one who created life
This culminates in pros assertions of fine tuning: pro cannot show the universe is fine tuned, if he cannot possibly know the information that he needs to in order to draw that conclusion.
If there are billions of other universes with different parameters, if there are trillions of combinations of these values that would allow life to exist in some form, or if all these parameters are dependent on some super parameter in such a way that it’s not possible for the universe parameters to not support life: the universe we see could not be considered fine tuned.
Instead, what we see could just be the product of the observer effect - that we must observe that the universe supports life - otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it.
Pro drops this point - and hides his faulty assumption by simply bombarding readers with a Gish Gallop of individual claims.
3.1) The universe and earth is hostile to life.
Pro drops the primary point that this planet is the only location life as we know can exist within trillions of miles in any direction.
Pro also acknowledges that the majority of earth is hostile to most forms of life.
Pro misses the key point: if the universe is fine tuned for life to exist: why is so much of it so hostile to that very same life?
If 99.9% of the universe will kill life as we know it instantly: surely a universe in which 90% is hostile is more fine tuned?
Even on earth, 90% of the earth is lethal for most land plants animals. (Water, too hot/too cold).
The earth would be more fine tuned for life if that number dropped to 80/70/60/20/0.
A building in which 99.9% is uninhabitable to humans cannot be claimed to be fine tuned for human habitation.
Voter summary:
To win: pro has the burden of proof to show life as we know it was actively created by God - not just that God exists.
Pro throws out a dozen parameters of the universe and then asserting this proves God. This fine tuning argument has been refuted as the universe neither appears to be fine tuned: and that pros argument is based on assumptions that assume their conclusion.
Pro claims the existence of herbs proves intelligence. This has been refuted - such chemistry is to be expected in a system that is the product of billions of years of evolution.
As a result: pro has not provided any direct support of the positive claim - and thus has not affirmed the resolution.
On the other hand:
I have laid out key principles of evolution that have been completely dropped by pro.
If life evolved - it cannot have been created in the way pro suggests.
Most importantly, I provided a clear and tangible disproof that God created life:
If life was designed, the designer has the ability to create any life form in any order or any combination of traits. There could be bats wing feathers, centaurs, whales with gills. In an evolutionary system, life is strictly limited to descent with modification - and due to the way evolution changes body plans - cannot deviate to substantially.
The fact that all life ever discovered matches what is expected from these evolutionary limitations - and there are no examples of deviations one would expect with a creator - it is clear and compelling evidence life has evolved - and the resolution is negated.
Pro dropped this entire case.
As a result of this, I encourage all voters to vote for con.
Sources:
[1]https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curcumin
In my opening round, I presented an opposing case for evolution. If evolution is accurate, life was not created
Pro has dropped my entire case on evolution, on evolutionary frauds, drops his case about positive mutations.
1.2.) How can Snow cause mutations.
As outlined in R1 and R2, Mutations occur at random. These mutations can impact how well the organism survives. The snow did not cause the mutation that led to white hair, but caused the conditions for that mutation to be beneficial - white hair doesn’t help a bear, unless that bear is hinting. This is the basic process by which organisms adapt to their environment.
1.2.) Ernst Heckle
Pro drops every example of evolutionary fraud, and raises another example of how science discovers and exposes frauds amongst themselves : completely refuting his positions that scientists are dishonest.
Pros argument is largely irrelevant - as Heckles pictures - though fake - were largely accurate (though embellished to support a now defunct theory he supported): the embryological patterns he noted do actually exist [1][2]
1.3.) Malaria mutation
Pro confuses learned immune response with innate genetic immunity.
The Malaria resistance mutation changes the shape of the blood cells to prevent the malaria parasite from infecting them.
I extend this point - and all the other dropped points on positive mutations
2.) Herbs.
Pro drops my entire case explaining drugs and herbs that have chemically beneficial properties are expected. I extend.
Pro asserts that herbs and drugs that come from plants are not “just chemicals mashed together”.
This appears to be exactly what they are.
The active ingredient in Turmeric, for example also has the catchy name of (1E,6E)-1,7-Bis(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-1,6-heptadiene-3,5-dione
Diferuloylmethane. Or Curcumin. It is just a chemical.[3]
If pro wanted to show that the ingredients in herbs are more than just chemicals; pro should present evidence to this effect.
3.) Fine Tuning redux.
Pros argument here has bee. to simply list as many numbers as he can, then assert that their cause is due to God.
On what basis does pro claim that the sun and moon have the size they do because of God, rather than simply coincidence?
On what basis does pro claim that the proton/electron ratio is due to God, rather than a necessity of some deeper law of physics?
Simply citing the number; and asserting its perfection does nothing to prove that God is responsible - much less was the one who created life
This culminates in pros assertions of fine tuning: pro cannot show the universe is fine tuned, if he cannot possibly know the information that he needs to in order to draw that conclusion.
If there are billions of other universes with different parameters, if there are trillions of combinations of these values that would allow life to exist in some form, or if all these parameters are dependent on some super parameter in such a way that it’s not possible for the universe parameters to not support life: the universe we see could not be considered fine tuned.
Instead, what we see could just be the product of the observer effect - that we must observe that the universe supports life - otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it.
Pro drops this point - and hides his faulty assumption by simply bombarding readers with a Gish Gallop of individual claims.
3.1) The universe and earth is hostile to life.
Pro drops the primary point that this planet is the only location life as we know can exist within trillions of miles in any direction.
Pro also acknowledges that the majority of earth is hostile to most forms of life.
Pro misses the key point: if the universe is fine tuned for life to exist: why is so much of it so hostile to that very same life?
If 99.9% of the universe will kill life as we know it instantly: surely a universe in which 90% is hostile is more fine tuned?
Even on earth, 90% of the earth is lethal for most land plants animals. (Water, too hot/too cold).
The earth would be more fine tuned for life if that number dropped to 80/70/60/20/0.
A building in which 99.9% is uninhabitable to humans cannot be claimed to be fine tuned for human habitation.
Voter summary:
To win: pro has the burden of proof to show life as we know it was actively created by God - not just that God exists.
Pro throws out a dozen parameters of the universe and then asserting this proves God. This fine tuning argument has been refuted as the universe neither appears to be fine tuned: and that pros argument is based on assumptions that assume their conclusion.
Pro claims the existence of herbs proves intelligence. This has been refuted - such chemistry is to be expected in a system that is the product of billions of years of evolution.
As a result: pro has not provided any direct support of the positive claim - and thus has not affirmed the resolution.
On the other hand:
I have laid out key principles of evolution that have been completely dropped by pro.
If life evolved - it cannot have been created in the way pro suggests.
Most importantly, I provided a clear and tangible disproof that God created life:
If life was designed, the designer has the ability to create any life form in any order or any combination of traits. There could be bats wing feathers, centaurs, whales with gills. In an evolutionary system, life is strictly limited to descent with modification - and due to the way evolution changes body plans - cannot deviate to substantially.
The fact that all life ever discovered matches what is expected from these evolutionary limitations - and there are no examples of deviations one would expect with a creator - it is clear and compelling evidence life has evolved - and the resolution is negated.
Pro dropped this entire case.
As a result of this, I encourage all voters to vote for con.
Sources:
[1]https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curcumin
I just saw Virtuoso thanking RM during that time. Thought you would thank him as well but guess not.
I don't consider myself obnoxious but it doesn't matter what I think since you are the one making the claim from your perspective not mine.
Yes actually; I’m also going to thank him in the basis that he agrees with me that you’re a fairly annoying and toxic individual. It’s nice that you managed to give me a whole four hours - of which I have barely been online - to come up with a sufficient method of thanking RM. Can you please try not to be so obnoxious? At least for a little longer than 5 hours?
Are you going to thank RM?
in all seriousness while I like you less than I used to, you still would thwart bsh1 as head mod in all respects. You at least apologise at times like this and show appreciation to me even in the heat of me berating you on pm and in public.
You have every single element of being a worthy head mod but the only thing I dislike is the very fact that you willingly submit
to bsh1 for no reason at all and definitely no benefit to the website whatsoever.
Sorry for dropping the ball here. This happened while I was AFK. @RM - thanks so much for CB'ing!
That vote is completely invalid: please read the voting guidelines. You also require 100 forum posts, or 3 debates in order to vote.
No.
To suggest you start a debate on a topic for which you clearly feel impassioned.
What was the intention behind you entering this conversation?
Ramshutu made it clear he doesn't want to talk yet you do.
If you are this opposed to the conduct of someone stating what they believe BoP to be inside a debate, you should probably start a debate on the topic.
While not a winning argument, a good piece of evidence for you would actually be found in my site guide for DDO: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.pn6obigpxbnb
That said, my guide for this site outright advises use of foreshadowing in that manner. For a quick and entertaining example of it being well used by someone other than Ram: https://www.debateart.com/debates/949/morals-cannot-exist-without-god (granted I had someone create a lengthy forum topic to complain that they think the guy who forfeited secretly won that debate...).
I am sorry you don't understand simple things and are unable to show reasonable counters of mine to be wrong.
Good lord, stop talking. I’m sorry you don’t understand the purpose of stating the burden and resolution in a debate, I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the difference between objective and subjective in my AMA; and I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the definition of an unmoderated debate, when I gave your opponent conduct in a conceded debate.
But Good lord, your inability to understand or accept any explanation no matter how slowly and carefully explained, nor how many times makes you borderline insufferable. So please; stop. The most useful thing you can bring to a conversation
When your question has been answered about 6 times - is silence.
Can't prove your point. Ask the person you are supposed to be proving your claim to provide evidence ("Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history."). Ramshutu logic and also appeal to the crowd while you are at it ("Anyone else interested").
Your answer was not better than mine.
This is not a debate, I’m not interested in finding links to the win percentage debate, or my AMA, or your objections on other debates. You seem to get worked up about some nonsense: then won’t listen to the answer. As you’ve done it again here.
Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history. That kinda speaks for itself. Now please stop objecting to meaningless trivialities that you don’t seem to understand.
Objected to pointless nonsense?
You accused me of something yet can't put in the effort of proving it.
Not my fault you can't support your claim.
This is the third time you’ve objected to pointless nonsense with me. I’m not going to go back and forth when you’re clearly not listening to anything being said. If I need peanuts picked out of poop, I know who to call.
From my perspective you gave up without providing evidence for your claim and not being able to show my side was not better.
Given that you seem not to even understand what’s being discussed, I’m not going to respond to your name calling.
It is even better to avoid confusion or debate about things that are specific to the debate itself instead of arguing about assumptions or lack thereof in the debate.
"I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point"
Now I know you have lost your mind. Do I need to provide a single occurrence or do you know how laughable this claims is?
I hope in the next comment you are not as delusional here.
I think I represented what you said pretty well; it’s always good to explicitly state your understanding of the resolution and burden up front; you confusing this for demanding a particular burden; or confusing the resolution itself with about whether God exists.
I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point; but this is a reasonable thing that I would encourage everyone to do, regardless of how much you appear to misunderstand the necessity and Intention.
What a weird way of stating my position. It is almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting me.
What I wanted was for you to make sure your question as in who had what burden was fulfilled. This debate was about if God exists or not. For the most part it was fulfilled but you decided to state a question you could've asked before accepting. There is no real reason why you didn't do it instead of incompetence (I can't really think of a different answer. Your response because it is debating is lackluster because why didn't you talk about the assumptions of this debate). This debate is an easy win. Have you seen his past debates? You could've just stayed on topic yet you wanted to also argue about the burden. This was entirely useless and preventable. I hope you understand that but doubt it.
I think you need to google what a debate is; Because you seem to be arguing that explicitly laying out your understanding of the burden for voters and the opponent for the intent of agreement or contestation is a bad thing.
The resolution implied was "Life is created by God". You instead chose to spend some characters on changing or setting the assumptions. Instead of simply asking who is doing what outside the debate you instead challenged it in the debate.
There was topic but you chose to challenge the assumptions.
I said demand because if he didn't accept he would have to argue against an assumption while also the resolution.
I’m not demanding the instigator follow it. I’m stating what I believe the burden of proof to be so it can be challenged and argued.
You know, because it’s a debate, where people argue, and disagree and challenge each other’s positions.
How about a better way:
Instead of stating it in the debate and demanding the instigator to agree with it. Why not simply agree on it outside the debate?
You should always state you understanding of the burden and the resolution in the first round, so that if your opponent t disagrees; they can contest it at the start - and you don’t go 5 rounds both assuming that the other is arguing a different resolution or to a different burden of proof. That way of there is disagreement, it can be challenged.
I really appreciate the vote; these take some time!
Why didn't you ask who had which burden instead of stating your position and pretty much demanding the instigator to follow it?
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
X made Y. Made Y is the key claim, with X being presumed (a K would be valid, but they’re pretty annoying and usually unnecessary)
Gist:
About 8000 characters more than the argument warranted.
1. Evolution v. Creation: Con
Pro opens with “we just popped into existence” and scientists who imply otherwise glued some bones together.
Con counters with the theory of gene mutation, which intuitively explains why different people from different parts of the world look different (“When two groups of the same species become geographically separated: these organisms acquire random changes independently”), and of course why we’re not suffering from worse inbreeding (granted the creation theory would prevent any mutation, so inbreeding would not be a problem if it’s true).
Pro dismisses it as “illogical,” because we don’t massively mutate spontaneously like the X-Men (he mentioned fairy tales, rather than specifically Marvel Comics). Plus some mention of different bear species, which with the evidence unchallenged actually supports mutation rather than creation.
---RFD (2 of 3)---
2. Numbers AKA “List or coincidences”
Pro offers a bunch of numbers within a number system based on observations of these things, and concludes that God must have done it. Con counters that it’s an argument from ignorance. If it was proven that some cosmic being created the sun, it would not prove creation of life by the same being. So, this section is irrelevant to the resolution.
Regarding animals, pro makes the case for God spontaneously created each variant to be perfect for its environment. Pro counters that it lacks optimization on form for each area (maintaining a constant number of legs on all mammals, the same useless hip bones inside whales, etc.); and if no shared ancestry due to spontaneous creation the leg count would be random on each species of mammal (honestly, it’d look pretty cool were that the case..., Pokémon or other anime monsters, instead of extreme but dull variants of the same form we see today).
3. Drugs/Herbs
Carbon-based organisms are successful with carbon-based food sources... This doesn’t prove anything. Nor does not all living things being adapted for our consumption prove that God (or “mother nature”) reaches down each time to lay a curse on what would otherwise be healthy.
This area is just too each to take seriously.
---RFD (3 of 3)---
4. God did it
Basically a weak repeat of the evolution claim, which has already been addressed.
5. Unintelligent Design
Pretty much just a reminder that the design sucks at supporting life, making it a fluke anything lived long enough to adapt (and usually pretty poorly, such as us not being able to drink most of the available water, while depending on water to live), while reminding us that it is the result of adaption rather than perfectly suited creation down to limb counts that would be randomized if the creatures were unrelated due to spontaneous creation...
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This pretty heavily goes to con, particularly as BoP is pro trying to prove the status quo wrong, which needs significant reason for it to be rejected.
Sources:
I don’t want to go to the trouble of looking through all the various sources, but I do need to call con out on the “Real Science Radio” religious racist propaganda site. The page in question insists repeatedly that God is a ginormous Caucasian Male Human (or at least the disembodied hand of one), which anyone familiar with the bible knows to be BS. Seriously, use better sources.
S&G: con
Was already leaning con due to organization and not all bolding any paragraphs... However basic rules about capitalization and punctuation were ignored by pro, repeatedly pulling me out of the argument. Examples from just the first paragraph, “female. the” “tracing. since” “Lucy. instead” “parts. seriously” “human. instead”
Con on the other hand was perfectly legible, even adding necessary organization to pro’s points (could have been better, as they were over expanded and each given their own number away from the initial numbering system...).
Conduct:
I find the repeated calling everyone morons distasteful, but it was technically a source which did this (to which pro repeatedly quoted in rapid succession), so giving a pass due to it being somewhat borderline.
I hope you don't think I am a bit rude in the precious comment, because I don't think I am either.
Hey! Some people are so arrogant! Just think of themselves like Aristotle! Like they are the centre of the whole universe! The solar system is just one out of many others! God has nothing to do with Earth, as far as we are concerned!
I should have set the time limit longer then 3 days. That was not fair of me. I only did 3 days because a week was to long for me to wait