Instigator / Pro
3
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1262
It is a fact that God put medicine in plants
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
Burden of proof
I have to prove that it requires great intelligence to create the medicine in plants and only god can do it.
Con needs to show that it does not require intelligence to create medicine in plants and this medicine can come naturally via evolution and big bang
Round 1
Turmeric heals damage done by schizophrenic medication. In fact many herbs show this kind of intelligence. Witches refer to there medical mushrooms as magic mushrooms. Now there mushrooms are not magical. Its just god using his intelligence.But you can see why they would mistake herbs as magical. Do you see what kinds of health benefits are in these things. Turmeric fixes brain damage. sweet flag helps with stuttering. 70 percent of medication today comes from plants. No wonder they mistook gods medicine as magic.
Now i do not think herbs are magical like those witches. But i can see why they mistook what god created as magic. turmeric heals damage done by schizophrenic medication. He must have told them because it was worth more then gold in the days of Jesus. in fact many people believe that the gold they gave to baby Jesus was actually just turmeric.
now lets look at these medical mushrooms that are referred to as magic.
Magical mushrooms health benefits
research has shown psilocybin to have potential to treat a range of psychiatric and behavioral disorders, although it’s yet to receive FDA approval for anything.
Its potential indications include depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, quitting smoking, alcohol addiction, cocaine addiction, cluster headaches, and cancer-related or other end-of-life psychological distress
so it helps with
obsessive compulsive disorder
depression
and cluster headaches
beer addiction
smoking addiction
cocaine addiction
no wonder they thought they were magic. We know better it is just God using his intelligent to create medicine
it also helps with addiction
Smoking cessation and other addictions
why don't we use this to help with addiction. Have you seen what chantix does to a person. just listen to all the evil side effect of that commercial
a small pilot study from Johns Hopkins UniversityTrusted Source, researchers found that psilocybin therapy significantly improved abstaining from smoking over a 12-month follow-up period.
summary
God put medicine in plants. The medicine is so great people mistake it for magic. But it is not magic it is god
Sources
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
As indicated by my opponent, in the description: I have the burden to show that it does not require intelligence to create medicine in plants.
1.) Evolution.
When an organism replicates, it passes on mutations. These mutations can duplicate, shift or shuffle parts of the genome.
These mutations can potentially change the protein chemistry, cause the organism to produce enzyme variations, or cause some chemical processes to be modified to produce subtly different chemicals.[1]
2.) Selection Pressure
The millions upon millions of plants in any given field reproduce, mutate, are eaten by insects, infected by pathogens and compete with each other. Any mutation that changes a protein or enzyme in a way that now produces a chemical that repels or harms insects, or kills pathogens boosts that plants chances of survival and reproduction compared to its competitors.
The trillions of plants, and hundreds of millions of years they have existed provide an uncountably vast quantity of mutations, that could lead to these beneficial chemical variations.
Over time, the selection pressure means that the plants that are most likely to survive are the ones that have such mutations to produce chemicals that fight of infection and insects. The ones that don’t are most likely to die.[2]
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
As a result: it is inevitable that an evolutionary system will produce a wide variety of plants that produce chemicals that kill fungal infections, bacteria, and interfere with the chemistry of other organisms such as insects.
3.) Chemical effects on humans.
Given that it’s inevitable that plants will evolve to produce chemicals to kill bacteria, fungus and alter the chemistry of organisms that go near it: it’s unsurprising that humans would find that plants kill bacteria, fungus and alter our body chemistry.
Even Pros example - Tumeric - is a natural insecticide. [5]
We would expect some of these chemicals to kill us, or make us sick, most chemicals to have little or no effect on us at all - and a handful to have beneficial effects due to them having evolved to alter chemistry in organisms bodies.
This is exactly what we see, and strongly implies evolution - not divine intervention.
4.) Rebuttals
Pros argument is to list the plants that have beneficial properties, and asserting that God must have done it.
Pro does not explain how he knows this, or why he can rule out any other explanation, or why the chemicals are so complex they necessitate an omnipotent super being to create.
Worse: the explanation pro provides fails at a basic logical level:
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all? If good plants are there to help, are bad plants there to intentionally kill us? What about addictive plants? Why make antibiotic compounds wreck your kidneys?[6]
Pros argument quickly becomes incoherent when these additional facts are brought in.
Conclusion:
I have provided a concise explanation of how plants can evolve chemicals that have pharmaceutical effects.
I have shown pros argument is an unsupported argument from ignorance that becomes incoherent when more facts are considered.
Sources:
[1]https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations
[2] https://www.canr.msu.edu/grapes/integrated_pest_management/how-pesticide-resistance-develops
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?hp
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27804972/
[6]https://medshadow.org/6-medications-can-harm-the-kidneys/
1.) Evolution.
When an organism replicates, it passes on mutations. These mutations can duplicate, shift or shuffle parts of the genome.
These mutations can potentially change the protein chemistry, cause the organism to produce enzyme variations, or cause some chemical processes to be modified to produce subtly different chemicals.[1]
2.) Selection Pressure
The millions upon millions of plants in any given field reproduce, mutate, are eaten by insects, infected by pathogens and compete with each other. Any mutation that changes a protein or enzyme in a way that now produces a chemical that repels or harms insects, or kills pathogens boosts that plants chances of survival and reproduction compared to its competitors.
The trillions of plants, and hundreds of millions of years they have existed provide an uncountably vast quantity of mutations, that could lead to these beneficial chemical variations.
Over time, the selection pressure means that the plants that are most likely to survive are the ones that have such mutations to produce chemicals that fight of infection and insects. The ones that don’t are most likely to die.[2]
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
As a result: it is inevitable that an evolutionary system will produce a wide variety of plants that produce chemicals that kill fungal infections, bacteria, and interfere with the chemistry of other organisms such as insects.
3.) Chemical effects on humans.
Given that it’s inevitable that plants will evolve to produce chemicals to kill bacteria, fungus and alter the chemistry of organisms that go near it: it’s unsurprising that humans would find that plants kill bacteria, fungus and alter our body chemistry.
Even Pros example - Tumeric - is a natural insecticide. [5]
We would expect some of these chemicals to kill us, or make us sick, most chemicals to have little or no effect on us at all - and a handful to have beneficial effects due to them having evolved to alter chemistry in organisms bodies.
This is exactly what we see, and strongly implies evolution - not divine intervention.
4.) Rebuttals
Pros argument is to list the plants that have beneficial properties, and asserting that God must have done it.
Pro does not explain how he knows this, or why he can rule out any other explanation, or why the chemicals are so complex they necessitate an omnipotent super being to create.
Worse: the explanation pro provides fails at a basic logical level:
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all? If good plants are there to help, are bad plants there to intentionally kill us? What about addictive plants? Why make antibiotic compounds wreck your kidneys?[6]
Pros argument quickly becomes incoherent when these additional facts are brought in.
Conclusion:
I have provided a concise explanation of how plants can evolve chemicals that have pharmaceutical effects.
I have shown pros argument is an unsupported argument from ignorance that becomes incoherent when more facts are considered.
Sources:
[1]https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations
[2] https://www.canr.msu.edu/grapes/integrated_pest_management/how-pesticide-resistance-develops
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?hp
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27804972/
[6]https://medshadow.org/6-medications-can-harm-the-kidneys/
Round 2
i overloaded myself with debates 6 rebuttal of the day. So i will keep this brief.if evolution created medical plants like con said And this was through mutation.
Then how did a Bunch of mutation create DNA repair foods which repair mutations??? if mutations created these herbs then why do some of them repair mutations I think it is a fair to ask. your last round was just mutations did this mutations did that so.
How can a mutation/evolution create DNA repair food pls do not ignore this.
The
kiwi fruit industry wanted to know what medicinal purposes there plant
had. so they funded a bunch of experiments. They found that when you
consume a kiwi you repair 5 genes.
By
video 2 They went forward with there experiments. But with other fruits
and they found that the group that ate 4 different kinds of berries
with kiwi repaired 25 genes. They ate bilberry raspberry blackberry
kiwi and strawberry and repaired 25 genes. 5 genes per fruit.precise
number 5
Bill Gate said
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.
We
always here how things found in nature are ten billion times more
advance then invention done by are smartest humans. But we are still to
stupid to realize that the reason why things found in nature are more
advance then inventions done by are smartest people is because the one
creating it is a billion times smarter then our smartest people.aka god
DNA repair is a collection of processes by which a cell identifies and corrects damage to the DNA molecules that encode its genome.
so
it is aware that something is wrong and is smart enough to correct the
damage done by the molecule in the genome.That is intelligence. It is
able to identify that there is a problem then he has the knowledge on
how to fix it.
blueberry's help with DNA repair.
broccoli blueberry lemons green tee apples cellar y kiwi and water cress repair dna
when spinach and tomato are combined it repairs DNA
here is a study that was reported on by the same fellow. Anyway people who smoke there dna damage is 3 times higher then ours, But they found that if they eat turmeric there DNA damage returns back to normal.
This was able to identify between 2 thing and have knowledge on how to do something that is intelligent
Saffron flowers help with learning disability.
It makes itself up to the brain able to identify which parts are broken and which parts he needs to go through. and has knowledge on how to fix the brain
the Intelligent parts are it has knowledge on how to fix a brain and is able to identify which parts are broken and seems to have a map because it traverses its way up there
This flower is not intelligent god is
saffron on the brain
Promotes learning and memory retention and treats age related impairment
Saffron contains certain active constituents which are known to produce
positive effects in patients suffering from neuro degenerative disorders
1-3.) Evolutionary explanation for how complex chemistry can evolveZ
In R1, I provided broad details of how plants can evolve complex and useful chemistry that can have positive effects for humans (and many that also have negative effects).
Pro has dropped my entire case; and I extend this across the board.
4.) Rebuttal - No justification for intelligence.
In R1, I outlined that pro has not offered a justification of why plants are so advanced only a super being could create them; nor has he explained why these examples are so complex that he can rule out any possible non God explanation.
Pro is listing other examples of plants that he feels require intelligence; but not addressing his burden of proof.
I extend my entire point:
Why wouldn’t God just not make us ill? Why make so many poisonous and addictive plants? Why not make rocks and minerals cure illnesses?
Pro has no explanation for this, however these facts are fully explained by unguided evolution shown in R1z
5.) How do mutations lead to mutations being repaired?
Pro confuses DNA damage with mutation[1]. DNA damage is when the DNA chemical structure is modified (such as the addition of a methyl group to the helix). A mutation is a change in the quantity or arrangement of the genetic bases.
DNA damage can be repaired easily, but mutations generally are not.
6.) Evolution of DNA repair.
All organisms have DNA. DNA damage is bad, as it can kill or harm the organism.
This means organisms that have mutations that produce enzymes that reduce the damage, or chemicals with anti-oxidant properties, this is beneficial to the organism.
That such enzymes and antioxidants are beneficial to other animals with DNA, is unsurprising and is explainable using EXACTLY the same trial, error and selection principles as outlined in point 1,2 and 3 in R1.
Sources:
Round 3
DNA damage is what causes mutations. I extend my entire last argument.
Excessive DNA damage causes mutation
New point
. Chlorophyllin is one of the most promising agents to protect against these deadly gene mutations.
Chlorophyll makes Chlorophyllin. Chlorophyll is what makes plants green. so it is impossible for all plant eaters to evolve because they eat green grass. which prevents mutations.
and if you repair 25 genes with the method i provide below. would you not have to repair a mutation.
and from my last post before it take intelligence to do this. last ten seconds he says the result were 25 genes were repaired.
cancer super foods prevent mutations
variety of chemicals from plants known as phytochemicals also seem to protect cells from harmful compounds in food and in the environment, as well as prevent cell damage and mutations, says Jed ...
Wait a second. plants have compounds that prevent mutations done by the environment. Evolution says that the environment causes mutations. But plants prevent environment mutations. Evolution says that animals evolved because of the environment they were in. For example the polar bear was in a white environment so it turned white. What about the plant eaters that got mutations because of its environment. would not the plants that they eat which prevent environment mutations stop that.
Mutations occur if the repair mechanisms re-attach the wrong piece of DNA back together
Why would a mistake turn a monkey into a human.
Rebuttal
Con said that plants adapted to there environment and gained mutations that prevent insects form eating them.and from bacteria and fungi damaging effects. This shoe does not fit all these medical properties. because this does not explain everything else. this only explain these 3 medical properties. Why do plants help the brain. For example lemons help out concentration memory. This also does not explain why plants prevent cancer in humans.Olive oil kills cancer cells and not normal cells. How does it have knowledge that good cells are good and cancer cells are bad. being able to have knowledge of something is intelligence. now i do not believe that it is the plant that had knowledge . I believe its creator is though. The one creating it had knowledge that cancer cells were bad and that good cells are good.
Con said
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all?
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
God made an amazing Immune system. If a toxin enters the body our immune system is able to identity's it and try's to remove it. It also keeps the information of what that invader was and create a substance that is resistant to it. That's the reason why vaccines are a thing. It is not that there DNA is changing or mutating.
This is intelligence.It has knowledge that a substance is bad. And it has knowledge on how to create a cure for that substance. I do not believe that our inanimate limbs are intelligent . I believe that it is god who created it that is.
con said
If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place? Why not make beneficial chemicals, anti fungals, etc naturally occur in different rocks and clays? Why make any poisonous plants at all?
story of Adam and eve. if you do not know that then you should not be doing these debates. Adam disobeyed god and as punishment he made it so he can die.
Con said
evolution created DNA repair foods.
DNA repair foods boost that power of our dna repair system. our DNA repair system sends out enzymes which prevent mutations.
cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence.
not this
this means organisms that have mutations that produce enzymes reduce the dna damage
This was originally said by a radio preacher chuck Swindol
1-3.) Evolution of chemicals - “What have the romans ever done for us?”
In this round, pro appears to mostly accept that I have been able to explain how plants can evolve anti-fungal, anti-biotic, DNA repairing, medicinal properties. I also showed evidence that we have observed plants evolving new chemicals and enzymes.
As pointed in R1 and R2; if plants evolve chemicals to repel insects, or alter their chemistry, one would expect these to have an effect on humans chemistry at low dosages. Some chemicals would be good, some bad, some neutral - which is what we see.
Instead of contesting this point: pro simply throws our another set of examples. Offering little more than his personal incredulity to challenge evolutions ability to produce these chemicals.
Pro should explain why he feels why he feels it unreasonable or impossible for chemicals that would evolve as described to never have a beneficial effect in some doseage for humans.
4.) No evidence of a God
Pro still has not expanded upon what properties of medicinal plants necessitates a transcendental superbeing to exist. How can pro rule out, say, aliens?
If God wanted to give us medicine, why do it in plants? Why not earth? Why is so much poisonous?
Pro doesn’t really answer, but simply responds by saying “God cursed the ground”, or that he punished Adam.
Pros argument thus seems to be that God wants to help us, and heal us, except when he wants us to be killed by Neurotoxins, disease, death, etc.
Pros position is contrived and largely seems to be pointing at everything and simply asserting “god did it”, with no other justification.
5/6.) Mutations repaired
In the last round I used the same evolutionary explanation of plant to show how evolution can produce mutations that lead to enzymes that could repair DNA: though Pro continues failing to appreciate the difference between DNA damage and mutation.
Pro claims DNA repair prevents organisms from evolving by preventing mutations.
Unfortunately, this claim is objectively false as we can both measure mutations in organisms[1][2], and see organisms evolving today.[3][4]
Pros claim that mutations and evolution can not occur is therefore directly refuted by observations that it can.
7.) Cancer fighting olives
Pro implies that chemicals “know” how to fight cancer cells.
Cancer cells have differences compared to regular cells; otherwise they would not be cancer. The chemical ingredient in olives simply has an effect on cancer cells because they have differences in membranes - meaning the chemical damages the membrane in cancer cells, but not regular cells[5]
Pros argument is like asking how rain know how to target only people who are outside.
8.) The immune system shows intelligence
Pro moves the goalposts again, and expresses his own personal incredulity at the existence of the immune system. My evolutionary explanation of plants evolving beneficial chemicals extends to this topic to, so I will cross apply 1-3 on this point.
However, I will point out to voters that pros position revealed itself to even more vacuous at this point:
Pro appears to be claiming that God intentionally made the earth and plants damaging to us, on purpose : then designed our bodies to prevent this damage, but not well enough so it worked all the time, and instead made some of the plants that don’t damage us, fix problems that our bodies - which a Super intelligent super-being designed to remove toxins - can’t fix.
Pros belief is so contrived, it should be rejected as absurd.
Conclusion:
Pro still has not met his burden of proof, and is arguing from his own personal incredulity.
Clear examples have been provided at how medicinal properties in plants can evolve - which have been completely dropped by pro.
Sources:
Round 4
pro appears to mostly accept that I have been able to explain how plants can evolve anti-fungal, anti-biotic, DNA repairing, medicinal properties. I also showed evidence that we have observed plants evolving new chemicals and enzymes.
no i have not.
We see this in real time, with weeds and plants changing their chemistry to become resistant to herbicides[3], or bacteria becoming able to digest the artificial plastic Nylon[4]
This does not explain how a plant gets the properties that heal the heart brain and 99 percent of medical properties.
Pls explain how something like a saffron flower can go up in the brain and fix different parts of the brain.
con has dropped my entire argument i extend it.
Mutations
I showed a pretty long line of stuff that would prevent mutations. like plants that prevent mutations. The dna repair system that prevent mutations etc. Con ignores this by saying well mutations can still happen. And i'm like ya but they would not fail in stopping a monkey from turning into a human. It may miss 1 or 2 mutations but it would stop the billions of mutations needed to turn me from monkey to human.
plus when someone mutates a bunch they can not reproduce. So how could they reproduce after the monkey mutated into a human.Pls do not ignore
environmental and genetic factors. It has been estimated that nearly 50% of infertility cases are due to genetic defects.
It is why GMO food like corn can not reproduce. While non gmo corn can reproduce.
God created things
oranges help prevent kidney stones
Help Reduce Kidney Stones: Not all citrus juices are created equal. A recent study found that orange juice, but not lemon juice, can prevent painful kidney stones from forming
So the orange goes into the bladder. dissolves the rocks. goes into the broken part and turns off the pain receptors in his noodle.
So it has knowledge on which pain receptors are causing pain.has knowledge on how to turn off the pain receptors.
Only an intelligent being can have knowledge. Evolution is not intelligent so it is god who had the knowledge on how to turn off the pain receptors
I believe that it was the one creating it who had the knowledge not the orange. the orange blocks nerve pain only because god programmed it to do that.
Saffron flowers help with learning disability.
It makes itself up to the brain able to identify which parts are broken and which parts he needs to go through. and has knowledge on how to fix the brain
The Intelligent parts are it has knowledge on how to fix a brain and is able to identify which parts are broken and seems to have a map because it traverses its way up there
Fasting.
When you fast your body has knowledge that it is empty and knows that it would be a good time to remove poisons.
So god used his knowledge that the body being empty is a good time to remove knowledge and he used this knowledge to create it so it would make use of the empty belly and remove toxins.
He used knowledge. this is something only an intelligent being can do according to the definition of intelligence. he used knowledge in all these plants
intelligence
Olive oils properties
Cancer cells have differences compared to regular cells; otherwise they would not be cancer. The chemical ingredient in olives simply has an effect on cancer cells because they have differences in membranes - meaning the chemical damages the membrane in cancer cells, but not regular cells[5]
cancer cell is when a normal cell grows to fast. Normal cells have healthy membranes. cancer has a broken membrane. the only difference is one is broken one is not. if i hit a kid with a baseball bat he is still human. i'm not broken but he is.
come on this is common knowledge
Cancer is a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth
All cancer is is when your cells grow to fast and the cells form a blob in which we call cancer.
Cancer is when the cells start to grow out of control. The cancer cells keep on growing and making new cells. They crowd out normal cells.
There is very little biological difference between cancer cells and normal cells. the difference is cancer cells grow twice as fast.
Poisonous plants
If you do not like the biblical answer fine. but don't say we do not have an answer when we do have an answer. you may not like it but it there.
Dna damage equals mutations
Our DNA repair system goes out and trys to stop mutations. The DNA repair food i was talking about repair DNA by using this system. so yes they do repair mutations.
As pro is mostly simply restating the same argument again: I will simply summarize.
1/2/3/5/6/7/8 - Evolution explains medicinal properties of plants.
In the resolution, pro stated I must show how plants could evolve medicinal properties in order to satisfy my burden of proof - instead pro now appears to demand that I be able to fully explain in detail how every individual plant that he can name.
I have answered, fully and in detail, how plants can evolve properties that can have medical effects.
This was covered extensively in Points 1, 2 and 3 covered and extended in all rounds so far.
In Points 5, point 6 andPoint 7I go further and go on to show how DNA repair mechanisms are likely follow the same pattern.
The question:How can [plant] evolve the positive health impact [effect]has been answered in full, and applies to all pros examples.
With the exception of pros personal incredulity, and claims that mutations and evolution don’t happen - despite us having observed both - pro has not offered any rebuttal - con has clearly met his burden of proof, with almost no challenge.
Mutations
Pro again appears to claim all mutations are either prevented, fixed or a new claim that they always lead to infertility.
This is simply unsupported by any of his data.
Organisms can repair some DNA, and as shown, there are mechanisms by which organisms can prevent DNA damage leading to a mutation. It is also the case that infertility can be caused by genetic mutations.
Pro takes this reasonable data, to outrageously claim that all of most DNA damage is repaired, most mutations are repaired and mutations always cause infertility. Thus evolution cannot happen.
As stated, this claim is completely absurd unsupported hyperbolic overstatement of the data he presented.
4.) Pro does not meet his burden
Despite pointing this out of the last 3 rounds: pros argument has simply been:
These plants have therapeutic effects - therefore god.
This is a nonsequitor, and unjustified bare assertion, for which pro does not offer any compelling explanation.
Pro argues that God creates poisons to kill us, and makes our immune system protect us from the toxins he created to kill us, because he doesn’t want us to die; but didn’t do a good enough job, so needed to make plants (some of which he made kill us), heal us.
Pro also claims that mutations can’t happen - as DNA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.
Pros case is simply incoherent.
1/2/3/5/6/7/8 - Evolution explains medicinal properties of plants.
In the resolution, pro stated I must show how plants could evolve medicinal properties in order to satisfy my burden of proof - instead pro now appears to demand that I be able to fully explain in detail how every individual plant that he can name.
I have answered, fully and in detail, how plants can evolve properties that can have medical effects.
This was covered extensively in Points 1, 2 and 3 covered and extended in all rounds so far.
In Points 5, point 6 andPoint 7I go further and go on to show how DNA repair mechanisms are likely follow the same pattern.
The question:How can [plant] evolve the positive health impact [effect]has been answered in full, and applies to all pros examples.
With the exception of pros personal incredulity, and claims that mutations and evolution don’t happen - despite us having observed both - pro has not offered any rebuttal - con has clearly met his burden of proof, with almost no challenge.
Mutations
Pro again appears to claim all mutations are either prevented, fixed or a new claim that they always lead to infertility.
This is simply unsupported by any of his data.
Organisms can repair some DNA, and as shown, there are mechanisms by which organisms can prevent DNA damage leading to a mutation. It is also the case that infertility can be caused by genetic mutations.
Pro takes this reasonable data, to outrageously claim that all of most DNA damage is repaired, most mutations are repaired and mutations always cause infertility. Thus evolution cannot happen.
As stated, this claim is completely absurd unsupported hyperbolic overstatement of the data he presented.
4.) Pro does not meet his burden
Despite pointing this out of the last 3 rounds: pros argument has simply been:
These plants have therapeutic effects - therefore god.
This is a nonsequitor, and unjustified bare assertion, for which pro does not offer any compelling explanation.
Pro argues that God creates poisons to kill us, and makes our immune system protect us from the toxins he created to kill us, because he doesn’t want us to die; but didn’t do a good enough job, so needed to make plants (some of which he made kill us), heal us.
Pro also claims that mutations can’t happen - as DNA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.
Pros case is simply incoherent.
Round 5
In the resolution, pro stated I must show how plants could evolve medicinal properties in order to satisfy my burden of proof - instead pro now appears to demand that I be able to fully explain in detail how every individual plant that he can name.
Your explanation only explains the 4 things you have listed.
Explain how a plant can dissolves kidney stones.
You can not because your explanation does not explain stuff like this. it explains how plants get immune to pesticides but not how herbs get medical properties. it may explain one thing but it leave 99 percent of it open.
You can not explain how a plant can dissolve kidney stones.because your explanation does not explain how
You need to have an explanation that works with all plants. I do not need you to explain each plant individual. But have an explanation that works with all plants.your explanation does not explain how a plant can dissolve kidney stones or 99 percent of plants.you explanation only explains the 4 things you said. You have not met the burden of proof. do not cop out pls explain kidney stones.
Burden of proof
I will try to explain this one more time. I will first explain fasting because same idea just easier to understand.
When fasting you body uses the time that your tummy is empty to remove poisons. so lets break down what is happening. It has knowledge that your tummy is empty and it would be a good time to remove toxins. it then used this knowledge and removes toxins.
It used knowledge. our tummy used knowledge
this is intelligence it meets the used knowledge part
intelligence
I don't believe the tummy it is intelligence. But god is
Saffron flowers help with learning disability.
It makes itself up to the brain able to identify which parts are broken and which parts he needs to go through. and has knowledge on how to fix the brain
The Intelligent parts are it has knowledge on how to fix a brain and is able to identify which parts are broken and seems to have a map because it traverses its way up there
It is god who had intelligence he just programmed it into the plant
oranges help prevent kidney stones
Help Reduce Kidney Stones: Not all citrus juices are created equal. A recent study found that orange juice, but not lemon juice, can prevent painful kidney stones from forming
So the orange goes into the bladder.
dissolves the rocks. goes into the broken part and turns off the pain
receptors in his noodle.
So it has knowledge on which pain receptors are causing pain.has knowledge on how to turn off the pain receptors.
Only an intelligent being can have knowledge. Evolution is not intelligent so it is god who had the knowledge on how to turn off the pain receptors
I
believe that it was the one creating it who had the knowledge not the
orange. the orange blocks nerve pain only because god programmed it to
do that.
plants that dissolve kidney stones in the bladder.
why does the acid only effect kidney stone rocks and not bones or other flesh.
Its because god designed it specifically for kidney stones and not to dissolve ones.
This is the same logic on why man creates bombs that do not effect humans but do effect robots. This is intelligence
God created plants to dissolve kidney stones but not dissolve bones.
Man created Bombs that destroys robots but not humans.
Both of these examples are an intelligent being creating something intelligently
Mutations
uncovered a gene mutation that may provide answers to unexplained female infertility.
Now i if your mutated a little bit you can produce offspring's. but gene mutations lead to infertility.
this would absolutely stop evolution from happening
NA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.
I did not claim that olive oil cures cancer. but i though it. researchers find that olive oil kills cancer cells. But they do not know there claiming olive oil cures cancer. it's not politically correct to say olive oil cures cancer. so i did not say it i said olive oil kills cancer cells.
there topics on it
I heard that olive oil can kill cancer cells. Does that mean that it can actually be used to treat and cure cancer? In light of this news, should we include more olive oil in our diets to prevent cancer
I never claimed mutations do not occur. i said mutations that evolution describes do not occur. and yes our dna repair system goes out and try's to stop mutations.
Conclusion and voting issues.
1/2/3/5/6/7/8.) Evolution explains medicinal properties
In these sections, I have explained how evolution can create antibiotics, anti-fungals, how DNA repairing mechanism can originate, and how beneficial properties of the immune system meet the criteria of being able to evolve, I explained how olives are able to fight cancer; and used evolution to explain how chemicals can evolve that end up having medicinal properties (and also poisonous and neutral ones)
My burden of proof is to provide an explanation of how medicine can occur in plants via evolution - which I explained generically in R1 - section 3, and again explained further in R3. This burden has clearly been met and exceeded.
Pros argument has been to largely ignore these explanations and then demand I provide more specific explanations of other how plants and medicine originated despite me already having provided a generic explanation.
This is clearly moving the goalposts.
The only case where pro bothered to even make a counter argument to the evolutionary explanation, is by denying mutations.
Pro first said mutations can’t occur, then claimed the mutations that don’t occur cause infertility, and thus mutations and evolution can’t happen.
Pros issue is that I have repeatedly pointed out that evolution via random mutation has been physically observed.
How on earth can pro possibly claim that two things that have been repeatedly observed occurring - don’t occur?
This on its own should be enough to destroy pros entire case.
Moving on though, pro continues to simply assert that evolution can’t occur because some damage fixed, some mutations leads to some infertility, etc: but as I have repeatedly pointed out - pros evidence falls far short of showing that no mutations that could produce evolution can occur - this is simply an unsupported assertion by pro.
Why does pro believe that because some mutations can produce infertility, that all must produce infertility? Why does pro believe that because some damage is repaired, it’s all repaired?
Which forms part of my final point:
4.) Pros case is incoherent.
In the final round, Pro simply restates his case:
Medicine appears “smart”, therefore God.
Let’s presume pro doesn’t believe that chemicals literally have little brains and make rational decisions - and assume the figurative sense.
Firstly: As shown in 1/2/3/5/6/7 - evolution should be able to produce these things to.
Secondly: Pro still falls down to the same assertion he has made throughout:
Medicinal plants are “smart”: on what possible basis, and what possible grounds have you assessed that these plants have complex chemicals for which the only possible reasonable explanation is the existence of a transcendental super being.
Pro has not offered that explanation at any point - leaving me no case to refute.
Worse. The assertions pro does make, are incoherent: as stated in the last round:
In these sections, I have explained how evolution can create antibiotics, anti-fungals, how DNA repairing mechanism can originate, and how beneficial properties of the immune system meet the criteria of being able to evolve, I explained how olives are able to fight cancer; and used evolution to explain how chemicals can evolve that end up having medicinal properties (and also poisonous and neutral ones)
My burden of proof is to provide an explanation of how medicine can occur in plants via evolution - which I explained generically in R1 - section 3, and again explained further in R3. This burden has clearly been met and exceeded.
Pros argument has been to largely ignore these explanations and then demand I provide more specific explanations of other how plants and medicine originated despite me already having provided a generic explanation.
This is clearly moving the goalposts.
The only case where pro bothered to even make a counter argument to the evolutionary explanation, is by denying mutations.
Pro first said mutations can’t occur, then claimed the mutations that don’t occur cause infertility, and thus mutations and evolution can’t happen.
Pros issue is that I have repeatedly pointed out that evolution via random mutation has been physically observed.
How on earth can pro possibly claim that two things that have been repeatedly observed occurring - don’t occur?
This on its own should be enough to destroy pros entire case.
Moving on though, pro continues to simply assert that evolution can’t occur because some damage fixed, some mutations leads to some infertility, etc: but as I have repeatedly pointed out - pros evidence falls far short of showing that no mutations that could produce evolution can occur - this is simply an unsupported assertion by pro.
Why does pro believe that because some mutations can produce infertility, that all must produce infertility? Why does pro believe that because some damage is repaired, it’s all repaired?
Which forms part of my final point:
4.) Pros case is incoherent.
In the final round, Pro simply restates his case:
Medicine appears “smart”, therefore God.
Let’s presume pro doesn’t believe that chemicals literally have little brains and make rational decisions - and assume the figurative sense.
Firstly: As shown in 1/2/3/5/6/7 - evolution should be able to produce these things to.
Secondly: Pro still falls down to the same assertion he has made throughout:
Medicinal plants are “smart”: on what possible basis, and what possible grounds have you assessed that these plants have complex chemicals for which the only possible reasonable explanation is the existence of a transcendental super being.
Pro has not offered that explanation at any point - leaving me no case to refute.
Worse. The assertions pro does make, are incoherent: as stated in the last round:
“Pro argues that God creates poisons to kill us, and makes our immune system protect us from the toxins he created to kill us, because he doesn’t want us to die; but didn’t do a good enough job, so needed to make plants (some of which he made kill us), heal us.Pro also claims that mutations can’t happen - as DNA is repaired by plants - then claims that plants can also cure cancer - which is caused by the mutations and unrepaired DNA damage pro claims are all fixed, pro also claims that infertility is caused by the very mutations he claims don’t occur.”
I extend this point.
Pros only objection to any of these points is that he did not claim no mutations occur, only the ones that can produce evolution. There are not “mutations”, and “evolutionary mutations” : there are just mutations, so pro is assuredly denying the existence of mutations.
Arguments.
Con has clearly met his burden of proof.
Pro on the other hand, moves the goal posts, denies reality, speculates, asserts and then contorts himself into incoherent knots simply trying to use God to explain the evidence we see.
The idea that God made medicine in plants makes no sense, given pros claims; and is at its base simply an unsupported assertion by pro.
Pros only objection to any of these points is that he did not claim no mutations occur, only the ones that can produce evolution. There are not “mutations”, and “evolutionary mutations” : there are just mutations, so pro is assuredly denying the existence of mutations.
Arguments.
Con has clearly met his burden of proof.
Pro on the other hand, moves the goal posts, denies reality, speculates, asserts and then contorts himself into incoherent knots simply trying to use God to explain the evidence we see.
The idea that God made medicine in plants makes no sense, given pros claims; and is at its base simply an unsupported assertion by pro.
Arguments should go to con.
sources
I have presented solid scientific evidence to back my case; pro has cited mainly health magazines in order to support contentions that weren’t in dispute. Sources should go to con.
S&G
While pro should not be penalized for poor English due to it being a second language; he should be penalized for incoherent formatting, jumbled and patchwork text and a mix of jumbled arguments that made it difficult to understand what points he was responding too.
Everything is made in numbers
btw the moon is out for about 12 hours a day
" Because of the Earth's rotation, the moon is above the horizon roughly 12 hours out of every 24."
https://www.space.com/7267-moon-daylight.html
"the sun is out for around 12 hours to"
"On average, the sun is in the sky half of each day"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110505171211AAwXyb5&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABETEsraGjl9WeuWaXAAwCy5z_Bmgwz4_DbrHnGhc1Em11SsbjHPrTk5ys4YSdmUrNlzOexkkRlFFIiH9jFf35HHwN2M_UZ6GF-5NRCKbEd69w7AOR7uO5Fii3q4OiboL9Kg7zoVSAQts5pk4J1nLvUwdBCdPBim_f-a97-ATfHj
What a coincidence. The sun is out for around 12 hours each day and the moon is around 12 hours each day.
its almost as if god created the sun to be in the sky for 12 hours. Then created the moon to be in the sky for 12 hours.
God measured the sun time to around 12 hours then measured the moon time to around 12 hours. It was probably once perfect but time breaks things. What are the chances of such a coincidence happening. zero i don't think there is a chance of this happening by chance. Stuff like Monday the sun was out for 11 hours 58 minutes. Then the Moon was out for 12 and 2 minutes.
The amount of time is probably similar to the clocks in our body that run coincidentally on a 24 hour scheduled. Its not like god created everything to run on 24 hours because he created a day to be 24 hours.
Rats are 23.5 on average humans are on average 24.5 on average.
" The body clock, or circadian clock, is an internal clock that keeps track of time. Circadian comes from "circa-diem" meaning "around a day". So in a mouse for example it is about 23.5 hours and for a human its about 24.5 hours."
That's a little close to be an accident. Its almost as if the creator was aware of the 24 hour day cycle when he created the first creatures.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/body-clock-jet-lag
Everything is made in numbers
my hands are exactly the same. This is because god measured Adam and eve and i inherited these preciseness.
My feet has 5 fingers my toes has 5 fingers.God counted out
The sun and moon and planets are all round because god measured them out.
The serval has the same ear design on both ears. To make it proportionate
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10iJpm5ix0BZHXwOMYS1Q9TOW7X_cV4apOOJ-b0AQuwg/edit
all animals have hormone clocks that run about 24 hours
" The body clock, or circadian clock, is an internal clock that keeps track of time. Circadian comes from "circa-diem" meaning "around a day". So in a mouse for example it is about 23.5 hours and for a human its about 24.5 hours."
That's a little close to be an accident. Its almost as if the creator was aware of the 24 hour day cycle when he created the first creatures.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/body-clock-jet-lag
I did not understand your question sorry??
OK my mistake. But i don't drop the case. It still does rely on chance. You still have to say that 32 amino acids appeared out of nowhere and are capable of replicating.
Then there is this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8vBw_GI_s8
10 to the 40 is still pretty high
10 to the 20th is the amount of seconds that have ticked by since life began.
10 to the 16 is the number of cells in your body.
If you're not illiterate, please restate the conclusion of that article? I'll give you a hint; following where your quote left off:
"...If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
"For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth..."
what evidence that it was a god that put it there?
yes i agree with that he said that evolution has an absurd chance of happening. stop trolling me. I have not conceded creation to be wrong. Stop twisting my words.When a evolutionary scientist says that evolution chance of happening is a not going to happen number. I am going to use it against them.
The article said this so i used this against them.
"This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 power of 80"
Remember anything over 10 to the power of 50 is considered so high it is considered impossible. evolution is almost 8 times that
So you admit to using the short article as evidence, and agreeing with it. Given the very next line of it explains why those assumptions of the "creationist argument" are wrong (and you're not illiterate), you've conceded that the creationist argument is wrong. That or you disagree with that article, in which case you would have have shared it as evidence against creationism.
The article said this so i used this against them
"This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 power of 80"
The Article said the chance of life coming via evolution is
"his would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390"
this is a not going to happen number. Yes i do use what evolution scientist say against them.
remember in that video 1 chance to 10 to the power of 50 was consider NL something which meant impossible
Did you or did you not share http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life as evidence for how life really came to be?
pls show me where i said evolution is true Jesus did not exist. What you can not. Because it never happened.
"(given that he's previously conceded evolution is how life got here, not God, pretty safe to say the trolling is intentional)... Given the amount of copy/paste, vote against pro would be justified on that alone."
That never happened. on the other debate you accused me of
"Pro has now conceded that life came into existence in the past rather than the future"
i never stated evolution happened in the future. you the troll. I said Jesus being a past event is just as likely as evolution.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero
i made a mistake
i meant to say you have explained anti fungal and antibiotic. even then i believe my explanation is better. but only those things
i said 4 things when there was only 2 things
I don’t believe in intelligent design. I am pointing out that God is not a reasonable conclusion, and that you’re asserting it despite it not following from the evidence you’ve presented by showing that even if we assume everything you’ve said is true, God is still not the most likely, or the only options.
it's funny you give me 3 options that you believe are more likely to have created DNA over god. 2/3 of them are intelligent design options. you believe in intelligent design you just don't know it. plus they were the first ones you said so you believe it more than the last option. your admitting it takes intelligence to create life.
Trust me that was a joke. People can not even get me to take an aspirin.
LOL
Do not encourage illicit drug use please, minors and maybe even addicts trying to give drugs up are using the website.
Lets all eat some Magic mushrooms
Yess i wanted to debate ramshutu