Instigator / Pro
0
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1267
Life coming into existence without god is Zero
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 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
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 month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
I have been trying to explain this for years. And when i say years i mean years. But i found a video That explains it.
Rules
must watch this video 3 times. to get the grasp of what he is saying. Mind you i have thought this and have tryed to explain this but failed. He explains it perfectly yes
watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE
Round 1
The burden of proof is on con. He needs to get a number that can happen
anything over
1/10 to the power of 50 is considered NIL
Which means It will not occur
watch this for an explanation on what that number is.
anyway The chances of just the enzymes in the human body occurring is
1/10 to the power of 2 million 825
This is Just the enzymes in the human body.
Far above the 1/10 to the power of 50 in which is needed for life to occur. for me to wright this out i would need 2 million 825 zeros i only have a ten thousand character limit i would need a 2 million 825 character limits to wright out this number. This is just for humans
In the video it says
"The chances of life occurring Randomly. Is like if a tornado went into a junkyard and left an airplane."
This is a fair comparison because the human body is built the exact same way a car is or an airplane is. making a bunch of parts then putting them together.
though people fail to grasp on to what i am saying.
god gave us legs so we can walk
god gave us eyes so we can see
God gave us kidneys so we can detoxify toxins
god gave us a heart so we can pump blood
god gave us antibody's in order to protect us
god gave us bones so we have structure
god gave us an digestive system so we can fuel our self's
man gave an airplane wings so it can fly
man gave an airplane wheels so it can role
man gave airplanes engines so it can function
man made the airplane out of metal so it has structure
man gave the plane a gas tank so it can fuel itself
Man created an airplane by creating a bunch of tiny parts around 1000 plus. Then putting them together.
God would have to do the same with humans he created a bunch of parts then put them together. There was no random explosion
What are The chances that life would occur randomly with every human body part having a function.
And what are the profitability that we do not look like a bucket full of slime. The Nickelodeon slime stuff
the appendix has a function
How does everything have purpose. Legs are created for the purpose of walking. Arms are created for the purpose of holding things
Only god can create things with purpose. Now the odds That life can over time produce into something that has purpose is really highly not going to happen number.
Dna is just like computer code.
Dna is information that tells the body parts what to be. Computer code is information that tells something what to be.
The way computer code got its information is because a computer guy programmed it in. The way DNA got its information is because god programmed it in. Not via an explosion
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.
Why can dna come randomly from an explosion from nothing. But computers software can not
Why does it require great intelligence to create revolutionary medication. But superior medicine is found in plants .But that can happen randomly.
yes medication in plants is superior. people of old mistook it as magic I am referring to how witches thought medical mushrooms were Magic mushrooms. Because god medicine is so great
Why does it require great intelligence for man to create primitive stuff like computer software, car engines. modern medicine. But Complex stuff like Dna the brain herbs can happen randomly.
If there is nothing. how was there an explosion. if there is no explosion there is no chance of life occurring.
If there was nothing what caused the explosion.
something needs to be there for there to be an explosion. An explosion needs to be there for something to exist.
Its the chicken and egg thing. What came first.
God has the answer god made the chicken then the chicken made the egg. Simple
Do random explosions from nothing happen regularly.
If i go outside is there a chance that is 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 that an explosion from nothing might kill me
What caused the explosion.
Its like when i ask what caused the gene mutation that turned the polar bear white. Was it something in the snow that would cause a gene to mutate and turn the polar bear white. why would snow mutate my genes. Snow is just frozen water so if i drink water will my genes mutate and turn me white like the polar bear. what caused this.
Should i not let my kids out to play outside in the snow during Christmas. Because the snow has properties that will mutate there genes and turn there skin white. What should black people do. what is in the snow that would cause this mutation
Complex thing can not happen randomly
ps The coloring was an intelligence choice
Pro claims that the probability of a past event occurring is
effectively 0%; and assigns me the burden to disprove this claim. I shall demonstrate
that all past events have a probably of 100%.
My case will be on two fronts:
- Math
- FSM
1. Math
In this section I shall be explaining misconceptions to
probability theory.
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Statistical probabilities usually deal with the element of uncertainty, but when an event is already known it has an odds of 100% [1]. Flip a coin and record the outcome, now double check the recorded outcome and it will be the same, it will stay the same outcome no matter how many times you double check. It’s not a new 50/50 each time you check what the old result was.
Statistical probabilities usually deal with the element of uncertainty, but when an event is already known it has an odds of 100% [1]. Flip a coin and record the outcome, now double check the recorded outcome and it will be the same, it will stay the same outcome no matter how many times you double check. It’s not a new 50/50 each time you check what the old result was.
Pro’s logic would of course argue that the probability of
that coin even existing is zero, and yet not only does it exist but the result
of flipping it already occurred. No amount of the argumentum ex culo [2], no matter how handsome old
white man in the video is, can change this.
For life, we know it did occur on Earth, and we can double
check that it’s still there, thus this has a 100% probability of having
happened.
2. FSM
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) [3], or any similar didit fallacy [4] has not been proven
to be involved, thus can be discounted. If not discounted, pro would need to
prove with 100% certainty that it was exclusively God and no other mythological
being creating life anywhere.
ID v. UD
Intelligent Design (ID) from God would not lead to cancer
and other ailments, whereas Unintelligent Design (UD) from the FSM would lead
to flawed creations rife with defects.
Are humans perfect without illness? No, we get sick all the
time. Thus, if a divine being is involved, the FSM is more likely than God.
Bonus: Refuting the Video
The factuality of pro’s YouTube video has been renounced by
its author repeatedly. If in doubt see highlighted comments [5].
Worse it has more errors in its apology for errors, causing them to outright insist
they were never meant to be taken seriously, only intending to “imply” what they presented as undisputed facts.
That the author of the video could not make it a mere 30 seconds
in without being wrong, says all we need to know about their credibility.
Sources:
- https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/10/q-what-is-the-probability-of-an-outcome-after-its-already-happened/
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PIDOOMA
- https://vimeo.com/31543194
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE&lc=Ugj6NrUCC3PUqXgCoAEC.8VgcHuNfOxk8W17K6VdX9y
Round 2
You do not know if it is a past event or not. yes the universe was created. But we do not know if it was Via God evolution or even something entirely else. It is a theory that evolution created life not fact. its like saying you know god created life. And you say no he did not create life and i respond by saying he did create life we are here are we not.
The factuality of pro’s YouTube video has been renounced by its author repeatedly. If in doubt see highlighted comments [5]. Worse it has more errors in its apology for errors, causing them to outright insist they were never meant to be taken seriously, only intending to “imply” what they presented as undisputed facts.
That the author of the video could not make it a mere 30 seconds in without being wrong, says all we need to know about their credibilit
ya i saw that. Anyway The information i pulled from it is correct. i Guess it is like a moldy fruit just cut off the mold and eat the good part.
con said
Intelligent Design (ID) from God would not lead to cancer and other ailments, whereas Unintelligent Design (UD) from the FSM would lead to flawed creations rife with defects.
The biblical reason we die is because god designed us to breakdown after Adam disobeyed him
and he cursed all his children. Don't you guys already think god is mean and not nice???
i believe demons created these religions in order to muddy the water. and the calling themselves god is like if a McDonald employer had all his employees refer to him as master.And i believe bible is true because of prophecy for example pharmakeai.
God refer to pharmakeai as sorcery because that is what it was back in the ancient times. But he later starts referring it as it is seen today. Jesus refers the church in pergamum as Satan throne. now the church in pergamum is the temple of asclepoin. which is a famous hospital of the ancient world. asclepoin is the snake god of healing which we see his staff as the World health associations symbol. It is also where the famous physician galenus lived who was the father of modern medicine. And this hospital was the prototype for modern hospitals
Revelation 3:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.
temple of Asclepion. The prototype for modern hospitals is the church in pergagum in which Jesus refers to as Satan throne in the book of revelation
The famous Hospital of the ancient world dedicated to the god of healing
Revelation 3:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.
I got this from this book
Pharmakeai the hidden assassin page 88-89
Want you opinion
Anyway you do not have to answer this for the argument. But i can not seem to find anyone who would acknowledged this new point. Can you Give me your opinion on it. I want to make Sure it is understandable. You don't have to disprove it just want to make sure it is understandable.
Your arm span is equal to your height.
picture of someone who arm span is 5 foot 7 and is 5 foot and 7 tall
This is because god measured you out. So your arm span would be the same as your height.
This can be off some times. Old people shrink and we have a insane chemical diet. But a good 90 percent of the time this is true.
If i am 4 foot 9 tall then my arm span will be 4 foot 9. If i am 5 foot 11 then my arm span will be 5 foot 11. If i am 6.3 then my arm span is 6 foot 3. This can get off sometimes maybe i am 4 foot 7 and my arms span ends up at 4 foot 6. but i believe that he programmed these measurements in our DNA. I believe that he programmed that your arm span must equal your height. but sometimes that data is corrupted by a mutation and our genetic information in our DNA screws up. honestly i expected to see a cm off on most stuff. but all the symmetry numbers are all the exact same at least for me. which is amazing i had trouble finding even a cm off.
The average human arm span of a woman is 5 feet 4 inches while the average arm span of a man is 5 feet 9 inches. In typical humans, the arm span is equal to the height; therefore, the average arm span is also roughly the same as the average height, with males generally having longer arm spans than females.
"yes, your arm span is about the same as your height. If you hold your arms straight out from your sides, the distance from the fingertips of one hand to the fingertips of the other is about how tall you are. Some slight variations exist, though."
Pro, please copy/paste the headings
to keep the cases organized.
1. Math
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Pro’s reply to this was “You do
not know if it is a past event or not,” which might be the most interesting
Kritik I’ve seen (that we don’t know if recorded events take place in the past
or the future...), but needs massive substantiation to be taken for something
other than Word Salad [1].
Until pro disproves the ordered flow
of time from past to present as perceived by us, which is needed for his
defense to hold water, my argument has been effectively dropped.
Evolution
Pro asserts that “it is a theory
that evolution created life not fact” to dismiss it. This is a common
misconception involving the fallacy of equivocation [2]. Theory in normal
speech is some vague idea, but in science that is called a hypothesis, which
only rises to the level of theory after rigorous falsifiability testing (which if
it is false, it ceases to be a theory). Evolution is a tested scientific
theory, which stands shoulder to shoulder with things like the theory of gravity
[3, 4].
2. FSM
Pro asserts that the FSM and every other religion
is just demons, but this first misses that each supernatural being reduces the
odds that any single one didit. And worse, by this logic there’s some thousands-to-one
chance that God too is just another demon (if each god is a demon, then why
would a random one from the Middle East be held to a higher standard?).
ID v. UD
Pro’s reply is that “because god designed us
to breakdown” which completely misses that we are not beings designed by a
perfect creator (as God is defined) but are rife with defects. Were we to
gradually break down on a measured out schedule I could entertain God’s
involvement, but we get random things like cancer and congenital heart defects.
Limb Length
This could have been covered under evolution, but
for fun I’ll do it under religion...
If a perfect creator individually measured us
out, then the disorder of Limb Length Discrepancy would not exist [5];
nor would women suffer asymmetrical breasts [6]. So, by
this seemingly off topic area, pro brought into the debate more proof that the
FSM (not God) is more likely to have made us.
3. Refuting Video
Factually Renounced by Author
Pro’s reply to this is: “ya i saw that. Anyway The information i pulled from it is correct”[sic]. Which outright admits that he used it despite
knowing the author himself conceded he was wrong; then insists the author is
wrong again to have said he was wrong, which is just an extreme example of
fallacious confirmation bias [7, 8]. He further misses that the numbers stated in the video were already argumentum ex culo [9].
4. “prophecy
for example pharmakeai”
I fail to see the relevance to how life came to
be (unless pro is proposing that pharmacies created life? Which would be a
concession of the debate).
Further, words have cultural origins, which easily explains
the coincidence of a word in modern times being similar to an ancient one; were
it a conspiracy, they would have renamed it.
Sources:
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution#It.27s_only_a_theory
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory
- https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/limb-length-discrepancy
- https://www.self.com/story/one-boob-bigger-than-the-other
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PIDOOMA
Round 3
If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life. Because that is a past event and i meet the burden of proof. That life coming without god is zero.
Explain to me how an explosion can come from nothing. Because if you can not. Then i would have to assume that this is impossible. It's like saying a flood can created fire. if i do not see evidence that water can create fire.Then i am not going to believe that it can. If i do not see any evidence that an explosion can come from nothing. Then I'm not going to believe it can happen. Scientist just randomly claimed that an explosion came from nothing. But did not explain how an explosion came from nothing. If you can not show how this is possible. Then it is impossible and the chance of it happening is zero
How can an explosion make life. If you have facts that this can happen. Please share them with me. or else i would have to assume that life coming from an explosion is impossible and is a zero percent chance of happening. Explosions kill people last time i checked.Just look at the previous wars. When we nuked japan we killed people with the explosion. Life was not created with an explosion. If i claimed that a flood of water created fire. I would need to show how a flood of water can create fire. Evolution just randomly claim this stuff with no facts and people believe it. Have they shown how scientifically an explosion can come from nothing.No they have not. They have just claimed that an explosion happened from nothing. But did not show how such a thing is possible. Even though something like that is impossible. Its hypercritical atheist always claim that we claim stuff without facts but that's what they do. I have only seen evidence for creationism.so has Isaac.
“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”Isaac Newton
Isaac then went to Trinity College at Cambridge University with the intention of becoming a Church of England minister.
Newton applied his binomial theorem to infinite series and from there developed calculus, a revolutionary new form of mathematics. For the first time it was possible to accurately calculate the area inside a shape with curved sides
2. FSM
If you do not know what the story of Adam tells. Then you should not be doing these kinds of debates. Its amazing to me that the only flaw that you people can come up with is that our body dies.or our body parts do not have uses and later we find that they do. I am speaking of the appendix. We always here about how Things found in nature are a billion times more advance then the stuff Made by man. For example the computer. It took all of mans intelligence knowledge and thinking in order to create the computer. But a Computer that is a billion times more advance is found naturally.We call it the humane brain. This Brain is a computer a billion time more advance then any computer. It took mans greatest minds to create the computer using there intelligence knowledge and thinking to create computers. Would it not take intelligent knowledge and thinking that is a billion times greater than mans. in order to create the computer/brain that is a billion times greater than mans computer.
FSM part 2
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 smarter then our smartest people and that being is god.
Limb Length
Do you know how your
hands are exactly the same size. Put them together examine each finger.
Now look at you feet there exactly the same. This is because God
measured you out. Or to be more exact he measured Adam and eve out
perfectly And you have only inherited these perfect measurements. For
example my hands are not even a cm off there exactly the same. same with
my feet there exactly the same . my ears are both exactly the same God
measured them out.
God measured Adam and eve
perfectly. Adam and eve had children And the Information/Measurements
in the DNA code were past onto the children. It is DNA it is possible
that measurements can get mutated. But generally most of your body parts
have been measured precisely. My nose holes are exactly the same.
If you ever come across a
butterfly there right wings are exactly the same as there left
butterfly. exactly the same not a cm off. This is because god measured
the first butterfly out and these precise measurements were past down
through them via there DNA.
if you say i bet i can
find one that is not precise. And i would agree with you the information
in our DNA can get mutated.But you will have to catch 100 butterfly
till you find one that is off
Bonus: Refuting the Video
Dude the numbers the odds of stuff happening were correct. i can google it and find an evolution site saying that life coming from nothing is an not going to happen number.
The Probability of Life. The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 80.
Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
Flying pasta monster
con said
by this logic there’s some thousands-to-one chance that God too is just another demon (if each god is a demon, then why would a random one from the Middle East be held to a higher standard?
I said my god was true because of prophesy like pharmakeai
Evolution
it is not fact
1. Math
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Pro has now conceded that life came into existence in the past rather than the future (as he claimed last round). He makes a new argument that it was about 2000 years ago, created by Jesus. This is a direct concession of the debate as Jesus is not God, and no suggestion he is has been offered.
Evolution
Pro makes some off topic use of the didit fallacy [1], and a straw person claim that I’ve stated life was created by an explosion [2]. I’ve mentioned life came from the complex process of evolution (millions of years ago, slowly growing in complexity, etc.), which is way more likely than some Jewish guy 2000 years ago whose very existence depended on humans already existing (and humans depended on breathable air, preventing him from existing before plants to make that air...).
He then concedes again by linking us to a previous debate of mine, which is just evidence that God is a fictional being created by civilization [3] (I’m quite confused as to why he brought that into this).
2. FSM
God is Just a Demon
Pro has dropped that his own logic leads to this conclusion, which in turn removes God from consideration as having any impact on humans other than as a deceiver tricking people into thinking he created anything.
ID v. UD
Pro does some more straw person here [2], claiming that I claimed any death is proof against God, when I in fact pointed to the random schedules of our breakdown instead of a perfect one from a perfect creator. This leaves the proof that God did not create us uncontested, meaning we came into being through any other means.
Humans Are Computers
As for the idea that the human brain is some great computer... For this I will borrow a source from the previous debate pro linked us to, specifically the information within about Alan Turing, father of the computer [4]. With it in mind that we won WW2 in 1945 thanks to his computer, it is proven that computers are better at decoding than we are; otherwise there would be no need to use them for coding and decoding... By pro’s logic of scaling up, us building something smarter than ourselves would mean we in turn are smarter than anything which created us, and what is dumber than the FSM? The FSM is the supreme unintelligence!
Limb Length
Pro has entirely dropped that his argument here is disproven by Limb Length Discrepancy and asymmetrical breasts (which are actually more common than them being perfectly the same size) [5, 6]. Heck my heart takes up more space on the left side of my chest than my right.
Plus, pro agrees life changes through mutation (evolution). He also talks of Adam and Eve, who he’s already implicitly conceded could not exist as they are older than Jesus (whom apparently created life).
3. Refuting Video
Pro’s new arguments this round were pre-refuted under the math heading, plus it is refuted by his own source on it:
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Pro has now conceded that life came into existence in the past rather than the future (as he claimed last round). He makes a new argument that it was about 2000 years ago, created by Jesus. This is a direct concession of the debate as Jesus is not God, and no suggestion he is has been offered.
Evolution
Pro makes some off topic use of the didit fallacy [1], and a straw person claim that I’ve stated life was created by an explosion [2]. I’ve mentioned life came from the complex process of evolution (millions of years ago, slowly growing in complexity, etc.), which is way more likely than some Jewish guy 2000 years ago whose very existence depended on humans already existing (and humans depended on breathable air, preventing him from existing before plants to make that air...).
He then concedes again by linking us to a previous debate of mine, which is just evidence that God is a fictional being created by civilization [3] (I’m quite confused as to why he brought that into this).
2. FSM
God is Just a Demon
Pro has dropped that his own logic leads to this conclusion, which in turn removes God from consideration as having any impact on humans other than as a deceiver tricking people into thinking he created anything.
ID v. UD
Pro does some more straw person here [2], claiming that I claimed any death is proof against God, when I in fact pointed to the random schedules of our breakdown instead of a perfect one from a perfect creator. This leaves the proof that God did not create us uncontested, meaning we came into being through any other means.
Humans Are Computers
As for the idea that the human brain is some great computer... For this I will borrow a source from the previous debate pro linked us to, specifically the information within about Alan Turing, father of the computer [4]. With it in mind that we won WW2 in 1945 thanks to his computer, it is proven that computers are better at decoding than we are; otherwise there would be no need to use them for coding and decoding... By pro’s logic of scaling up, us building something smarter than ourselves would mean we in turn are smarter than anything which created us, and what is dumber than the FSM? The FSM is the supreme unintelligence!
Limb Length
Pro has entirely dropped that his argument here is disproven by Limb Length Discrepancy and asymmetrical breasts (which are actually more common than them being perfectly the same size) [5, 6]. Heck my heart takes up more space on the left side of my chest than my right.
Plus, pro agrees life changes through mutation (evolution). He also talks of Adam and Eve, who he’s already implicitly conceded could not exist as they are older than Jesus (whom apparently created life).
3. Refuting Video
Pro’s new arguments this round were pre-refuted under the math heading, plus it is refuted by his own source on it:
“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..."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.” [7].
Pro
by sharing this information with us, concedes that evolution is both a fact and the
source of life on Earth.
Sources:
Sources:
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1227/civilization-was-inspired-by-and-created-by-god
- https://www.alternet.org/2012/08/8-atheist-and-agnostic-scientists-who-changed-world/
- https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/limb-length-discrepancy
- https://www.self.com/story/one-boob-bigger-than-the-other
- http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
Thank you both for voting.
Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: "Moar Sorces”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
Yup. My bad.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro's entire argument is a massive hot mess of strawman fallacies, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, and outright bullshit, crowned with the worst formatting I have seen in my life and absolutely terrible grammar. Pro said such "genius" statements like: "If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life", which is the most ridicolous non sequitur I have ever seen. I don't have time to write down all my reasons, so I'm just giving Con a win because Pro had god awful grammar and formating. Vote Con.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, as it does not go into enough specific detail on any of the arguments presented from either side, nor weight why the grammar was so sufficiently bad to outweigh the arguments.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
Counting unrated debates, oooooooooooh bad no no
If we don't count the draw.
Your win percentage is 44.44%
I am 5-4 in rated debates, how is that bad?
Doesn't understand I am 6th.
Cries in the debate comment section because is to much of a coward to debate me
Thinks forum posts will compensate his bad debate ratio.
It won't.
Lives on type1 debates
Cries when speedrace beats him at everything
also moved to forums, but ignores that
Has an abysmal debate record.
Can't to make it better.
Move to 1 sentence andy in the forums.
crybaby, who cried over the boat debate when I voted,haha
Crybaby
What Bullshit
Rag rag
Going to bag
Another win
Making his opponent dim
*LMAO*
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "CVB The Atheist
He did not evaluate Con's argument
He also did not back up his claims on spelling and grammer.Remove when neccasery
I ask other voters to counter wizofz too
Everybody deserves a chanch, even crossed
I guess RM was right all along,huh smh.”
Reason for Mod Action>Counter Vote Bombs are expressly prohibited on moderated debates. If you have issues with another vote, this should be dealt with by reporting the vote in question.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wizofoz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro simply made bare assertions, argued from the authority of religious texts, and at times simply ignored factual evidence give by con (such as thw scientific meaning of "Theory".
Con backed his arguments with logic and relevant references.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.
Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.
Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.
Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).
What do you think of my vote?
Was it accurate?
Sorry I did not mention your arguments, but you that would have taken me so much time. You win just on grammar, since Pro's formatting is absolutely terrible.
Thank you both for voting.
Crossed,
You hit a golf ball into a bunker. It hits a few grains of sand out of the trillions on earth. The chances of it hitting THOSE grains, rather than any others, is virtually nil.
So, God.
That's essentially your argument.
A great many events that may have had different outcomes led to the current state of the universe. A great many different outcomes may have occurred. But it is a 100% probability that SOME outcome would have happened, and any different outcome would have been just as unlikely as this one.
Unless you can show that the state we see around us is somehow less likely than any OTHER outcome, your argument is invalid.
Thanks for the vote. Unfortunately it falls a little below the standards for a couple reasons, so an admin will be removing it.
Also welcome to the site. I hope you have a lot of fun here.
i forgot the appendix source.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84937.php
Thanks for taking this debate up. I am saying the numbers are so high they can not occur
Thanks for changing up your debates. Since it's a new one from you, I'll debate you rather than waiting for the voting period. Hopefully I can correct your misunderstandings related to probability theory (or you correct mine), but either way we should be able to have a decent discussion.
And yes, I assume this debate is intended to be about probability theory, if I am mistaken please put the corrected debate resolution into the start of your R1.
Well to late. What i will do to prove my point is use NIL rule.
anything over 1/10 to the power of 50 is considered NIL
NIL means the number is so big that it will not occur.
Luckily the probability of life occurring by chance is a billion times bigger then that
yes yes yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE
Note, you might want to say very slim, if it's zero, then it's easily kritigued