Instigator / Pro
9
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1548
God colored animals intelligently
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
12
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
I have to prove god chose to color animals intelligently.
Here are some Painting in this google docs. To where there colors were chosen intelligently.To get the idea of what i have to prove god did with his animals.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/147_flFnmew32RKdsf65iDES77VY3NuAmyAPnBI_mEFs/edit
Cons job is to tell me why my animals colors were not picked the same way as these drawing's of dragons.
I will put my debate in a google docs. So i can use picture's feel free to do the same.
I procrastinate. Will be long debate
Round 1
Thanks for taking. I will list example's of painter's intelligently choosing the color's they use in there drawing's.Then make the claim God made the same intelligent choice as the painter's did when Coloring his animals.Your job is to tell me why my painter's drawings example's are not the same as God's animals example's.In terms of intelligent choice's made
Example 1
The painter of this dragon picture colored the dragon blue to match the blue background.It’s color was chosen intelligently.
Example 2
The dragon's color was picked intelligently. The creator of this picture colored the dragon pink in order to match the pink background.The color was chosen intelligently.
Example 3
The tree’s are green and the mountains are brown. The creator of this drawing colored the dragon green and brown. So it would match the green and brown the mountains and trees have.It’s color was picked intelligently.
Burden of proof
It is con's job to tell me why my example's above are colored intelligently.But my God examples are not colored intelligently
God picked the color's of his animals intelligently.The same way the painter chose his dragon picture's color's
God Animal one
.God colored the snow lion white to match the white snow.The color was chosen intelligently
God animal two
God colored the lion yellow to match the yellow desert.The color was chosen intelligently
God animal Three
God colored the lizard green to match the green leafs.The color was chosen intelligently
Conclusion
The painter picked the color's for examples 1 2 and 3 intelligently.The same method the painter used to color the dragons intelligently.God used when designing his animals.
The painter drew the dragon blue because the background was blue.Thus the painter picked the color of the dragon intelligently.
God picked his animals color's the same way.God colored the snow lion white to match the white snow. Just like how the painter painted his dragon blue to match the blue background.Same intelligent choice was made.
Over to Ramshutu
Pro cites three examples of paintings, where a human has deliberately coloured an animal in an abstract representation.
0.) Clarification of Burden
Pros argument is that the pigment generated by the development and biological process or living organisms was created and selected by a deity.
The basis for this incredible claim - is that painters paint paintings.
My burden here, paraphrasing pro: is to show that life and paintings are so dissimilar and disparate in nature and properties - that it is meaningless to assert that the cause of colour in one is applicable to the cause of colour in the other.
1.) Paintings are not subject to descent with modification.
Paintings are unable to replicate themselves inexactly, leading to copies of the painting that are similar but not identical. Further, each copy of the painting isn’t subject to selection pressure a whereby each paintings copy may be prevented from replicating as successfully as others.
If paintings had these properties, you would find paintings replicating with lighter or darker shades or into different patterns, and then over time a populations of paintings would get lighter, or darker or changing patterns dependent on the environmental pressure.
2.) life and a paintings are prima facia materially different.
A painting is a surface upon which pigment has been applied by some mechanism to provide an abstract visual representation of something.
Life forms are objects distinct from dead organisms and inanimate matter, due to biological functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Paintings are painted, life and organisms are brought forth through other life forms reproducing in some way through complex organic chemistry and interactions with genetic material.
In fact - life and paintings are so insurmountably different in almost every measurable way; there is literally no credible way any rational person would surmise the cause of a particular colour of one could be the cause of a particular colour in the other.
The two things are as disparately independent and distinct as two things can possibly be. Indeed - the only two similarities the two things actually have - is that they both have a colour.
Does pros logic extend to everything that has a colour - if a painter intelligently selected the colour of a painting - does this also mean that as my poop has a colour, that God also intelligently chooses which shade of green or brown I am greeted with each morning?
While this sounds facetious - there is no perceptible reason why pros logic here applies to life but not any other randomly selected object that has a colour.
3.) We have never observed a population of paintings changing colour over time through gradual changes and evolution - we have in life.
We have observed a change in colour of peppered moths[1], Polish Weasles[2], and English sparrows[3] due to environmental pressure.
We have changed the colours of crops, pigeons and dogs by selective breeding[4][5][6] : we did not produce the new colours - but simply selectively bread animals to accentuate random variations in colour. As it is proven animals can change colour over time if allowed to breed in a particular way, and it is proven that the natural environment can affect animals ability to breed in particular ways (see sources 1,2 and 3), this all indisputably prove that colours in animals do not require God.
4.) We know paintings require painters from unparalleled and ubiquitous experience of paintings and observations of painters.
Almost every human living today - certainly in the developed world - has at some point, drawn or painted a picture, has seen multiple paintings of various qualities and thus has had multiple direct and indirect experience of an intelligence selecting colours.
Our knowledge that the colours in paintings are selected based on an intelligent choice - is based on our ubiquitous knowledge that this is how painters paint paintings. The conclusion that a painting is design is not inherently based upon any specific or intrinsic properties of the painting itself.
Conclusion:
Pro is engaging in an unsupported and absurd non-sequitur based upon the premise that if various aspects of two things appear similar in nature - the cause is similar.
Pros logic is demonstrably absurd.
Sources:
[1] https://m.phys.org/news/2018-08-truth-darwin-moth.html
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/24/white-animals-could-die-climate-change-study-suggests/
[3] https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v069n03/p0217-p0258.pdf
[4] https://www.tes.com/lessons/st1FeQlGOyYu0A/examples-of-evolution
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_pigeon#Colour_pigeons
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_dog_breeds
0.) Clarification of Burden
Pros argument is that the pigment generated by the development and biological process or living organisms was created and selected by a deity.
The basis for this incredible claim - is that painters paint paintings.
My burden here, paraphrasing pro: is to show that life and paintings are so dissimilar and disparate in nature and properties - that it is meaningless to assert that the cause of colour in one is applicable to the cause of colour in the other.
1.) Paintings are not subject to descent with modification.
Paintings are unable to replicate themselves inexactly, leading to copies of the painting that are similar but not identical. Further, each copy of the painting isn’t subject to selection pressure a whereby each paintings copy may be prevented from replicating as successfully as others.
If paintings had these properties, you would find paintings replicating with lighter or darker shades or into different patterns, and then over time a populations of paintings would get lighter, or darker or changing patterns dependent on the environmental pressure.
2.) life and a paintings are prima facia materially different.
A painting is a surface upon which pigment has been applied by some mechanism to provide an abstract visual representation of something.
Life forms are objects distinct from dead organisms and inanimate matter, due to biological functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Paintings are painted, life and organisms are brought forth through other life forms reproducing in some way through complex organic chemistry and interactions with genetic material.
In fact - life and paintings are so insurmountably different in almost every measurable way; there is literally no credible way any rational person would surmise the cause of a particular colour of one could be the cause of a particular colour in the other.
The two things are as disparately independent and distinct as two things can possibly be. Indeed - the only two similarities the two things actually have - is that they both have a colour.
Does pros logic extend to everything that has a colour - if a painter intelligently selected the colour of a painting - does this also mean that as my poop has a colour, that God also intelligently chooses which shade of green or brown I am greeted with each morning?
While this sounds facetious - there is no perceptible reason why pros logic here applies to life but not any other randomly selected object that has a colour.
3.) We have never observed a population of paintings changing colour over time through gradual changes and evolution - we have in life.
We have observed a change in colour of peppered moths[1], Polish Weasles[2], and English sparrows[3] due to environmental pressure.
We have changed the colours of crops, pigeons and dogs by selective breeding[4][5][6] : we did not produce the new colours - but simply selectively bread animals to accentuate random variations in colour. As it is proven animals can change colour over time if allowed to breed in a particular way, and it is proven that the natural environment can affect animals ability to breed in particular ways (see sources 1,2 and 3), this all indisputably prove that colours in animals do not require God.
4.) We know paintings require painters from unparalleled and ubiquitous experience of paintings and observations of painters.
Almost every human living today - certainly in the developed world - has at some point, drawn or painted a picture, has seen multiple paintings of various qualities and thus has had multiple direct and indirect experience of an intelligence selecting colours.
Our knowledge that the colours in paintings are selected based on an intelligent choice - is based on our ubiquitous knowledge that this is how painters paint paintings. The conclusion that a painting is design is not inherently based upon any specific or intrinsic properties of the painting itself.
Conclusion:
Pro is engaging in an unsupported and absurd non-sequitur based upon the premise that if various aspects of two things appear similar in nature - the cause is similar.
Pros logic is demonstrably absurd.
- If you find a baseball near a baseball park - it is reasonable to presume it had been struck there. This extends only to baseballs, not any round object; stone or metal spheres near such a spark could not be reasonably assumed to have been struck there.
- Humans fill buckets of water with a faucet. This does not mean that potholes - which are similar regions that contain water - are intelligently filled with water.
Sources:
[1] https://m.phys.org/news/2018-08-truth-darwin-moth.html
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/24/white-animals-could-die-climate-change-study-suggests/
[3] https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v069n03/p0217-p0258.pdf
[4] https://www.tes.com/lessons/st1FeQlGOyYu0A/examples-of-evolution
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_pigeon#Colour_pigeons
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_dog_breeds
Round 2
Thanks for responding i think there has been a misunderstanding.
Burden of proof
con said
The basis for this incredible claim - is that painters paint paintings.
This is false.
- I have a yellow cup. So i get a yellow plate to go with it.
- I have an orange chair to go with my orange table
- i have a blue cup to go with my blue plate.
- I have red pants. so i get a red shirt to go with it.
- A race car driver wears a yellow uniform to go with his yellow car
- I got a green table to go with my green chairs.
- I got a red envelope to go with my red colored letter
In all these example i listed the colors were chosen intelligently.It did not matter what any of these objects were made of or how they were made.The point of the example was to show an intelligent choice was made.
For example.
- I got green colored slippers to go with my green pagama's.
The color of these slipper was not an accident.He choose green colored slippers with a purpose.He chose them to match his green pajamas's
God used the same exact logic when he was coloring his animals
Weasels are white during the winter brown during the summer.
- God created the weasel white to match the white snow.
- I got a blue colored cup to match my blue colored plate.
Both of these example are exactly the same.
- I got a blue cup to match my blue plate
- God colored his weasel white to match the white snow.
Rebuttal
Con is confused.He keeps telling me how evolution works thinking he is disproving my points that he coloring was an intelligent choice.Telling me an animal like the peppered moth turned black during smog does not disprove that it was an ascetic choice.I came here knowing you guys believe animals turned into the colors of there environment.Though i am pretty sure it was just the smoke that turned the moths black.Not them adapting.But that is irrelevant. weasel is brown during the summer but white during the winter and telling me what biologically changes inside the animal. does not prove god did not do it..The question we should be asking why does this animal like the weasel have the properties that turns it white during the winter.
The white coloring is an ascetic choice.
- God colored his winter animals white to match the white snow
- God colored his desert animals yellow to match the yellow desert
- God created his Forrest creature green to match green tree's
God made the same exact intelligent/ascetic choice.As my example below
- I colored my plate red to match my red cup
- I colored my plate blue to match my blue cup
- I colored my plate yellow to match my yellow cup
I got a green cup to match my green plate.He made the exact same intelligent choice as god made.God colored weasel white to match white snow
Block rebuttal
con said
4.) We know paintings require painters from unparalleled and ubiquitous experience of paintings and observations of painters.
But we do not need to see a painter paint.TO know he made an intelligent choice
Santa claws wears red suit to match his red sleigh.
Do we need to see Santa make his sleigh in order to know they made an intelligent choice.I will use fictional characture to avoid."The but we have seen them make it argument:
3.) We have never observed a population of paintings changing colour over time through gradual changes and evolution - we have in life.
We have observed a change in colour of peppered moths[1], Polish Weasles[2], and English sparrows[3] due to environmental pressure.
We have changed the colours of crops, pigeons and dogs by selective breeding[4][5][6] : we did not produce the new colours - but simply selectively bread animals to accentuate random variations in colour. As it is proven animals can change colour over time if allowed to breed in a particular way, and it is proven that the natural environment can affect animals ability to breed in particular ways (see sources 1,2 and 3), this all indisputably prove that colours in animals do not require God.
this all indisputably prove that colours in animals do not require God
here is the problem.No it does not just because we see something in nature doing something.It does not mean god did not do it..I am saying the fact that animals are the same colors of there environment.I am saying that was made off an intelligent choice. I have red socks to go with red shoes.But Lets say god designed the weasle to turn white every winter.I am saying he created them white to match the white snow.Just like how man created socks red to match red shoes.
) life and a paintings are prima facia materially different.A painting is a surface upon which pigment has been applied by some mechanism to provide an abstract visual representation of something.Life forms are objects distinct from dead organisms and inanimate matter, due to biological functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
I know how it works.I want to know why it is that way.
We know how it works
due to biological functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Why is it this way.God must have made intelligent choices.
Telling me how something works does not prove god did not do it!!!
) We have never observed a population of paintings changing colour over time through gradual changes and evolution - we have in life.
The animals changing colors over time or not does not disprove god did it.We do not need to see painting change.
1.) Paintings are not subject to descent with modification.Paintings are unable to replicate themselves inexactly, leading to copies of the painting that are similar but not identical. Further, each copy of the painting isn’t subject to selection pressure a whereby each paintings copy may be prevented from replicating as successfully as others.If paintings had these properties, you would find paintings replicating with lighter or darker shades or into different patterns, and then over time a populations of paintings would get lighter, or darker or changing patterns dependent on the environmental pressure.
This is irrelevant.It does not matter how they are made.An intelligent choice was made.Telling me how it works does not change that
5.) Pros central premise is an illogical assertion.
My opponent continues to repeatedly assert his central premise:
That as paintings and life share superficial similarities - that they both have a colour that holds some match to something - their cause must be inherently the same.
As shown in my Round 1, life and paintings are so fundamentally different in every way that it is completely invalid to even suggest that their cause could possibly be the same due to something as superficial as their colour.
Pros response is to repeatedly assert that God coloured animals.
This may be what pro believes - but simply repeatedly asserting that life was coloured by God is neither a rational nor sufficient to meet his burden.
1.) Paintings are not subject to descent with modification.
Pro dismisses this point as irrelevant.
Far from it - this point disproves pros assertions.
If paintings created copies of themselves, and each copy contained differences, including subtle changes in colour; if you viewed a painting that was possibly the 10,000,000th generation removed from the original - how could pro possibly be sure that any part of that painting was due to the original painter - or simply a product of generations of copying errors.
Pros whole point is that the colour of paintings require painters - yet if paintings had the same properties of life - this would not be true. This refutes the resolution.
2.) Life and paintings are materially different
Pro ignores this whole point. Life and paintings are so fundamentally different that you cannot presume they are caused by similar things.
Suitcases and planes both have wheels: does this mean that they are manufactures the same way?
Planets and ball bearings are both spherical, does this mean that they are both produced via similar processes?
Pro is simply cherry picking absurdly superficial similarities then unilaterally declaring that because of these similarities they were both created - however pro ignores all the aspects that are so different that one cannot possibly rationally assert their cause is the same.
3.) We have seen animals change colour without intelligent intervention.
This wins the debate right here.
In the last round I gave multiple examples of observed changes in colour in the wild.
“No it does not just because we see something in nature doing something.It does not mean god did not do it”
If we observe nature doing something without any apparent intervention - it very much means God did not do it.
4.) Painters are ubiquitous
Pro misses the point of my argument. I will restate it:
The only reason we know a painting requires a painter is not really because of the properties of the painting - it’s because all paintings that we have ever observed has had a painter - so it’s reasonable to presume the same when we see another.
We have never seen life being created, thus using the same logic cannot apply.
Conclusion:
My opponents central point is a bare assertion. He is attempting to use superficial similarities between two things to infer that the causes must be the same. This is clearly invalid.
Moreover, in round 1, I provided multiple examples of animals changing colour naturally. Which pro largely dismissed, and explained that the properties of life are what allow us to determine that there likely is no painter - and have shown that if paintings had these same properties, it would not be certain that colour selection of a given painting were down to the painter.
My opponent continues to repeatedly assert his central premise:
That as paintings and life share superficial similarities - that they both have a colour that holds some match to something - their cause must be inherently the same.
As shown in my Round 1, life and paintings are so fundamentally different in every way that it is completely invalid to even suggest that their cause could possibly be the same due to something as superficial as their colour.
Pros response is to repeatedly assert that God coloured animals.
This may be what pro believes - but simply repeatedly asserting that life was coloured by God is neither a rational nor sufficient to meet his burden.
1.) Paintings are not subject to descent with modification.
Pro dismisses this point as irrelevant.
Far from it - this point disproves pros assertions.
If paintings created copies of themselves, and each copy contained differences, including subtle changes in colour; if you viewed a painting that was possibly the 10,000,000th generation removed from the original - how could pro possibly be sure that any part of that painting was due to the original painter - or simply a product of generations of copying errors.
If pro cannot explain how he would tell the difference, he concedes the resolution.
Pros whole point is that the colour of paintings require painters - yet if paintings had the same properties of life - this would not be true. This refutes the resolution.
2.) Life and paintings are materially different
Pro ignores this whole point. Life and paintings are so fundamentally different that you cannot presume they are caused by similar things.
Suitcases and planes both have wheels: does this mean that they are manufactures the same way?
Planets and ball bearings are both spherical, does this mean that they are both produced via similar processes?
Pro is simply cherry picking absurdly superficial similarities then unilaterally declaring that because of these similarities they were both created - however pro ignores all the aspects that are so different that one cannot possibly rationally assert their cause is the same.
3.) We have seen animals change colour without intelligent intervention.
This wins the debate right here.
In the last round I gave multiple examples of observed changes in colour in the wild.
“No it does not just because we see something in nature doing something.It does not mean god did not do it”
If we observe nature doing something without any apparent intervention - it very much means God did not do it.
4.) Painters are ubiquitous
Pro misses the point of my argument. I will restate it:
The only reason we know a painting requires a painter is not really because of the properties of the painting - it’s because all paintings that we have ever observed has had a painter - so it’s reasonable to presume the same when we see another.
We have never seen life being created, thus using the same logic cannot apply.
Conclusion:
My opponents central point is a bare assertion. He is attempting to use superficial similarities between two things to infer that the causes must be the same. This is clearly invalid.
Moreover, in round 1, I provided multiple examples of animals changing colour naturally. Which pro largely dismissed, and explained that the properties of life are what allow us to determine that there likely is no painter - and have shown that if paintings had these same properties, it would not be certain that colour selection of a given painting were down to the painter.
Round 3
I am specifically looking at a specific intelligent design color choice.
- I have a black table so i get a black chair
- I have a blue pants so i get a blue shirt.
These color choices are intelligently designed.I am saying this is what god did.
have you ever played the board game candy land.
chocolate Forrest.
- In this forest there are owls made out of chocolate.
- Bears made out of chocolate.
- dog made out of chocolate
- birds made out of chocolate
The board game made the animals into chocolate to match there chocolate environment.The coloring is intelligent designed.
This is what god did
in the white Alaska
- The bears are colored white
- the dogs are colored white
- The owls are colored white
- The birds are colored white
- The lions in that area are colored white.snow lions
Clearly god made the animals white to match the white Alaska environment.The white coloring choice is intelligent designed.
Peppermint Valley
- in the peppermint valley the dogs are made out of peppermint
- In the peppermint valley the deer are made out of peppermint
- in the peppermint valley the owls are made out of peppermint
- In the peppermint valley the lions are made out of peppermint
The board game makers made the animals into peppermint to match there peppermint environment.The coloring is intelligently designed
Desert
- In the desert the lions are colored yellow.
- In the desert the owls are colored yellow
- In the desert the deer are colored yellow
- in the desert the weasel things are colored yellow
god made the desert animals yellow to match the yellow desert
Rebuttal
My opponent continues to repeatedly assert his central premise:That as paintings and life share superficial similarities - that they both have a colour that holds some match to something - their cause must be inherently the same.As shown in my Round 1, life and paintings are so fundamentally different in every way that it is completely invalid to even suggest that their cause could possibly be the same due to something as superficial as their colour.Pros response is to repeatedly assert that God coloured animals.This may be what pro believes - but simply repeatedly asserting that life was coloured by God is neither a rational nor sufficient to meet his burden.
It really does not matter how my examples are biologically made.I could use chair as an example.Clearly i know that the chair is made differently then a weasel.All i am saying is the color choice is the same.Green cup is colored green to match green plate.The color choice is intelligent design.You clearly do not understand the color choice i am claiming god did.I will repeat till understood
Pro dismisses this point as irrelevant.Far from it - this point disproves pros assertions.If paintings created copies of themselves, and each copy contained differences, including subtle changes in colour; if you viewed a painting that was possibly the 10,000,000th generation removed from the original - how could pro possibly be sure that any part of that painting was due to the original painter - or simply a product of generations of copying errors.If pro cannot explain how he would tell the difference, he concedes the resolution.
Many animals are seasonal Like the rabbit it is brown during the summer but white during the winter.So we can tell it was made white to match the white snow.Even though it is 10000 copies down the line.
In the last round I gave multiple examples of observed changes in colour in the wild.“No it does not just because we see something in nature doing something.It does not mean god did not do it”If we observe nature doing something without any apparent intervention - it very much means God did not do it.
no it does not.Even if you prove that animals adapt to there environment it does not prove god did not do it.I am not denying there are camouflage animals.Weasels are white during winter but brown during the summer.I just don't believe animals turned into other animals.or do i believe that the lion was in desert turned yellow to match yellow desert.Same with Snow lion it did not adapt to there environment.I believe god colored them that color when he designed the first creature.Even if you prove some animals can turn into the color of there environment.It would not disprove god.I already believe in seasonal creature.It is not that far of a stretch to believe that he created some animals that turn into the color of there environment forever. Now i do not think the moths adapted.I think it was the smoke that painted them.Proof of this is that they turned white after the smoke disappeared
peppered moth scandal.They staged some photo.There is absolutely no evidence that they adapted.It was probably the smoke that stained them black.if the peppered moth adapted in a couple day's.Why have they failed to return the peppered moths black.
Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs.1 New genetic research validates those criticisms.
The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.
That story helped rescue Darwin's conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.
However, later researchers could not replicate the peppered moth results. Other investigators discovered that most of the story's facts were essentially wrong. For example, peppered moths live mostly beneath leaves, not on tree trunks. One researcher staged photos of the moths on sooty trunks—not where moths naturally rest.
Darwin's 'evolution' moth changes back from black to white thanks to soot-free skies
it was probably the smoke that turned them black.Have you ever held a butterfly.The powder come on your hands.Black smoke stained them.Are children who clean chimney black children
The only reason we know a painting requires a painter is not really because of the properties of the painting - it’s because all paintings that we have ever observed has had a painter - so it’s reasonable to presume the same when we see another.
We do not need to see them painted.We can see the intelligent color choice like red chair with red table.Which is intelligent design.We do not need to see them made.
Forfeited
Round 4
maybe i am being understood ?
lets pretend i am god for a second
If i create a green planet and i put green animals on it.
It is an intelligent design color choice.I created the animals green to match the green planet,
If i create a white snow planet and i put white animals on it.
It is an intelligent design color choice.I created the animals white to match the white planet.
If i create a blue water planet and i put blue animals on it.
It is an intelligent design color choice. I created the animals blue to match the blue ocean
This is what god did.Except he did it all with one planet and did this with each environment.
God created the animals that live in the snow white.He created them white to match the white snow.He made the same intelligent color choice as my white planet example.
If i create a white snow planet and i put white animals on it.It is an intelligent design color choice.I created the animals white to match the white planet.
God created the animals in the green forest green.He created them green to match the green Forrest.He made the same intelligent color choice as my green planet example.
If i create a green planet and i put green animals on it.It is an intelligent design color choice.I created the animals green to match the green planet,
If i create a yellow planet and put yellow animals on it.It is an intelligent color choice
This is the same as god creating the desert animals yellow to match the yellow desert
Forfeited
Round 5
If god made a white planet and put white animals.IT would be an intelligent color choice just like how Nintendo created the sewer goomba black to match the black sewer background
If god created a yellow planet and put yellow animals it would be an intelligent color choice.
if god created a green planet and put green animals it would be an intelligent color choice.
God creating white creatures for white snow is an intelligent color choice.Rabbits and weasel turn white during winter
Forfeited
People seem to not understand
Have you ever played the game candy land.
The peppermint biome has peppermint animals in it
The chocolate biome has chocolate animals in it.
The creators of candy land Matched the animals with there environments.
This is what i am saying god did.
The snow biome has white animals
The desert biome has yellow animals
The creator matched the animal with there environment
nvm. will do
Would that not format it weirdly. I will see what i can do
Please put the arguments in the text of the debate, and use the google document for your pictures