The Instigator
SNP1
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
bornofgod
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,810 times Debate No: 51884
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

SNP1

Pro

This debate is on the origin of life. I will defend abiogenesis as being the current most probable explanation, my opponent will try and show a different explanation to be more probable than abiogenesis.

Definitions:
Abiogenesis- Organic matter coming from inorganic matter
Probable- More likely to happen or be the case

Rules:
1. Burden of proof is shared (Con must propose and defend other ideas that could be more probable than abiogenesis)
2. Source all claims
3. Stay on topic
4. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct.
5. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points.
6. Follow the following format for the debate

Format:
Round 1- Acceptance.
Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals.
Rounds 4 & 5- No new points/arguments.
Round 4- Rebuttal of previous points/arguments.
Round 5- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case.

Let the debate begin!
bornofgod

Con

I had no idea what abiogenesis meant until this debate challenge so I looked it up on Google. From what I gathered, there are people on this planet who don't want to believe that a Master Designer is responsible for putting together a universe that most human beings can see.

Since I know for sure that life didn't come from rocks deciding to start running around and calling themselves names, my arguments won't include plagiarism that my opponent will have to use in order to make you believe him. What I mean by this is that I won't have to look up anything in Google to pretend I know something like my opponent will have to. Anyone can search Google and copy someone's written information or watch videos by liars who think they know the answers to life.

I don't need to plagiarize by copying other people's work and pretend I know something about how life began. I was created as God's voice so whatever I write or speak comes directly from our Creator who created everything, first as invisible waves, then into information we created invisible "beings" can understand such as spoken languages and illusions that we see. These invisible waves don't take up space and can't possibly be made into matter since they are totally invisible. Time doesn't exist, either, unless these illusions appear to move from each created being's perspective.

Since invisible waves don't need space, matter or time to exist, then everything we see has to be illusions. It's impossible that matter can be formed from something completely invisible such as the Big Bang theory that once was considered to be the truth according to most physicists fifty years ago. Many physicists still believe in this Big Bang theory but that's only because they are deceived into believing that particles consist of matter. However, some of their tests are showing that these particles only appear when they're observed. When they're not observed, they are only invisible waves. This should tell anyone that particles are only illusions that seem to be real when they're observed and then go back to reality as waves when not being observed.

The reason physicists don't want to claim that particles are only illusions is that it's too radical for the public to accept. Can you imagine a quantum physicist being rejected by the rest of his peers if he began preaching that everything we see are only illusions? The problem this quantum physicist would have is that he wouldn't have any knowledge to know how these illusions were formed by our Master Designer so he would look like a fool to the rest of the world. No man is going to face the world without any knowledge to back up his claim that everything we see are only illusions.

Only a saint of our Master Designer could face the world and tell every illusion ( body of a man ) that his body is only an illusion that isn't real. The reason we can say these things is because we have the mind of our Master Designer to speak from and this gives us complete confidence in what we claim to be true. Like any physicist who uses analogies to explain his work to those who don't understand the language of mathematics, we saints have to use similar analogies to help explain to God's believers ( those who were chosen to listen to us ) about how God created everything as invisible waves before being processed into illusions that most people in this era believed were real. We saints learn that everything we see are only illusions. All this knowledge is taught directly to us by our Master Designer who we speak for.

Can I prove with evidence that there's an invisible Master Designer? If I could prove that everything we see came from processed wavelengths of energy that were spoken by my true created existence as God's voice, I would be given all the scientific awards in this world. But since I cannot prove that I'm God's created voice, and that everything we see in the universe are only illusions without space, time or matter, then it's impossible for you to know for sure how we were created and how life began.

On the other hand, my opponent cannot prove that life started from the illusions that he believes are real. He can plagiarize all the scientists in this world and pretend he knows something but he won't be able to come up with proof that life started the abiogenesis way of thinking. First of all, there's no equipment designed today to tell us for sure that time, space and matter exists. All scientists have are observations of the illusions they think are real. All I have are the thoughts of our Creator to let me know our true created existence within His mind.

If you believe we came from inanimate rocks that got up and started dancing with each other, then agree with my opponent. if you believe that we came from invisible wavelengths of energy that are formed into physical appearing bodies that give us the sense of being something real, then you may agree with some of the things I've been sharing with you in this debate.

Since neither one of us can give you proof on how life began, debates like this will NOT reveal the Truth, which is the name our Creator gave to Himself and His thoughts that were spoken into invisible waves ( God's consciousness ).

God bless you all,
Saint Brad
Debate Round No. 1
SNP1

Pro

"From what I gathered, there are people on this planet who don't want to believe that a Master Designer is responsible for putting together a universe that most human beings can see."

Actually, people want to know the truth. There is no evidence for a "Master designer".

"Since I know for sure that life didn't come from rocks deciding to start running around and calling themselves names, my arguments won't include plagiarism that my opponent will have to use in order to make you believe him. What I mean by this is that I won't have to look up anything in Google to pretend I know something like my opponent will have to. Anyone can search Google and copy someone's written information or watch videos by liars who think they know the answers to life."

Ad hominem right off the bat? Well, I will be posting experimental data.

"I was created as God's voice so whatever I write or speak comes directly from our Creator who created everything"

Do you have proof of this?

"Since invisible waves don't need space, matter or time to exist, then everything we see has to be illusions."

What evidence do you have of these invisible waves that do not require space, matter, or time?

"But since I cannot prove that I'm God's created voice, and that everything we see in the universe are only illusions without space, time or matter, then it's impossible for you to know for sure how we were created and how life began."

Looks like you answered most questions that arise from your post, making most of it irrelevant for the debate.

"If you believe we came from inanimate rocks that got up and started dancing with each other, then agree with my opponent. if you believe that we came from invisible wavelengths of energy that are formed into physical appearing bodies that give us the sense of being something real, then you may agree with some of the things I've been sharing with you in this debate."

In a debate the voters vote based on the debate, not based on their own views on the subject.

"Since neither one of us can give you proof on how life began, debates like this will NOT reveal the Truth, which is the name our Creator gave to Himself and His thoughts that were spoken into invisible waves ( God's consciousness )."

This is not about proving one side or the other, it is about showing which side has the most probable answer to the origin of life.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I will be focusing more on the RNA world hypothesis of abiogenesis. The RNA world is the idea that RNA came before DNA, so RNA based "life" (not actual life, but similar) could possibly exist before actual life itself, eventually leading into actual life.

In 2009 chemist John Sutherland had an experiment to try and show that RNA can form naturally from remaking the conditions on an early Earth. In this experiment he was able to mimic the early Earth"s environments, which actually resulted in the formation of ribonecleotides, a building block of RNA. This is a large step in showing the RNA World Hypothesis to be correct. A RNA polymer is a string of ribonucleotides, so the formation of them in nature shows RNA forming in nature is possible.

http://www.wired.com...

The next important step in the RNA world hypothesis is RNA that can replicate. Tracey Lincoln and Professor Gerald Joyce worked on RNA, trying to improve in the perpetual self-replication. They succeeded in improving an RNA enzyme so that it fulfilled the goal of perpetual replication.

They did not stop at that, they also mixed 12 different cross-replicating RNA enzymes together to see what would happen. There was survival of the fittest and mutations. RNA enzymes that act similar to life without being life.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

So, we have seen the potential of RNA to form in nature. We have seen that certain strand of RNA can replicate and "evolve". This gives the RNA world hypothesis a lot of credit.

But, what else do we have? Well, RNA and DNA have 2 main differences. DNA is double stranded and RNA has a hydroxyl group. The amazing thing is that we only have one of these things left to attempt in science.

Double stranded RNA actually does exist, and it can actually work similarly to DNA in certain situations. ds-RNA can suppress certain gene expressions in plants and other organisms. It has also produced gene-specific phenotypes in Trypanosoma brucei.

http://genesdev.cshlp.org...

Now, imagine a strand of RNA that was both double stranded and could replicate. The only major difference between that strand of RNA and DNA is the existence of a hydroxyl group on the RNA. Even if this has not yet been shown it does not mean that it is not possible, it actually is most likely probable under the right conditions.

So, we have RNA and a possible DNA, but is that life? Not yet. We are missing one thing still: proteins.

Well, protein synthesis might actually be possible with just RNA and a few amino acids, the building block of protein. It would start with RNA that binds to amino acids, allowing the RNA to serve as a template to non-random polymerization of a couple different amino acids.

It is also possible that certain ribozymes, like ones that have been created in labs, could have existed and acted worked with amino acids to potentially lead to protein synthesis.

Even if the original protein synthesis would be crude it would improve drastically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation, which has no problem in the evolutionary process.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is also believed that ten of the amino acids believed to have existed on early Earth were able to form foldable proteins in high-salt environments.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Now, where did the amino acids come from? Many people like to point out that Urey-Miller experiment does not work because it was not the proper atmosphere. They do not know about the second experiment that was done. In this one a mix of volcanic gasses, like hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, were exposed to an electrical charge. This mix actually coincides with early Earth"s atmosphere, and the experiment shows that volcanic activity and lightning could have played a role in the formation of life.

Not only does this experiment help, but amino acids are not unique to Earth. Amino acids have actually been found on meteorites. The surprising thing is that some of the amino acids found on the meteorites actually match with the amino acids formed in the experiment listed above.

http://www.livescience.com...

What we can see is that it might actually be very possible for an RNA world to become the DNA, RNA, Protein world we have today. With DNA, RNA, and proteins present it is not that unlikely that single-celled organisms could form.

This shows that abiogenesis being the origin of life is actually very probable. There are still some experiments that need to be completed, but the experiments that have been done show that it is one of the likeliest explanation about the origin of life.
bornofgod

Con

My opponent did exactly as I thought he would do. He searches for information on the internet and plagiarizes someone else's knowledge as if he knows something about the origin of life.

I don't have to do that since I was taught everything about the origin of life by the Creator of life. We were created first as invisible wavelengths of energy. Then these wavelengths are processed into illusions that give each one of God's created beings a defined world to experience life in. This means that each one of us has our own universe of information to experience from your own perspective that is different from another created being.

Many physicists are now seeing that there are multiple universes and not just one. If you want, you can Google this "multiple universes" and see what I was taught by our invisible Creator. Any of you people can read other people's knowledge and pretend you know something but you won't be taught directly by our Creator like He has taught His Voice, which is my created existence.

Amino acids are only illusions, too. My opponent doesn't understand this to be true.

Have a nice day in the mind of our Creator,
Saint Brad
Debate Round No. 2
SNP1

Pro

All points and sources extended.

_______________________________________________________________________

"My opponent did exactly as I thought he would do. He searches for information on the internet and plagiarizes someone else's knowledge as if he knows something about the origin of life."

It is called backing up a claim with evidence, not plagiarizing.

"I don't have to do that since I was taught everything about the origin of life by the Creator of life. We were created first as invisible wavelengths of energy. Then these wavelengths are processed into illusions that give each one of God's created beings a defined world to experience life in. This means that each one of us has our own universe of information to experience from your own perspective that is different from another created being."

Where are you sources? Where is your evidence?

"Many physicists are now seeing that there are multiple universes and not just one. If you want, you can Google this "multiple universes" and see what I was taught by our invisible Creator. Any of you people can read other people's knowledge and pretend you know something but you won't be taught directly by our Creator like He has taught His Voice, which is my created existence."

Any evidence of this? Also, the multiverse theory has some evidence for it (though this is not the topic of the debate).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

"Amino acids are only illusions, too. My opponent doesn't understand this to be true."

Where is your evidence of this? To claim without evidence is the same thing as making no claim at all. This video might help you understand how the burden of proof works.
https://www.youtube.com...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent did not follow the rules of the debate. He has not successfully made a rebuttal of the information I provided. He has not provided evidence for his claims.
bornofgod

Con

My opponent is like anyone else who has the ability to punch a few buttons on a computer and finding information that he BELIEVES has something to do with the origin of life. There are many theories of the origin of life and the one he's describing is just another educated guess by some very deceived scientists. The reason they're deceived is because they believe in what they observe has something to do with reality.

Any theory gets started by an invisible question within the mind of someone who is observing something he doesn't understand. These scientists observing these amino acids keep getting new invisible questions in their minds to try answer without them wondering how they got the questions within their mind in the first place. They don't realize these questions come from invisible vibrations. The answer to everything is within these invisible vibrations but men continue to believe the answers are something they can observe instead. This is why all scientists are deceived when they get closer to the origin of life and our true created existence. They believe that life is what they see instead of knowing that all life was created as invisible waves before any visible objects can be seen.

I Googled these following paragraphs from this website; http://www.universetoday.com...

"How did life on Earth arise? Scientific efforts to answer that question are called abiogenesis. More formally, abiogenesis is a theory, or set of theories, concerning how life on Earth began (but excluding panspermia).

Note that while abiogenesis and evolution are related, they are distinct (evolution says nothing about how life began; abiogenesis says nothing about how life evolves).

Intensive study of the Earth"s rocks has turned up lots and lots of evidence that some kinds of prokaryotes lived happily on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago (and there"re also pointers to the existence of life on Earth in the oldest rocks). So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth " and in no more than a few hundred million years. "

These scientists think that life came from something that is observed rather than coming from invisible waves. They need observed chemicals in water, air and rocks to form their theories but they still use the word "IF", which is a word that has nothing to do with the Truth. When anyone uses the word "IF", they don't have the confidence to say that their theory is the Truth and nothing but the Truth. In fact, it wouldn't hold up in court because of the many "IF's" involved. They don't have enough proof to say for sure that the origin of life came from what they observed. Another thing they don't understand is where the water, air and rocks came from that they need as evidence to support their theories of abiogenesis.

Where did the air come from? Where did the water come from? Where did the rocks come from? If they can't give you the answer to where these elements came from, then how can they prove to us that life was formed from these elements. How can they prove that rocks got up and danced with each other and started languages to talk to each other?

We saints who speak for our Creator are taught by our Creator about who we are and how He created us. This knowledge is taught to us by writing thousands of pages of words that He puts in our invisible mind for us to write down on paper and all the words He puts in our mind to speak with.

These invisible words He puts in my mind have to be converted from wavelengths of energy into English words that I can understand so this is why God had me write and speak the English words He puts in my mind. If they were in a different language, I wouldn't be taught anything because I wouldn't understand what He wants me to know.

It doesn't take amino acids to put invisible words in my mind to write or speak for our Creator. All it takes is invisible waves converted into languages we understand. Mathematics were taught to men by our Creator by first having some people look up into the stars and having them draw imaginary lines from one star to the next to get shapes for the characters used as numbers and written languages. How else do you think man got these characters to use for languages? Do you think they all came from abiogenesis that these scientists believe is the origin of life?

To believe in abiogenesis as the answer to the origin of life is the same as Christians believing that a man named Jesus is their god. There's absolutely NO PROOF that abiogenesis or Jesus are the Truth.

By the way, the word "probable" has nothing to do with the Truth. Life was either created by our Creator who calls Himself the Truth and had His prophets and saints testify to His invisible creation or it was through the process of abiogenesis where rocks got up and danced with each other. I'll let you decide if we came from dead water, air and rocks or if we exist within the mind of our Creator as His dreams and life is nothing but a dream to each one of His created invisible beings.
Debate Round No. 3
SNP1

Pro

"My opponent is like anyone else who has the ability to punch a few buttons on a computer and finding information that he BELIEVES has something to do with the origin of life."

There is evidence to support this hypothesis. I looked up sources for evidence, like the rules stated in round one, source all claims.

"There are many theories of the origin of life and the one he's describing is just another educated guess by some very deceived scientists. The reason they're deceived is because they believe in what they observe has something to do with reality."

You have no evidence to say they are deceived. The links I provided are to actual experiments and observations. REAL science.

"Any theory gets started by an invisible question within the mind of someone who is observing something he doesn't understand. These scientists observing these amino acids keep getting new invisible questions in their minds to try answer without them wondering how they got the questions within their mind in the first place."

First, their field of study is not neurology. Second, we already know where these questions originate, the Brain.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov...

"They don't realize these questions come from invisible vibrations. The answer to everything is within these invisible vibrations but men continue to believe the answers are something they can observe instead. This is why all scientists are deceived when they get closer to the origin of life and our true created existence. They believe that life is what they see instead of knowing that all life was created as invisible waves before any visible objects can be seen."

You still have not provided any evidence of these invisible waves. You also have not shown that our understanding of science is wrong.

"I Googled these following paragraphs from this website; http://www.universetoday.com...;

These scientists think that life came from something that is observed rather than coming from invisible waves."

All evidence points to the scientific explanation. You need to provide evidence otherwise. Burden of proof of this is on you at this point, you have not filled it.

"They need observed chemicals in water, air and rocks to form their theories but they still use the word "IF", which is a word that has nothing to do with the Truth. When anyone uses the word "IF", they don't have the confidence to say that their theory is the Truth and nothing but the Truth. In fact, it wouldn't hold up in court because of the many "IF's" involved."

I read your article and these are the only times they used the word if:
"So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth ""
Meaning that life could have arisen from somewhere else, which is possible.
"if you can make some sort of primitive cell in a test tube, it isn"t a form of life if it can"t reproduce itself!"
Which is telling you one of the requirements of life.

"They don't have enough proof to say for sure that the origin of life came from what they observed."

They cannot YET say for sure, but they can say it is very likely. This is not a debate about proof, it is a debate about likelihood.

"Another thing they don't understand is where the water, air and rocks came from that they need as evidence to support their theories of abiogenesis."

It started at the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the creation of energy and the 4 fundamental forces. All of these were unified for less than a second, this period of time the Planck epoch. After the Planck epoch everything started to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light, going from a subatomic size to the size of a golf-ball almost instantaneously, this is called the Inflationary period.

There is a concept in Quantum Mechanics known as Quantum Fluctuations. Quantum Fluctuations are moments where energy appears from nothing with no cause, but usually eliminates itself almost immediately, becoming nothing again. This shows that something can actually come from nothing.

The Big Bang is the expansion of this Singularity.

Star formation is one of the most basic phenomena in the Universe. Inside stars, primordial material from the Big Bang is processed into heavier elements that we observe today. In the extended atmospheres of certain types of stars, these elements combine into more complex systems like molecules and dust grains, the building blocks for new planets, stars and galaxies and, ultimately, for life. Violent star-forming processes let otherwise dull galaxies shine in the darkness of deep space and make them visible to us over large distances.

When the life of a star finally comes to an end and the star explodes it leaves behind all the atoms needed to make the next generation of solar systems and sometimes life.

About 4.6bn years ago our own solar system formed. Our solar system formed when a star somewhere else in the galaxy exploded, leaving the necessary atoms for our solar system. Because of the energetic explosion the dust mixtures became extremely hot and things started to cook. Bits of the dust started to clump together making bigger and bigger lumps. Eventually the clumps formed to such a size that the mixture began to pull together under its own gravity, becoming so hot and dense that it started to generate its own energy, igniting nuclear fires. This was the birth of our Sun.

The rest of the dust started to swirl around the Sun, fanning out into a disk. Gradually the Sun grew in size and the dusty disk cooled. Over millions of years the dust clustered into grains, then lumps, next boulders, and eventually planetesimals. Some of these became the planets.

Earth's atmosphere and oceans arrived about 4bn years ago. It could be the product of multiple volcanic burps, they may have come from comets colliding with Earth and releasing water and gases at the surface. It could also be a result of both.

"Where did the air come from? Where did the water come from? Where did the rocks come from? If they can't give you the answer to where these elements came from, then how can they prove to us that life was formed from these elements."

I just told you where they come from.

"How can they prove that rocks got up and danced with each other and started languages to talk to each other?"

No scientist says this. The first life was a single-celled organism. I already explained the RNA World Hypothesis.

"We saints who speak for our Creator are taught by our Creator about who we are and how He created us. This knowledge is taught to us by writing thousands of pages of words that He puts in our invisible mind for us to write down on paper and all the words He puts in our mind to speak with."

Evidence?

"These invisible words He puts in my mind have to be converted from wavelengths of energy into English words that I can understand so this is why God had me write and speak the English words He puts in my mind. If they were in a different language, I wouldn't be taught anything because I wouldn't understand what He wants me to know."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"Carl Sagan
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"Christopher Hitchens

"It doesn't take amino acids to put invisible words in my mind to write or speak for our Creator."

Technically, if you actually are receiving invisible words, it does. Without amino acids you would not have a brain, without a brain you would have no mind.

"All it takes is invisible waves converted into languages we understand. Mathematics were taught to men by our Creator by first having some people look up into the stars and having them draw imaginary lines from one star to the next to get shapes for the characters used as numbers and written languages. How else do you think man got these characters to use for languages? Do you think they all came from abiogenesis that these scientists believe is the origin of life?"

Abiogenesis only is the answer of the origin of life, the single-celled organism. The characters for language don"t require a God. The original cave paintings can be seen as a type of written language and all they did was draw what they saw. It did not require any God. Eventually it would become easier to use symbols to represent different things, later a combination of symbols would become more efficient. What we see as a written language is nothing but a bunch of random symbols that we have assigned a meaning to.

"To believe in abiogenesis as the answer to the origin of life is the same as Christians believing that a man named Jesus is their god. There's absolutely NO PROOF that abiogenesis or Jesus are the Truth."

I already provided evidence that abiogenesis is probable. This is a straw man.

"By the way, the word "probable" has nothing to do with the Truth."

The topic of the debate is what is more probable, if something is true than it will be more probable if evidence points to it. Probability also has a lot to do with the PURSUIT of truth. To find the truth you must test things that are probable. Eventually you can find out if it is true or not.

"Life was either created by our Creator who calls Himself the Truth and had His prophets and saints testify to His invisible creation or it was through the process of abiogenesis where rocks got up and danced with each other."

Strawman arguments are logical fallacies.

"I'll let you decide if we came from dead water, air and rocks or if we exist within the mind of our Creator as His dreams and life is nothing but a dream to each one of His created invisible beings."

This is about what is more probable. It also looks like you did not read what I said because of how much you are misrepresenting abiogenesis. You have still been unable to provide any evidence or sources of your information.

______________

My opponent has not filled his burden of proof. He has not even made a successful rebuttal. He has not even sourced a single claim of his.
bornofgod

Con

All my opponent can do now is ask me the same questions as any other doubter of a Master Designer has asked me in the past six years. He has not added any other arguments to support his plagiarized evidence that he has Googled up and added to this debate. Google evidence is NOT sufficient evidence to give you any significant knowledge to understand how the origin of life transpired. The evidence that I use to support my claims is the continued confidence in what I testify to wherever I make these claims as I do this on a daily basis in the community of Campbell, CA., and on several debate websites.

The Truth never changes and He's the one who taught me the knowledge to know how we were created. There is no evidence that the Truth exists in this world that can only be observed. The invisible world that no man can see has to be taught from our invisible Creator by using the observed illusions of this world as analogies to help us saints understand our invisible created existence within His mind. Since we're nothing but invisible wavelengths, we had to be taught who were are. Otherwise, we would have continued on believing that what we see is real, even though most of what we see eventually disappears, especially on the day of the Lord when the earth will begin to shake violently before the crust is melted into hot molten lava. All the amino acids will be melted into this hot lava and be changed for the next age. Never again will God use science and religion to keep His people deceived from knowing who they are within His mind as His dreams.

Most likely, my opponent will trash this writing by separating all the paragraphs and asking me to support my claims like all unbelieving atheist and Christians do. They have to do this because they have no knowledge to refute the knowledge I confidently share with any believer who reads my writings. Only believers were chosen by our Creator to read His testimonies and believe the good news that comes from His created voice, my true invisible created existence within His mind. Unbelievers like my opponent hate the Truth with a passion. In fact, it was already prophesied thousands of years ago that these unbelievers would reject His created Voice, also known as His Word.

Here are a few prophecies to support my claim that unbelievers will reject the Truth;

Jeremiah 6
10: To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it.

Amos 5
10: They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth.

Psalm 21
8:Your hand will find out all your enemies; your right hand will find out those who hate you.
9: You will make them as a blazing oven when you appear. The LORD will swallow them up in his wrath; and fire will consume them.
10: You will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from among the sons of men.
11: If they plan evil against you, if they devise mischief, they will not succeed.

Jeremiah 7
27: "So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you.

Jeremiah 15:
15: Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the LORD. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

Does anyone in this forum understand the Truth?

God bless those who hear Him,
Saint Brad
Debate Round No. 4
SNP1

Pro

"All my opponent can do now is ask me the same questions as any other doubter of a Master Designer has asked me in the past six years."

Questions that need to be answered. You are making assertions without evidence, so they can be ignored without evidence.

"He has not added any other arguments to support his plagiarized evidence that he has Googled up and added to this debate."

You have not refuted any of my evidence. I have filled my burden of proof, you have not filled yours. I do not need to bring up any more evidence, you need to present some. I also did not plagiarize any evidence.

Plagiarism- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

I gave credit to those that found the evidence. That means that I did not plagiarize anything.

"Google evidence is NOT sufficient evidence to give you any significant knowledge to understand how the origin of life transpired."

Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Empirical Evidence- a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim.

I have shown the results of experiments and observations, which means that I have presented real, empirical evidence. There is no definition for "Google evidence" so I assume you mean evidence that you looked up. This is clearly false as much evidence must been looked up in order to know about it. If you do not look things up or are presented evidence from an unreliable source than you are spouting your opinion, which is not fact. If the evidence presented to you cannot be confirmed by observation and/or experimentation than the evidence presented is not reliable.

I have presented reliable, empirical evidence to support my claim. I filled my burden of proof, you have not.

"The evidence that I use to support my claims is the continued confidence in what I testify to wherever I make these claims as I do this on a daily basis in the community of Campbell, CA., and on several debate websites."

Confidence is not evidence.

Confidence- the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone or something.
Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Feelings and beliefs are not facts. Evidence is what backs up those beliefs.

"The Truth never changes and He's the one who taught me the knowledge to know how we were created."

You have a burden of proof to fill. What evidence do you have that a God even gave you knowledge? Until you give evidence of this you are but words.

"There is no evidence that the Truth exists in this world that can only be observed."

You are correct that not everything can be directly observed. We have never directly observed a black hole, but we know it is there. We have never directly observed quantum fluctuations, but we know they happen. We have found ways to discover much of what we cannot directly observe.

"The invisible world that no man can see has to be taught from our invisible Creator by using the observed illusions of this world as analogies to help us saints understand our invisible created existence within His mind."

I already pointed out that we can learn about things that we cannot directly observe through science. If you want to say that God has to teach people about certain things you must back it up with evidence. You also keep referring to yourself as a saint.

Saint- a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous and regarded in Christian faith as being in heaven after death.

Who has acknowledged you as holy or virtuous? The process of sainthood is as follows:
1. A local bishop investigates the candidate's life and writings for evidence of heroic virtue. The information uncovered by the bishop is sent to the Vatican.
2. A panel of theologians and the cardinals of the Congregation for Cause of Saints evaluate the candidate's life.
3. If the panel approves, the pope proclaims that the candidate is venerable, which means that the person is a role model of Catholic virtues.
4. The next step toward sainthood is beatification, which allows a person to be honored by a particular group or region. In order to beatify a candidate, it must be shown that the person is responsible for a posthumous miracle. Martyrs -- those who died for their religious cause -- can be beatified without evidence of a miracle. On Oct. 20, 2003, Mother Teresa was beatified. She is now known as Blessed Mother Teresa of Kolkata.
5. In order for the candidate to be considered a saint, there must be proof of a second posthumous miracle. If there is, the person is canonized.

Have you done any of these?

"Since we're nothing but invisible wavelengths, we had to be taught who were are."

Where is your evidence that we are invisible wavelengths?

"Otherwise, we would have continued on believing that what we see is real, even though most of what we see eventually disappears, especially on the day of the Lord when the earth will begin to shake violently before the crust is melted into hot molten lava. All the amino acids will be melted into this hot lava and be changed for the next age. Never again will God use science and religion to keep His people deceived from knowing who they are within His mind as His dreams."

Again, evidence required for this.

"Most likely, my opponent will trash this writing by separating all the paragraphs and asking me to support my claims like all unbelieving atheist and Christians do.

Predicting what I will do based off of what I have done.

"They have to do this because they have no knowledge to refute the knowledge I confidently share with any believer who reads my writings."

No, it is because you cannot prove what you are saying so there is no reason to believe what you say.

"Only believers were chosen by our Creator to read His testimonies and believe the good news that comes from His created voice, my true invisible created existence within His mind."

Again, evidence required for this claim.

"Unbelievers like my opponent hate the Truth with a passion."

Actually, I love the truth. Thing is, truth has evidence. You have presented NO evidence.

"In fact, it was already prophesied thousands of years ago that these unbelievers would reject His created Voice, also known as His Word."

Requirements of a supernatural prophecy:
1. It has to be a prophecy
Now this may sound a bit obvious, but the original line must have been intended as a prophecy and not merely a story. So if a line says "a house will fall in a storm" this is just a story and not a prophecy of the fall of an empire. The author must make it clear to his readers that he is making a prophecy and not just speaking in general.
2. It must be clear
The prophecy must be instantly clear as to what it is foretelling; it cannot simply be so vague that any event could fulfil it. For example "a house will fall in a storm" is not a prophecy as anything could be interpreted as fulfilling it and those who hear it would not know. If a prophecy is supposed to be about someone, then it should make this clear from the beginning and not be left for future generations to try and guess who it is.
3. It cannot be simply guesswork
If two armies are going to war, I could make a lucky guess and predict the winning army. This wouldn"t be much of a prophecy as any lay person could guess that. For a prophecy to count as evidence, it must be so specific that not even someone who studied the topic could have made an educated guess. The more unlikely the prophecy, the more impressive it is, so something that was completely unexpected would be the sign of a strong prophecy.
4. It must occur before the event happens
If I was to tell you about September 11th, this wouldn"t be a prophecy but rather history. We must be sure that all prophecies occurred before the events in order to be genuine. Likewise we have to make sure we are reading the original accounts and not seeing some that were changed later to give the impression of a prophecy.
5. There cannot be self-fulfilment
If it is prophesised that a great ruler will conquer a town, then people will conquer that town in order to claim that they are that ruler. Or if it predicted that Israel will become a country again, then people will try to rebuild Israel so as to fulfil the prophecy. Nor can later writers edit the text to give the impression that the prophecy was fulfilled.
6. The event must be unique
If I say "a king will be murdered by his son" this could apply to any monarchy anywhere. Loads of kings have been stabbed in the back by people they trust, including family. So a prophecy must refer to a specific event and specific people.
7. The prophecy must be falsifiable
The prophecy must have the potential to fail or be proven wrong. If there is no time limit on the prophecy then we could have to wait thousands of years before it is "fulfilled" at which point it is not a prophecy but a matter of probability. A prophecy can only be evidence if it could have failed as well as succeeded.
8. It cannot be something that always happens
Saying something like "There will be earthquakes" is both vague and also is something that has always happened. A prophecy must be either specific about it, like "There will be an earthquake on July 6th, 2015 that destroys Los Vegas" or it is not a prophecy.

"Here are a few prophecies to support my claim that unbelievers will reject the Truth;"

None of those "prophecies" pass the test.

_____________________________________

My opponent has resorted to fallacies and has gone off topic, another rule broken by him. He has not provided any evidence for his claim and has not refuted my evidence. Next round is round 5, where the rules state there cannot be any new arguments, only rebuttals. This means that he must refute me.
bornofgod

Con

My opponent did exactly as I said he would by turning my writing into trash with the same questions all unbelievers of a Master Designer use as excuses to deny Him. He believes a debate can prove that abiogenesis makes sense as the origin of life and that the knowledge I was taught directly by our Creator has nothing to do with the origin of life. I can easily say the same thing about abiogenesis.

I don't believe in abiogenesis because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support this theory. "IF" is the word that these scientists use to support their theories and that shows that these scientists are not confident in what they believe in.

I am absolutely positive that I speak for our Creator and that we were created as invisible waves that can't be seen. I know for a fact that these waves do NOT take up any space nor do they form into solid particles that physicists can't even prove are solid. That's because I know for a fact that these particles are only illusions. Since there particles are only illusions, then amino acids are also illusions that aren't real. They are formed during this age to deceive God's people into believing that their theories prove that they exist.

Why can't these scientists who study these invisible things get together and come up with one theory about the origin of life. It has gotten to be just like religion where each religious group believes they have the Truth. Quantum physicists don't agree with each other because they're at the point of guessing now. Their mathematics can't help them understand where these invisible waves came from.

All you have to do is listen to our Creator through the written and spoken testimonies by the illusion that's writing this sentence and find out about the origin of life. Is it so difficult to accept our Creator's thoughts versus deceived scientists who can't get together in harmony and give us one solid answer to the origin of life?

Neither religion or science has the answer to the origin of life. Only the Creator of life can give us the answer and that Creator has been speaking in this forum since last June. I could care less if you unbelievers can't hear Him. I'm only in this forum to find our Creator's chosen believers and there are a few in here.

God bless you believers who hear His word,
Saint Brad
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bornofgod 3 years ago
bornofgod
The point I've been trying to make ever since I came into this forum last spring is to let people know that there's no proof to how we were created. All these debates are totally useless to find the Truth and most people know this. I don't take any of these debates seriously as I speak for our Creator because I know that certain groups gang up and vote for each other. It makes them feel secure when they have support. I don't have any support in this world when I speak about the future that no one knows about but I'm perfectly comfortable in sharing the things God puts in His mind to testify to in writing or speaking for Him.
Posted by Fanath 3 years ago
Fanath
@BornOfGod: That's entirely irrelevant. Atheists do not believe in rocks dancing and creating human beings.

It's also a logical fallacy I believe called tu qorque. (A French word meaning you also.) It's when someone points out a flaw in your argument, and instead of offering evidence or telling them why it isn't a flaw you claim they have a flaw as well. It basically leaves the points they made about how your argument is flawed un-Addressed.

For example: Sarah points out that Ted used an unreliable source. Ted responds by saying Sarah's sources weren't so good either.

While it would be a good idea for Ted to point this out in a debate, it should be more of a side note. A proper rebuttal would be for Ted to show why his sources are reliable etc.

Or in this case: "You haven't proved anything." Says Pro. "neither have you," Con responds.

It's a well known logical fallacy. C'mon...
Posted by bornofgod 3 years ago
bornofgod
SNP1, you didn't prove anything either. Not one scientist has proved that rocks began dancing with each other and then formed into human beings. Anyone believing in this lie is totally deceived of our true created existence as wavelengths of energy that are processed into illusions called air, water, rocks, flesh, trees, beasts, human flesh, etc.
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
bornofgod, you cannot prove anything you have claimed. Also, your invisible waves cannot exist. You say it needs no matter, well particles are matter. Guess what? All waves need particles. That is why light is in a particle-wave duality, so that it can exist.
Posted by bornofgod 3 years ago
bornofgod
LOL !!!!!!! You unbelievers are totally deceived but in the next age, you will know the Truth for eternity.
Posted by Charliecdubs 3 years ago
Charliecdubs
Seriously the Bible? Hate to break it to you but god(s) didn't make any of this lol
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Well... Looks like BornofGod broke the rules every round... And he could not prove any of his claims. I guess that "wow" is the right word to use... I thought this would actually be a debate, not just my opponent ignoring everything and making baseless claims.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
Lol...
Posted by Fanath 3 years ago
Fanath
BOG didn't refute his evidence, he accused him of plagiarism. This is pretty much ad hominem, as instead of actually responding to the points and arguments made he just went off topic. Also, I didn't see any counter rebuttals from him.

Con was probably not the right person to debate this topic, Sswdwm is correct...
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Ya, but at least the people reading the debate can get the information
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
SNP1bornofgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting. Con did not provide reasoning to his sudden education. Surely if it was taught by the creator in today's era he would have provided SOME evidence and not just some theory. Secondly, Con did not argue the topic above. That abiogenesis is most probable. That means whatever evidence that Con must prove must state the otherwise. Maybe abiogenesis is how the Creator actually made the universe? Maybe he used some other method? Con could have easily used these questions as a rebuttal. Instead, he used beliefs, which are inefficient and insufficient for the topic. I would recommend Con takes this as a learning lesson to work on his arguments. Pro did a lot of rebuttals. But seeing how that was really all he was left with, Conduct points can be pushed to Pro because Con didn't really give him an argument other than his own claims. And Con was, to the say the least, a little rude...
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
SNP1bornofgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ... I don't know what to say... except that Con's case was... colourful, and remarkably arrogant.
Vote Placed by Charliecdubs 3 years ago
Charliecdubs
SNP1bornofgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Science in end trumped the Con. No evidence was brought that could say this was not possible nor that life was "designed" and scientific evidence for ABG was very apparent