The Instigator
SherbertNutters
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Prodigy0789
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

Evolution is a lie

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 11 votes the winner is...
Prodigy0789
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,361 times Debate No: 69326
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (987)
Votes (11)

 

SherbertNutters

Pro

I am going to be arguing for the title of this debate, my opponent will try to prove that evolution is true
First: Acceptance
Second: Opening statement
Third: Rebuttals
Fourth: Further argument/rebuttal
Fifth: Closing
For clarification I'm referring to macro evolution, that man has evolved from soup, became a germ, a fish, then a monkey of several sorts, and then become homo sapien sapien over the course millions of years.

Edit*Chemical evolution, cosmic, stellar and micro can be discussed, as they all tie in for the macro to be possible
Prodigy0789

Con


Accepted and ready to get goin'.
Debate Round No. 1
SherbertNutters

Pro

The first argument (although the theory had been suggested prior) for the Theory of Evolution first came on the scene in 1859 when Charles Darwins book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." was recognized by the scientific community. In this book, Darwin makes many proposals, some are still widely taught today in grade school and colleges across the world. Variation in species is one of those ideas, and is easy to translate into what we see. A dog with certain traits that mates with another variation of dog will create a new variation. A rose with certain colors and characteristics will pass its genes to another rose of different traits.
This is called micro evolution, and is observable and true, however, the dog is still a dog, and the rose is still a rose. No new species was born from either.

Con will try to convince you that evolution can breed a rose with a sunflower (or possibly another rose) to create a new, better plant, that does not share characteristics with either parent. This is called macro evolution. This process is how many of the species on this planet originated, according to evolution. Con will suggest that {1} mitosis, a process where a cell divides to create a duplicate, is some how responsible for {2} meiosis, a process of cell division found in sexual reproducing animals and fungi.
How can an asexual organism, that has no problem duplicating itself to be in great number, (germs are everywhere) have any need to force itself to evolve into sexual reproduction? Wouldnt the bacteria want its genes to stay in the gene pool? It would be foolish for the germ to comprise its heritage! Not to mention all the non beneficial mutations we have from sexual reproductions, diseases ect.

If we go back further than 1859, 13.8 billion years "approximately" we come to an event known as the Big Bang Theory. This event that was theorized in 1927 by Georges Edward Lemaitre, he suggested that the matter that created the "big bang" was 12 trillion miles across. In 1965, it was taught that number was actually 275 million miles, in 1972 it was reduced to 71 million miles, in 1974 that was further reduced to 54,000. In 1983, that number became the trillionth the diameter of a proton! Now, it is believed that number is nothing at all, that somehow, something was created out of nothing. This theory is closely tied to evolution; these two theories are taught side by side religiously.

If Georges was incorrect in 1927, how do we know scientist are right today? You cant go less than nothing, so i suppose that's where the game of plinko ends.

In the theory of cosmic evolution it is taught the galaxies were formed, all the stars, elements and our lowly blue planet from the big bang. Once the earth cooled from all this energy, it began to rain and the earth cooled. Over the next 13.8 billion years, dirt became germs, which ultimately became people.

It is also taught that a big bang happens every 80-100 billion years.

Now we have a problem. If the big bang came from nothing, (No time, space or matter) where will the next one occur? We have time, space and matter in our observable universe, the next one could not possibly happen within our universe.

Con does not how the universe began, con was not present.

Con will suggest that evolution is science, so we must define science

Science- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Evolution cannot be tested in a lab. Evolution cannot be studied, it is only SPECULATION. It is clearly not intellectual, since i cannot observe it in nature, therefore, evolution is not science. Since evolution is not science, it would be blasphemous to call it truth.

1-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
2-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Prodigy0789

Con

Everything wrong about your point of view.
The big bang theory and the theory of relativity are only mere speculation, but they are considered science by tons of scientists around the world! You can't see gravity, so you must not believe in it. Yet when you are ready to jump off of a building, some weird thought in your head will stop you from doing it, and this thought says, "I might get hurt when I jump off, if this gravity thing is legitmate." You cannot see air, so you must not believe in it, yet you are here breathing. You were not present when Babe Ruth was in his prime, does this mean he did not exist? No. All of this, happened, because we KNOW it did. All of this, ties directly into evolution.

My argument
Do not use sources from wikiepedia, it makes things immensely easy for me. The Darwinism theory is true. His finches that he discovered on the Galapogos Islands play a major role in the validation of his theory. (1) Invalidates that "instant evolution" is not possible. In 1845, he stated that the initial species of finches came to the island because of wind, they competed with one another, creating different species that were adapted to survive and thrive, in unison with their counterparts that were taking up food. In (1), in less than one generation of finches, a new species was created, one that was able to adapt its beak to get the food it needed, which the bigger, newer birds were taking up.

Going back to your statement that all of this is mere speculation, based upon the fact that theories have been proven wrong, another guy could speak up and prove.... gravity, or something of the sort wrong tomorrow. Does that mean that it is totally illegitmate and, not your twisted version of "science"? Well, judging by everything we know today, the startling answer is, nope! Evolution is something that has been added upon and added upon, not proved wrong.

If the finches of Darwin's studies are able to adapt to someting changing in their environment so quickly, who is to say the earliest organisms did not adapt over a long period of time, experiencing new predators, environments, climates, and sources of food? When organisms change and develop, genetic mutations and adaptations carry on to offspring, leading to a better all around organism, and new species, even a new organism. What you said about, "an organism that shares no characteristics with its parent," is not possible. When you trace the line long enough back, you get to single celled organisms that were only able to survive in the environment present.
Each generation had a changing evnrionment, and new ways of obtaining nutrients. Any organism that is alive today, was the fittest of the bunch. Many organisms have gone extinct long ago, but the current organisms have been the ones that were able to not only adapt, but SURVIVE.

Also, another thing to point out, by saying evolution is not real, you are denying the fact that humans have not come from and share common traits with apes. The signs are written all over, and they clearly state that, humans are more advanced apes that have adapted to their environments differently. Not to mention the species of neanderthal that has gone extinct. We are clearly close cousins of them, and you deny that we are in the same evolutionary pool, that just because we have common characteristics, it is clearly not evolution? I think not.

Thank you for giving me the chance to partake in this wondeful debate!




Bacteria do not "want" their genes to stay the same. They have no minds and cannot process thoughts as effectively as we do every day.

I also find it funny that you say, "evolution" is not intellectual, yet some of the greatest minds in science are working, as I speak, on unraveling the scroll of amazing history it contains.
(1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SherbertNutters

Pro

Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

" A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
" Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.
" Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:

Natural selection is not the only variable in a species genes making it to reproduction to pass on to the next. Yes we know that the environment determines what makes best use of the whole gene pool, but it does not explain luck. Luck in the animal kingdom works when a snake arrives to Darwins finch nest, and sees a few eggs and eats one. Natural selection did not determine which egg the snake would eat, just as when a whale eats a school of fish, the ones who survived had no advantage, just luck. I would also like to mention that there are limits we can observe in natural selection, a roach may appear to build a resistance to poisons, but it will never be resistant to a hammer. When the roach that eats poison dies, his genes are lost. He may have had resistances to other poisons that other roaches do not, we don't know though, the information is lost. This is how Darwins finches work, no new information was added, actually information was lost. Its vital for the evolutionist to believe that new information is added, its the corner stone for macro evolution. This cannot be observed. What we can observe is a fossil of a trilobite, an organism that lived "520,000,000 years ago". I would like to point out this organism had the most advanced eye ever found in nature. Why did natural selection not keep this eye?

Now the newest hypothesis pertaining to macro evolution
{1}Eugene McCarthy has written a hypothesis that humans are the offspring of pigs and chimps cross breedig. His idea is genetically possible, but it is not possible in nature. Every known hybrid animal has only been made with human intervention, and almost all are sterile. Like a mule is bred from donkey and a horse. Or the liger or tigon, a hybrid of lions and tigers (and bears oh my!) I have few problems with his hypothesis though. He is using the genetics from farm animal pigs to make this possible, which have, like many other domesticated animals been selectively bred over many generations, the data couldn't have matched up from pigs millions years ago. This is what i was referring to in my rose sunflower example. I have personally hunted pigs, and a chimp would never have enough time to have babies with a pig, wild pigs are super mean! This is the direction science is moving into, i think it is insulting to our intelligence. Apparently a lot of people on Eugenes site are converted, but, he is also the curator.

I cannot see gravity. I don't trust gravity, i have fallen hard, but not seeing something is not the final word on proof. I experience gravity every day, but I take certain claims {1} with a grain of salt. I believe the world is less than 30,000 years old, and here is my proof. {2} The earths atmosphere is about 300 miles thick and is protected by a magnetic field. Some radiation from the sun goes through and hits the earths atmosphere and creates Carbon14, which is radio active. C14 is unstable, and is decaying at a rate of 1/2 every 5730 years. That means if you had a pound of it, in 5730 years you would have a half pound, 5730 years after that you would have a quarter pounder. The other half become nitrogen. During photosynthesis, plants absorb some of this C14, which is then also eaten by animals, which is then eaten by us. It is a reasonable assumption that the carbon 14 that is in the atmosphere is the same in our body, the ratio is the atmosphere is .0000756%. The assumption then has to be made(so carbon dating can work) that the earth has always had the same amount of C14, that it has reached equilibrium, which means that there is C14 entering our atmosphere at the same rate it is decaying. The rate of decay is still increasing, the amount brought in by the sun stays the same. With a fresh new earth, it would take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium. Earth has not reached this equilibrium, the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is higher now then 10 years ago which means carbon dating of any sort can be dismissed, and that earth is less than 30,000 years old. Our earth has a way to go before equilibrium, we are at around 33%. I believe that Macro Evolution is not possible based on this evidence. I believe that our universe was created by God 6000 years ago, that the bombardier beetle can only be explained by Genesis.

1 http://www.macroevolution.net...
2 http://www.talkorigins.org...
Prodigy0789

Con

Look, I was fully enaged in this argument until you brought up religion. I do not think it is my place nor right to tell you what you believe is scientifically wrong. I am done with this argument, because online debating isn't the place that I will argue over what YOU believe in. Good luck on this site, and I am leaving this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
SherbertNutters

Pro

The account told in Genesis lines up with my evidence. This isnt about religion, but if you are subjective to evidence, thats ok too. Its just the internet
Prodigy0789

Con

We are not here to argue about the age of the world (a few billion years), we are here to prove or disprove evolution. Your argument almost completely strays from that topic, which leaves me nothing to criticize.

I'm not using some petty theory of cross breeding hybrids to prove evolution. I am using cold hard facts, unlike our friend here with the Wikipedia sources. Judging by your reference to soup and fish, you know nothing about evolution or about humans came to be. But I do. I know that some odd billion years ago, the Big Bang happened, and our universe has been expanding ever since. I know that because even now, our universe is getting bigger at a hurtling rate. When our planet was just formed, the land we know today was made and expunged from volcanoes. The only organisms that bonded from amino acids and were able to survive during this rough period of time in our planet's creation was small single celled organisms. Through environmental and habitaual change, the organisms evolved, with sexual reproduction being a genetic mutation that was passed on from one species to the other.

The apes are a perfect example of evolution. I do not believe that pigs are what makes humans humans. I believe that we were once a certain species of ape that evolved to changes in our environment to be more intelligent and an over all better organism. Do you know why that happened? Because the single celled organism we derived from was able to adapt and change to its surroundings throughout the whole timeline, giving birth to new species and organisms. Some evolutions went by pretty fast, like darwins finches. Within ONLY ONE generation, the birds had adapted to their environment. Who knows what all other organisms have done over long periods of time? People with common sense do. They know that like the birds, we just evolved at a slower rate, slowly becoming a more complex and sound organism.

You might as well give up, because science is something that cannot be defied. I have not personally observed air but I know it is here. I have not personally observed evolution, but I know that it happened because there have been thousands of clues left for us to discover. You are wrong, and your ideas are not scientifically or intellectually sound. Evolution is what makes up the world around us today.
Debate Round No. 4
SherbertNutters

Pro

My argument is and has been that the Earth is not billions of years old. The age of the Earth is important here because if the Earth is not billions of years old, it looks like a fatality move on Mortal Kombat. Carbon dating is not accurate, we have no idea how long the carbon14 that is tested in rocks has been decaying. If i light a candle and five minutes later i call you into the room and ask you "how long has this candle been burning" you would not have an answer. We can measure the rate the candle is burning per hour and how long the candle is, but we don't know how long it was before it started burning or how long it has been burning. The current age of the earth is based on this formula, and it is not scientific to age the Earth this way.

" Some evolutions went by pretty fast, like darwins finches"

This is where Darwin misunderstood what he saw, which translated into I wonder what this bird evolved from. The only observable mutations in nature are not beneficial to the organism. A two headed turtle is an example, contains no new data in the dna. It is the same information, just scrambled. An example of how the finches work in the environment is this. There is a room with 10 humans. They can only stay in the room if they are over 6 feet tall Only 2 guys and 3 girls are over 6 feet tall, the others must die. The remaining 5 reproduce and we have Darwinien Evolution. This is false, no new information was added and the gene pool has been limited.

I stand by opening statement, that evolution is a lie. I apologize for expressing my personal beliefs on the bible.

I would also like to thank my opponent, great debate! #pro2015
Prodigy0789

Con

Counter
There were people hundreds of years ago that didn't believe the studiers of science when they stated that the Earth was helio-centric or that gravity was real. You would be one of those people that would light a fire under them and shun them because you don't want to believe something you do not understand. And for the record, you know nothing about carbon dating. The easy to follow decaying pattern that you stated is taken into account every time a scientist carbon dates. You stated something that you did not fully understand, and that will do you in. Decaying is a predictable process that scientists always add into the equation. Therefore, we are able to date the the rock that the carbon is in. (1) Just shows you that decaying is something that is well known and taken into account. Do not try to discuss things that you know nothing about, and do not use wikipedia to back up your falsehoods.

Conclusion
Evolution is not a lie. I was not present, no. I was not there when the big bang happened, no. But there are signs and clues, written all over the historical timeline, that tell us and show us that this is so! Is evolution something so new and different that you do not want to believe it because it seems foreign to you? It shouldn't be, the facts are there to back it up. Never once have you mentioned dinosaurs. Most dinosaurs went extinct with the climate changing meteor that hit the earth some 60 million years ago. Some species of dinosaurs survived, and due to that changing of climate that was so drastic, they evolved into something very different from what they looked like pre-meteor. The birds of today closely resemble the meat eating winged creatures that inhabited the earth millions of years ago. (2) States that humans were not present when dinosaurs were around. We were in the form of small mouse sized mammals, and never got bigger than your average house cat. We were that way because the dinosarus were so big and mighty that they were driving the mammals into small size, because how were we to compete with such large creatures? After the dinosaurs were gone, that is when the mammals evolved into their prime and ulitmately became apex predators of the ecosystem, replacing the late dinosaurs.

Is it that hard to believe that something you did not see, occured? You believe that the earth is several thousand years old, yet you do not have any hard facts to prove it. I have facts to back up what you call "speculation." For future reference, cold hard facts beat out speculation. Speculation is not evolution, it is what you believe without providing sound evidence.

(1) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
(2) http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 5
987 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lewis_P 6 days ago
Lewis_P
@USP
"you concluded that scientists don't understand design "
-I specifically outlined the problem with the logic that was presented in the paper you cited. Instead of addressing the specific point that I made, you are suggesting that scientists can't be wrong. Please try reading and responding to my point.

"you have no understanding of how most things are designed.yet you admit that many of the items you come across in your daily existence are designed."
-I'm a designer. I have at least some understanding of how most designed things are designed. In cases where I have exactly no understanding, I would not claim that they are designed. Since I would have no good reason to claim this, by definition. It does not help your argument to point out that people often jump to the conclusion of design without good reasons.

"if you found a coin on the beach"
-By calling it a coin you have ruined the analogy since we are so familiar with coins that it seems ridiculous that anybody would claim they are not designed. What if you found something about the same shape and size as a coin, but you'd never seen anything even remotely like it before. Would you just conclude that its designed? Personally I would be keen to investigate what could have caused the object, but you don't seem to care about that. You'd prefer to just stick a label of design on it and investigate it no further. You'd say 'well other objects this shape and size are designed, therefore this one is too.'

You missed the reason behind me asking those questions that you're so reluctant to answer. My point was that a claim of design without any information about how it may have been designed is an empty claim. It contains no meaning. You find object X and label it designed. What do you actually mean when you call it designed? Since you've made clear that you're not referring to anything about how it was constructed. I think all that you actually mean is 'I can't find a natural explanation for this'.
Posted by USPharaoh 6 days ago
USPharaoh
@Lewis- so you concluded that scientists don't understand design... you concluded that somehow...all code that has ever been discovered and studied is not evidence of design...that somehow intelligence has nothing to do with design.... that is just brilliant. I guess denial is your last defense...too bad for your position that you can't show evidence to refute it.

Lewis states "What does it even mean to call something designed"..... hmmmm we covered that ground extensively. Simply put , you have no understanding of how most things are designed...yet you admit that many of the items you come across in your daily existence are designed. I proved to you that you knew not how the Great Pyramids were designed ..no blue prints etc...yet you know that they were designed. I further cornered your illogical position by stating that if you found a coin on the beach you would conclude that it was designed...yet you could (and most likely ) be ignorant of how it was designed.

I thought you were schooled in design.
Posted by Lewis_P 3 weeks ago
Lewis_P
@USP
"if you know nothing about DNA then I can reasonably predict that your comment..."
- You are making a claim that DNA is designed based on the limits of your knowledge. You have only seen examples of designed codes and are therefore concluding that DNA is designed. You are applying the limits of your knowledge as if its evidence for DNA being designed. That is not the same as knowing that somebody doesn't know something. That isn't even close to what we've been talking about.

"Please for your sake read what I have posted about DNA as a code and how it is designed"
- I did read it. And I responded to it in my previous comment. I wrote about the problems with the methodology outlined in your latest source. I wrote about how the process can be simplified down to simple flawed logic; intelligence results in X, this object exhibits X, therefore this object is the result of intelligence.

This is a method that suggests that instead of actually investigating the cause of X, you should try to use broken logic to conclude that X must be the result of intelligence. If you had evidence for DNA being designed, you wouldn't need to depend on an argument from ignorance; "we have yet to find an example of a code being created by chance". You are practically citing the textbook definition of this fallacy. Not finding something is not a sufficient reason to conclude that it does not exist. And asking me to prove you wrong by providing an example is a shifting of the burden of proof.

We've been over this ground before.... But I'm still interested to see whether you'll answer; You believe DNA is designed, how was DNA designed? What design process led to DNA? When was DNA designed? Do you know any other details other than; 'DNA was designed'? If you don't, isn't the assertion of design kind of empty? Does it contain any substance whatsoever? What does it even mean to call something designed if the claim contains no information about how it was designed?
Posted by USPharaoh 4 weeks ago
USPharaoh
@Lewis: " If your definition of a code includes design, then to use it to describe DNA requires justification."
-Please for your sake read what I have posted about DNA as a code and how it is designed...it will save further churn on your part and will help further your understanding. If you are uncertain about a specific item, then just ask.
Lewis states: "..that we know of" is the hallmark of an argument from ignorance. The limits of our knowledge have no bearing on the probability of a particular statement being true.
-Goodness Lewis, let me break this down for you so you can better understand probability as statistics can be difficult for some folks. Firstly the the limits of what we know has absolute correlation to the probability about an item....if you know nothing about DNA then I can reasonably predict that your comments or replies will reflect that...if your knowledge of DNA is of a leading perspective then I would assign a higher probability of your responses to reflect that. THEREFORE - knowledge has "bearing".
Our current knowledge is based off of nearly countless observations and in all of these observations we have yet to find an example of a code being created by chance and not by intelligence. You can hide all you want but you can't deny that very fact.

I don't have to offer you proof...only evidence. Again, as I stated months ago...you, nor I can offer up proof that either of our positions is valid....only evidence of such...to which I have enjoyed picking apart some of materialist 'evidences' often used.
So, all you are now left with is the assumption/hope that DNA must be that one lonely example of a code that is created by chance...as you stated before... which flies in the face of the undisputed evidence posted so far...and appears to be more of a defense out of ignorance than anything since you can't refute even one single example. Maybe you can.... it would be nice to hear if you have one....just one is all you need...got one?
Posted by Lewis_P 1 month ago
Lewis_P
@USP
"look up the definition of 'code' and then question whether you feel your semantics position can ever hold water"
- Arguing over definitions is literally arguing semantics. Words do not have intrinsic meaning, they have usages. I don't care that you are using the term in a certain way, I care about whether you are justified in that usage. If your definition of a code includes design, then to use it to describe DNA requires justification.

"No code that we know of currently has occurred by chance"
- What about DNA? You know, the one 'code' we are talking about. How have you determined that DNA occurred by design?
"..that we know of" is the hallmark of an argument from ignorance. The limits of our knowledge have no bearing on the probability of a particular statement being true.

"observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence"
- This is a problematic methodology. It bypasses investigation into the true cause of an object. Instead, it simply tries to identify similarities to designed entities/processes. The hidden premise here is that the traits that they are looking for are assumed necessarily dependent on the intelligent agent. There is no demonstration of the validity of this assumption. It can be simplified down to; intelligence results in X, this object exhibits X, therefore this object is the result of intelligence. The flaw in this logic should be clear; there is no demonstration that intelligence is the only cause for X.

"rather it is on the detection of design(or appearance of design)"
- I have no doubt that DNA has the appearance of design to you and many others. That is not the same as detecting design. Natural processes are capable of replicating the appearance of design, that does not mean intelligence was involved.

Re: mind. I'm not stopping you from changing the subje
Posted by USPharaoh 1 month ago
USPharaoh
@Lewis - Even now you contradict yourself.... either DNA is a code to which I have laid out ample evidence of or it is not on....pretty easy to prove your position yet you fail to for fear of "arguing semantics"... look up the definition of 'code' and then question whether you feel your semantics position can ever hold water.

" This is an unsupported assertion that assumes the very thing you are trying to support. To assert that no code occurs by chance is to make the very claim you are trying to support; that DNA is designed."
Wrong - it is an inference as used in the scientific method. No code that we know of currently has occurred by chance.
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence."
Keep in mind, the inference is not on the designer itself - rather it is on the detection of design(or appearance of design).

'When I point out that this is an argument from ignorance you just laugh and offer no counter."
-Yes, I do get a chuckle from your ignorance ploys since the evidence (posted several times) for DNA being designed (structure and purpose) continue to surpass the blind assumption of Darwinist material explanations for it.
It is really becoming obvious that you have no appetite to counter the evidence I posted weeks ago pertaining to the the design detected in DNA.
How's that primordial soup tasting? Care to change the menu to the Mind?
Posted by Lewis_P 2 months ago
Lewis_P
@USP
"backing down on your 'code' denial position...so finally we are on point together..DNA is a code"
- I have posts going back over 4 months ago where I state very clearly; "I am not disputing whether DNA is a code". Whether DNA is a code is down to semantics and I have no interest in arguing semantics. I have said this over and over for months. It is your leap to 'DNA is therefore designed', that is unsupported. I thought I had made this clear.

"What we can infer from this is that no code that has ever been detected has been by chance."
- This is an unsupported assertion that assumes the very thing you are trying to support. To assert that no code occurs by chance is to make the very claim you are trying to support; that DNA is designed.

If the extent of your argument is that; DNA is designed because every other similarly complex entity that we know of is designed, then I don't know what else to say. When I point out that this is an argument from ignorance you just laugh and offer no counter.

[From your source]- "At root, then, the design inference is little more than expressed willingness to trust that base of observations and its analytical context."
- Why do you trust that just because other codes are designed, that therefore DNA is designed?
Posted by USPharaoh 2 months ago
USPharaoh
@Lewis - Why thank you...you finally seem to be getting things, however, ,you still seem a bit bent on design...you are too blinded by a simplistic material view of things. I have tried to lay it down for you nearly as simplistically but the details actually require you to have some level of aptitude and willingness to at a minimum read the links...not sure if you have failed both.

you stated " I have not disputed that plenty of scientists call DNA a code. Its the leap to design that I fail to see any sound argument for."
You clearly miss the ID position altogether then... and are also backing down on your 'code' denial position...so finally we are on point together..DNA is a code. What we can infer from this is that no code that has ever been detected has been by chance.
Design Inference is:
"
a: a trillion member observational base, regarding

b: the directly and readily observable cause of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I for short] and also of

c: function of systems exhibiting fine-tuned co-adaptation of parts that achieves an operating point in a narrow zone of function [or, isolated island of function] in a large configuration space of possible states, which are overwhelmingly non-functional. These,

d: are readily and reliably observed to result from design [= intelligently, purposefully directed configuration], and

e: are equally reliably not seen to result from blind chance and mechanical necessity. Thus,

f: per inductive inference on signs, these and similar observable characteristics can be regarded as empirically reliable signs of design. Therefore,

g: the design inference is a confident, well grounded inference on reliable signs to the signified credible cause, intelligently directed configuration"
Post 42 http://www.uncommondescent.com...
good read of the whole thread if y
Posted by Lewis_P 2 months ago
Lewis_P
@USP
"I think we can all agree that if we were to find a watch (or any complex and precise such device) we would conclude it was designed and forgo deeper thoughts about it."
- I can't believe you are literally suggesting that when we find something complex and precise we should forgo deeper thoughts and just conclude that it was designed. The patterns of ripples in the sand on the beach where you found that watch are also complex and precise. Do you simply conclude that it was designed too and forgo deeper thoughts about it?

'Forgo deeper thoughts' haha. I honestly doubt anybody has ever suggested forgoing deeper thoughts!

I just googled "forgo deeper thoughts" (with quotations) - literally no results! You are the first, congrats...
Posted by Lewis_P 2 months ago
Lewis_P
@USP
"do you understand any of the DNA links I supplied as evidence of design?"
- Your links talk of DNA being a code, you and some of the authors make an unjustified leap to calling DNA designed.

"your missing links and more cause any intelligent person to make 'quite a leap' as well"
- 'as well'? So you are acknowledging that it is quite a leap to go from defining DNA as a code to concluding that DNA is designed?

"the fact that every code we know of to date is designed... and you counter with the old...well DNA could be the first one."
- You don't get to just assert that every code we know of is designed. If you are going to call DNA a code, fine, but to call it designed you must demonstrate that it is designed.

"You were concerned about why I (and hundreds of other scientist)call DNA a code "
- No I wasn't, I am concerned with how you make the leap from calling DNA a code, to DNA is designed. Simply asserting that all codes are designed is not sufficient. Its the same as responding to the question, 'how is DNA designed?', with 'DNA is designed'. It gets us nowhere.

"Show an example of Information that doesn't come from a mind. All you need is one."
- Textbook example of shifting the burden of proof.

"Doing so does not equate to a designer as most already are trying to jump to"
- This is LITERALLY what you are doing though. Your position is that there is a designer and you are using 'DNA is a code' quotes as evidence.

"it does raise the question of how it came to be though"
- The point is that you think you know the answer to that question; design. Yet you seem incapable of elaborating further or supporting that belief.

"I can bombard you all month long with more and more DNA is a code links"
- Why though? I have not disputed that plenty of scientists call DNA a code. Its the leap to design that I fail to see any sound argument for.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible debate. I recommend both sides actually spend some time learning evolutionary theory as this was just painful to read. No vote.
Vote Placed by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Toxifrost
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has no real grasp on what evolution is and kept equating it to abiogenesis. Pro had really faulty arguments and con just was better overall.
Vote Placed by Nevearo 1 year ago
Nevearo
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Really pro, tbe debate was about Evolution, not Abiogenesis. If you do not understand the difference, you lack the understanding to speak about evolution. God could have created the first microbe and the universe and evolution can still be true. I personally believe abiogenesis and find Dawkins's speculation more likely than a contradiction incanting life into existence. But my feelings on abiogenesis have nothing to do with my vote. Pro, you need to learn the basics. Next time you attempt this debate, phrase it as "currently accepted theories on the origins of mankind, life, and the universe." In summery, 'macro evolution' has nothing to do with the big bang or age of the world. Sorry.
Vote Placed by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 1 year ago
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had nothing but red herrings, non-sequitirs, assumptions, and either misconceptions or strawmans. Con had logic.
Vote Placed by oldeskoolgamer 1 year ago
oldeskoolgamer
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: better all around
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 1 year ago
Mr.Lincoln
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con because Pro used wikipedia
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems very common, and understandable, for creationists to mix evolution and the big bang. The problem is, if you state "evolution is a lie" I would presume you know the difference, and can back it. Pro could not back it. He went off, well everywhere but the plot.
Vote Placed by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
Beagle_hugs
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a number of incredibly clueless arguments in support of his proposition, none of which support the claim that evolution is a "lie." A lie is different from being wrong, and the Pro doesn't even evidence a basic ability to discuss evolution and criticize it for what it is proposed to be. The most incredibly stupid moments in Pro's arguments were (i) displaying ignorance about the big bang, which he never made relevant anyway; and (ii) claiming that evolution reduces information, which displays abysmal ignorance of the concepts of mutation, selection, and modern theories involving potential characteristics. Con did a pretty good job of debunking the Pro's vacant arguments, even though I am sure the Con would do a much better job of it once he is older.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 1 year ago
NathanDuclos
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: To argue something is a lie, you atleast have to know what it is and point what is wrong about it. He lost the debate when he went off topic. I also feel a bit bad for con having to engage in what he thought would be a serious debate. Good responce.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
NoMagic
SherbertNuttersProdigy0789Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: If you are going to argue against evolution, you must first understand the theory. It is clear, Pro doesn't understand the theory of evolution. No place in evolutions does it say, "for something to evolve it must become a new species." Change in a population over time is evolution. If you don't understand it, don't argue against it. Debate goes to Con.