The Instigator
ChristTheRedeemer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Humans and the universe was created by Intelligent Design

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 81832
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

ChristTheRedeemer

Pro

First round: provide standing point
Second round: I will provide proof, and you will rebuttal
Third round: you will provide proof, and I will rebuttal
V5RED

Con

I accept and look forward to Pro proving that a god that is capable of producing and designing a universe exists and then proving that this god designed the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
ChristTheRedeemer

Pro

Hi, I am looking forward to the debate, and good luck.
Even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, I am going to focus on a certain area- Historical (and some scientific).

To start, there is historical evidence. The bible has the most amount of prophecies fulfilled than any other document known to man. Among the more than 2,500 prophecies in the Bible, 2,000 of those have already been fulfilled to the exact way they were prophesized. Some of these prophecies are 1) Israel will prevail over its enemies (Isaiah 41:12-14), 2) The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt (Amos 9:11, 13), 3) prosperity for modern-day Israel (Ezekiel 36:11), 4) Trees again would grow in Israel (Isaiah 41:18-20), and 5) Jerusalem will be trampled upon (Luke 21:23-24).

Along with the prophecies, there is also the written documents, written eye witness accounts, and other forms of documentation that proves the existence of Jesus, Jesus performing miracles, and His crucifixion. There are over a hundred eye witness accounts documented of people witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus.

Besides that, there is also evidence against the theory of evolution, crumbling the majority of atheist's foundation of beliefs. Evolution suggests that things changed and evolved over a long period of time (billions of years). It was proven wrong, as in one of the rings of the earth that has fossils of some of the animals that were thought to be early animals have fossils of some of the modern animals that weren't supposed to exist then (or evolved yet).

Now onto some of the scientific proof...

With all those points, there was also an experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 failed to prove that life could randomly form under proper conditions. In his experiment, he and Dr Harold Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. This proves that amino acids could have been formed, but not life. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

We are the only planet known so far that has 1) water, and 2) has life. We just happen to be the only planet out of an entire universe that has life?
V5RED

Con

"To start, there is historical evidence."
No, there is not. I will however address everything you claim.

"The bible has the most amount of prophecies fulfilled than any other document known to man."
Irrelevant, but this is a claim without evidence, so I will dismiss it without evidence.

"Among the more than 2,500 prophecies in the Bible, 2,000 of those have already been fulfilled to the exact way they were prophesized."
Irrelevant, but this is a claim without evidence, so I will dismiss it without evidence.

"Some of these prophecies are 1) Israel will prevail over its enemies (Isaiah 41:12-14),"
This is not a prophecy. It is nonspecific and could refer to any victory in any battle. A prediction is only worth calling a prophecy if it is something that could be specifically labelled for a specific event and it was not something that was already obvious. For example, claiming that the sun will rise tomorrow is not a prophecy because it is fairly certain that that will happen. The prophecy you offer here is about as useful as a horoscope.

"2) The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt (Amos 9:11, 13)"
Again, not a prophecy. It is not surprising that a group of people devoted to a country would work to rebuild it.

"3) prosperity for modern-day Israel (Ezekiel 36:11)"
Again, not a prophecy. It is not surprising that a group of people devoted to a country would work on its economy, but still it is not like it is a top 10 nation.

"4) Trees again would grow in Israel (Isaiah 41:18-20), and 5) Jerusalem will be trampled upon (Luke 21:23-24)."
This is just awful, I mean really? Trees growing?

These prophecies are all basically examples of the Barnum Effect. That is when you apply a vague statement, prediction, evaluation, etc. to a specific item because you have faith in the test. This works with personality tests, horoscopes, and biblical prophecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Additionally, these "prophecies" were all extremely generic and unimpressive. If that is your top 4, I would guess the 200 you claim are pretty wimpy.

"Along with the prophecies, there is also the written documents, written eye witness accounts, and other forms of documentation that proves the existence of Jesus, Jesus performing miracles, and His crucifixion. There are over a hundred eye witness accounts documented of people witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus."
Irrelevant, but this is a claim without evidence, so I will dismiss it without evidence. I say irrelevant because even if all of this was true, it would just make the Jesus character into a wizard that can survive a crucifixion. It would not mean that a god exists. I would not be able to explain how he could be a wizard, but neither could you. All you could do was claim to explain it by invoking magic.

"Besides that, there is also evidence against the theory of evolution, crumbling the majority of atheist's foundation of beliefs."
Only from disreputable scientists who have failed careers in real science.
https://www.youtube.com...
The first 5 minutes of this video are all you need

"Evolution suggests that things changed and evolved over a long period of time (billions of years). It was proven wrong, as in one of the rings of the earth that has fossils of some of the animals that were thought to be early animals have fossils of some of the modern animals that weren't supposed to exist then (or evolved yet)."
Irrelevant, but this is a claim without evidence, so I will dismiss it without evidence. That said, the best explanation would be that the creationists who claimed to find the fossils are liars. It wouldn't be the first time they made up evidence to protect their beliefs.
Fake human footprint fossils with fake dinosaur footprints:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Fake piece of the arc:
http://articles.latimes.com...

"Now onto some of the scientific proof..."

"With all those points, there was also an experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 failed to prove that life could randomly form under proper conditions."
That was not the point of the experiment. Up until that point, it was believed that organic molecules could not be formed from nonliving matter. These experiments proved that they could.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"In his experiment, he and Dr Harold Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids."
Actually, they were able to make all of the normal amino acids plus some extras.

"This proves that amino acids could have been formed, but not life. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form."
Failure to demonstrate a thing is not the same as a demonstration that the thing is impossible. Run the Miller Urey experiment for a billion years and then you might have some kind of evidence for your position. Right now you have proof that some basic building blocks of life can form spontaneously under purely natural conditions with no help from a god. Given time, it is reasonable to think that full blown cells could do the same. Sadly, we cannot live the requisite billions of years to observe this occurring spontaneously.

"We are the only planet known so far that has 1) water, and 2) has life. We just happen to be the only planet out of an entire universe that has life?"
Irrelevant, but this is a claim without evidence, so I will dismiss it without evidence. Even if it were true, at best it would show that the universe is finely tuned to prevent life.
Debate Round No. 2
ChristTheRedeemer

Pro

ChristTheRedeemer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ChristTheRedeemer

Pro

ChristTheRedeemer forfeited this round.
V5RED

Con

V5RED forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChristTheRedeemer 1 year ago
ChristTheRedeemer
I apologize for not responding, I literally just found out how to get back into my account. I got locked out. again, I apologize, and if you are reading this V5RED, I would love a rematch where we are both active.

I hope you can understand, and God bless.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
@Melody, that is called an argument from incredulity or argument from lack of imagination. You don't get to insert an all powerful magician just because you don't understand something. You first need to prove that the all powerful magician actually exists before it is sensible to postulate it as a cause.
Posted by Melodymainidea 1 year ago
Melodymainidea
In my opinion there is a so called God, because of the complexity in the design of all life itself. If you look at a giraffe and how it's heart doesn't explode when it take a simple drink of water or how a plant knows that sunlight is how to make food, how about instinct, is it developed over time or is it designed in the select species itself and done on impulse and not choice? How does an explosion create something that can't be destroyed, like matter and energy?
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
"nothing can come into existence without following a guideline."

This is demonstrably false unless you want to broaden the definition of guideline to include all physical causes.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
nothing can come into existence without following a guideline. That guideline's pre-requisite was established through prolific organization. THat state of organization takes place in a realm that is defined as God, and ahs been for thousands of years.

Intelligent Design does not conflict with science, and in fact all Science is accounted for when making all and any references to Intelligent Design.

It is arrogance not ignorance for someone to contend with Intelligent design, because they have no grounds to stand on. The parameters of Intelligent Design perfectly reflect the intended objective of the opposing party, but from a holistic perspective.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
He might be a lost cause. Someone debated him to get him to change his ways and he's still the same XD
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
@palmertio0 I understand that. I'm just stating that, even though he is a troll, he could show a tad more intelligence in his comments, as everyone has the chance to be intelligent.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
@ZacGraphics Just ignore vi_spex, he is a troll. Look at his profile and you'll see his pastime is churning out combinations of words that are just coherent enough to count as phrases.
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
@vi_spex Creation and Fixing are two different things.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
creation is intelligent design, but nature is not mechanical, dosnt need a mechanic
No votes have been placed for this debate.