Intelligent Design Is A More Reliable Theory Than Evolution
Reliable- providing a close-fitting description of reality
Theory- a hypothesis backed up by empirical data
I will happily accept this debate. I would like to begin by offering the following definitions:
Hypothesis: A tentative assumption which can be tested .
Evolution: “a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time” .
With those out of the way, I defer to PRO so that he may make his case.
In this debate I will be arguing that the things in nature exhibit intelligence, and intelligent things can only be formed ultimately by an intelligence. I believe that is obviously true, at least more so than its negation, that blind nature shaped intelligent animals and humans.
Also the fact that pigs and cows exist. One is a form of food, the other pisses another form of food. How did those things survive to reproduce without human's intervention? It's impossible! Only creation could explain the existence of pig and cow.
I would like to thank PRO for making his case. Unfortunately, I have to take issue with nearly every part of it.
Secondly it is said that cows and pigs were created by humans and this has not been refuted by the linked paper. It is also claimed that i am making up a cause for them on a fallacious argument for the creation of cows and pigs. There is no evidence of this, it is just saying that creating cows and pigs is a better assumption than that they survived as forms of food for years in a survival of the fittest evolutionary paradigm.
I would like to thank PRO for providing his thoughts in this final round. I will begin:
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|