The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
BMSxRIO
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Intelligent Design VS The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

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 2 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 79028
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

Resolution

Intelligent Design is likely true and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely not true.

Burden Of Proof Is Shared

Pro - has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is likely true (Pro's BoP) and refute Con.

Con - has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely true (Con's BoP) and refute Pro.

Definitions (from Google definitions)

Intelligent Design - life and the universe were designed and created by some intelligent entity.

The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.

Abiogenesis - the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

Evolution - the process by which living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Likely - probably

True - in accordance with fact or reality

*There are no rounds, therefore there are no round rules; there is no acceptance round...just start debating.

*Definitions can be changed before the debate, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree.

*These definitions are agreed on by posting your first argument without changing them in the comments.
BMSxRIO

Pro

I accept and I will state my case. (and yes I will bring up micro-biology experiments such as the flagellum argument)

Intelligent Design can be construed two different ways by the way. One version, is from an all powerful deity who created life in the universe and ourselves (as you plainly stated) However, the other "take on the tale" of that is extraterrestrial intelligent design (E.T visitors furthering and developing mankind's genetic sequence from previous ancestors for a use such as labor or simple experimentation with native organic life.)

So first, we should ask. Are you debating pro for a universally intelligent all powerful designer or extra terrestrial life.

Also, I will not reply to "I feel this is correct" syndrome, and unsubstantiated claims will not be replied to. (Don't throw bible verses at me because the Bible is an unsubstantiated claim and thus has no bearing in a fact base debate)

First, I would like to say that evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate theories and I'm glad you acknowledged that. To start, there is no evidence that intelligent design is true what-so-ever however, there is proof that at one point simplified life forms did indeed exist on the planet. To prove this, one must examine sedimentary rock and rock layers. The farther back we go, the less diverse, the less complex and the less evolved the species we see. We will never find the "first life form" as fossilization does not typically occur and even less so on small organisms not to mention cellular organisms with no proper "structure" to them such as bones, sinew, and flesh. To briefly cover the "flagellum" argument, and the flaws of spectators there of from your perspective. Scientist took simple one tailed bacteria and placed them in a controlled condition in a laboratory. In these controlled conditions after several generations the bacteria underwent several mutations. Firstly, bacteria use two primary substances to survive, one is surfactant which is used primarily to help the bacteria move. They lay down this slippery foam basically and use it as a highway for other bacteria to use. The second is Biofilm which is what the bacteria use to anchor it self to eat and digest with other bacteria in a form of protection. Scientist took these samples of bacteria and through controlled study in a series of petri dishes scientist found that over several "lifetimes" (generations) the bacteria gradually mutated into having three tails (flagellum) for faster mobility. Also, because there was no direct threat to the bacteria and because organisms can only expend and consume so much energy the bacteria created less biofilm and covered a larger area faster inside the petri dish. This is proof of evolution occuring.

Also, you can't "not" include both forms of evolution's definition just to fit your case better. Make sure to put in "all" of your google definitions next time not just half. Along with your definition evolution is also "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form." (google) more specifically the processes performed by organisms that help to adapt, survive, and speciate over time to their current environments. Meaning that should there suddenly be no freshwater on earth all of the freshwater fish would either need to "evolve" (adapt) a tolerance for salt water and those species who could not evolve would die off. This being said, a catastrophic change (a change happening dramatically and with sudden ferocity) would have few to no survivors in most instances. Meaning that there would be no time to evolve or adapt resulting in extinction.

The evolution of species, the big bang, and abiogenesis have no direct correlation with one another. The big bang is how the universe started, cosmologically that is all it covers. Evolution is not the start of life, life is the start of evolution. Abiogenesis is a touchy issue when it comes to how it is defined. As abiogenesis is basically the random collection of amino acids from the proposed "primordial soup" where RNA combined with amino acids (which would of ended up forming together and forming a relationship to each other) to create DNA. DNA then went on to form the first cell, from there the first few cells, to the first micro-organisms, and eventually expanding into the broad category of species we know today, by separating and forming independently in what eventually became different environments (which would of taken millions if not billions of years) and lead to diversification, specification, and the individual lifeforms we know today.

The Miller urey experiment is a proof of concept experiment that shows this process can and does happen under the right conditions. Amino acids can form from what is basically the "primordial ooze". Though of course over time a number of things could of changed the "ooze" factor. Such as water being introduced to the planet, the earth cooling an thus the ooze hardens into a clay-dirt mixture, or a number of other things.

The big bang theory has yet to be proven but evidence and traces of its occurrence are still found today. From galactic static to galaxies separating we can observe phenomena that closely resemble the aftermath of an explosion. Leading way to the big bang theory. (an added note, it's becoming a popular idea that in the center of our universe is a massive black hole, over time as entropy takes place it will continue to consume matter and grow larger, eventually consuming all the matter of our universe and collapsing in on itself, leading to yet another "big bang" a continuous cycle we can never hope to see)

Now that I've stated my case, I will quickly address yours and give you something to refute.

There is no evidence of a creator of our universe, not to mention our ancestry as being intelligent or with purpose. The closest we get is the hypothetical E.T scenario. (I do not consider this theory seriously, however I do consider it more seriously than a deity or all powerful entity creating our universe and all the life among it.) Intelligent design means everything should have a purpose, however, as time goes on we see that less and less things "make sense" we have junk DNA, mutations, genetic flaws and characteristics from different regions depending where we are from. Just like common animals.

Life is a bi-product of the universes formation. This is why the majority of our observed galaxies and even our own planet are not inhabitable by us. We are random chance and we happen to have formed here in a moderately temperate planet with individual seasons as a lifeforms that is omnivorous in nature and intelligent by evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Please read the explanations in round 1 next time.
Pro concedes, so I reject the resolution based on Pro's concession.

Although, I disagree that the big bang isn't proven, and that "there's a massive black hole at the center of the universe."
Where's the center of the universe?
I argue there is no center of the universe.

Also, the idea that a black hole somehow leads to a big bang is flawed.
This is not the current understanding of black holes or the big bang.
BMSxRIO

Pro

*forwarding to the next round*
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Forwarding...
I have reported this debate to be deleted...the moderators have not done so.
As it stands, Pro has conceded this debate, but I wish not to win this way so I hope this gets deleted.
BMSxRIO

Pro

BMSxRIO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BMSxRIO

Pro

BMSxRIO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
If the resolution is in favor of intelligent design, Con is by definition against it.

Meteorology is likely true...
Con is against the idea that meteorology is likely true.

Intelligent Design is likely true...
Con is against the idea that Intelligent Design is likely true.

Also the default order for showing a Debater VS another Debater is: Pro VS Con.
The very title of the debate is in Pro VS Con format:
Intelligent Design VS Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution
Pro VS Con

Plus all of the clear explanation in the rest of the 1st round like "Pro has to demonstrate that intelligent design is likely true" means that people should just read the explanations. Come on.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
"Intelligent Design is likely true and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely not true."
While it is the resolution, being posted by Con, it looks like Con was in favor of Intelligent Design. Next time just announce which side you're arguing if people get confused.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah, I've read it like 5 times, it shows the BoP for Pro is to demonstrate intelligent design. If you speak English, this is quite clear.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
So whenever you read a resolution, if you're Pro, then you're in favor of the resolution.
The resolution says Intelligent Design is likely true...What's confusing?

I constantly see things like "god exists" or "the flagellum is irreducible" and I just assume that Pro is PRO the resolution.

Really? It's that confusing?
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
That's what I initially thought. I found out because his profile said he is an atheist.
Posted by BMSxRIO 1 year ago
BMSxRIO
Because the way you worded it, it sounds like that is your thesis and the rest are the typical rules of debate. Instead, try something like "pro argues for intelligent design - 4 rounds - 10000 characters"

instead of how you have it worded now.

Not being critical, it was my mistake, I misread your information.

At the same time, try to word more specifically your resolution because how you have it now, sounds like you're arguing against yourself and in reading that, that is the mindset we have when we start on and begin to form our argument.
Posted by BMSxRIO 1 year ago
BMSxRIO
If it's the third time it's happened state "your" resolution as something clearly worded.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
I feel you man, the last few debates I've started have been troll accounts.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I reported it to the moderators so that they may delete the debate...damn
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
All I know is that the immune system is irreducibly complex because that's what Michael behe said.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tough 1 year ago
Tough
MagicAintRealBMSxRIOTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conceded.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
MagicAintRealBMSxRIOTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, it's a pretty clear case of mistaken identity. Pro really should have been more careful, and while this debate should be deleted, the vote is clear while it's still up. Pro only argued for Con's case, and Con didn't have to do anything to take it down after that. I won't award conduct because of the forfeits, simply because both sides were just trying to end it at that point.