The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Intelligent design is a more likely cause than Abiogenesis for the origin of life

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 60602
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)




Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
Pro must show that the most likely origin for the first life on earth to be an intelligent source.
Con must show that the most likely origin for the first life on earth to be a non-intelligent source.
Round 1 will be acceptance.
Round 2 will be opening arguments.
Round 3 will be rebuttals to opening arguments.
Round 4 will be rebuttals to round 3 rebuttals.
Round 5 will be for any closing statements.


The plants, the insects, the bacteria, the amoebas are far more advanced and intelligent than human beings at times because of how stupid people are now. If you don't think matter is intelligent, when it got to this point from just being this swirling cloud called dark matter; and is the reason why we are intelligent ourselves, then you simply do not know what true intelligence is. You just want your ego to make up some "god" with intelligence because you're too naive to understand that this Universe is not a "being"; it's "becoming".
Debate Round No. 1


I should point out here that both me an con share a BoP. This is a rather challenging debate in the sense that neither side can logically or empirically prove their side. The goal I have in mind for this debate is for both sides to present a good argument for their view point, because I feel the typical creationist debates on this subject fall utterly short of intellectual content.
I know that abiogenesis is not a study pertaining to evolution; however, evolutionists are typically those who defend it in debates, so for the purpose of this debate I will use the term evolutionist to refer to supporters of abiogenesis.

As I defend creationism, I will start by dispelling the typical creationist objection to abiogenesis. The typical creationist argument against abiogenesis involves predicting the probability of Mycobacterium genetalium (the simplest naturally occurring cell known to man) being generated at random in a primordial soup of random amino acid materials. The following link gives an excellent diagram of how evolutionists believe the first cell was actually generated. In fact, the whole article is dedicated to dispelling the typical simplistic creationist objection to abiogenesis.
I do not intend to spend any of my space providing the reader with an understanding of what evolutionists teach about abiogenesis. If the reader does not understand the high level, please refer to the diagrams in the above link.

I feel very limited in space for such a massive topic. I will defend, at a high level, two key points. I will likely have the opportunity to use more detail in future rebuttals.

1) Abiogenesis is a highly unlikely event
Dean H. Kenyon was once an evolutionary biologist and authored a ground breaking book, "Biological Predestination".
Scientists prefer to use the simplest hypothesis based on observable events (Occam's razor).'s_razor
Kenyon's book proposed that in order for life to have arisen in the time frame in which it is believed to have done so, there should be some underlying principle in nature that would cause the formation of the first living cell under some rational early earth conditions. These conditions and principles are still being speculated about today. Kenyon didn't begin to question his belief in evolution until he read "CREATION OF LIFE: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution" by Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith. You can read the forward and chapter 3 at the following link, or buy it on amazon (I saw it for about 4$).
There are rational conditions in which early earth may have contained many randomly generated amino acids. When amino acids are strung together they form a peptide. In order to chain one amino acid to the next, energy is required to initiate a chemical reaction which produces a water molecule after the two acids are put together. This reaction is more easily reversed than it is produced.
The hypothetical early earth teaming with amino acids is also full of water. In order for peptides to be formed, the water must be removed. There are hypothetical responses to this challenge. One involve peptides being formed on beaches during high and low tide. Another involves peptides forming on clay. The point is, peptides were highly unlikely to form in the ocean. Special circumstances must be employed to produce peptides. This can be shown by the Miller Urey experiement.
According to my link to talkorigins, the simplest known self-replicating peptide is 32 amino acids long. The Miller Urey experiment produced well over 20 amino acids. For our math, let's say early earth had 120 amino acids, because that's the number I got from wikipedia. To produce the simplest known replicating peptide, we need to get each amino acid in the right order, so we are dealing with permutations, not combinations. So to calculate the number of peptides of lenth 32 we do (120)^32 ~ 3.418x10^66. It would be good to point out here that this number assumes that 32 amino acids are chained together without breaking apart. After all, breaking apart is more likely than being chained together. The energy source to drive these reactions is also hypothetical too. The Miller Urey experiment protected amino acids which were forming. The earth's environment is hostile to peptides. Just try buying pure peptides and find out how they have to be handled.
"You may be able to buy almost perfectly pure peptides, but can you keep them that way? They can be affected by sunlight, oxygen, and time." It seems to me that peptides are very unstable. Evolutionists propose that the earth was oozing with amino acids, so the "experiment" of creating a self replicating peptide would be taking place many times all over earth, reducing the time required to produce the desired result. However, they seem to overlook the specific requirements for forming these peptides to begin with (Miller Urey used electricity) and the overwhelming number of hazards. So I repeat that the Miller Urey experiment shows just how cautious one must be when trying to produce peptides. If the experiment were done under the circumstances of the hypothetical primordial earth, then it would not have achieved the slim results it did, because what little he did produce would have been destroyed. Even under the ideal circumstances presented in the experiment, the amino acids produced came no where near being able to produce even the simplest known self replicating peptide. So our previously estimated number of 3.418x10^66 is actually going to be much higher due to the forces that would cause peptides to break down in earth's harsh environment. And for reference, there are estimated to be about 1x10^78 to 1x10^82 atoms in the observable universe. Anything with a probability of 1 in that many chances is considered a mathematical impossibility. Now I have only addressed the formation of a simple replicating polymere. Even talkorigins claims there is no known way of assigning a probability of the transition from self replicating polymere to a hyper cycle or from a hyper cycle to a protobiont or from a protobiont to a simple cell. The likely-hood of these things occurring is so small, it led Kenyon to write a book to inspire a search for a natural mechanism that causes it, thus lowering the chances of the occurrence. Evolutionists today are still searching for the answer which Kenyon gave up looking for long ago when he became a theist.

2) The semiotics of DNA is best explained by an intelligent force
For those who don't know, semiotics is, "the study of meaning-making, the philosophical theory of signs and symbols."
Intelligent design is almost always, but not limited to, the idea of a deity. Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins in his interview with Ben Stein for the documentary "Expelled" sympathized with proponents of intelligent design. He admits to see the structure of life and supposed the original cell may have been planted here from outer space. It seems that Kenyon wasn't the only evolutionary scientist who saw the significance of the DNA code. Proponents of intelligent design point out that we instinctively recognize what comes from an intelligent source and what doesn't. It would be strange for someone having never heard of Mount Rushmore before to see it and wonder what forces of nature put it there. When we go on walks on the beach and see symbols we recognize, like letters and hearts, we don't question whether or not the wind and the waves put them there (but we also know from experience that humans are a more likely source for that). If you were to see a distinctive X carved onto a tree, you probably wouldn't wonder whether or not it was put there by a human. When we see symbols that have meaning we expect them to have come from an intelligent source. When archaeologists go digging, they must use the same logic to determine if what they found was put there by humans or by nature. We tend not to see meaningful symbols in nature, but when we look at DNA, we see volumes of meaningful information. At one point, it was believed that there was a lot of DNA that was non-functional. The term "junk DNA" was coined. As time went on, however, we discovered that almost none of our DNA is non-functional. As a plug on an unrelated, evolution once used junk DNA as evidence, but had to change their stance when new data was discovered. Just goes to show how evolution can adapt to just about, if not, anything.
So when I look at the volumes of information contained in even the simplest cell, Mycobacterium genetalium, I see evidence of an intelligence. Occam's Razor suggests we pick the simplest solution with the least number of variables and assumptions. Evolutionists have works for decades on solving the problem of abiogenesis and have yet to find a viable solution to which they can all agree. When we see volumes of DNA in one of the correct orders without any junk DNA, our gut instinct should tell us that it came from intelligence. If I had 1 million type writers typing randomly in English for 4 billion years, I doubt even one of them would have written a story that could be sold at a book store today. We see no examples of meaningful information generated by nature without first there being meaningful information to create it.


"Evolutionists today are still searching for the answer which Kenyon gave up looking for long ago when he became a theist." And this is the sentence that automatically and simply allows me to say "you're too ignorant to understand the Universe". Did it ever occur to you that trying to create what the Universe creates was futile without full knowledge of the Universe's system of processes? The acid breaks because it's missing something - the Universe is not missing anything, hence it created them. What could possibly be allowing such amino acids to replicate normally without breaking part in the Universe, but then break apart in human hands? It couldn't be because humans are naive and ignorant compared to the Universe.

Well let's look at the failing conditions:

Amino acids remove water upon formation, yet the Earth came from water. What could possibly cause this to occur? Well for starters, the human's proneness to error. What other possibilities? Well, amino acids contain a core which is carbon - there is a relationship between oxygen and carbon; there's also a relationship between water and acid. The reason why the amino acid causes water to be removed for humans would perhaps be the cause of lacking bacteria to build a wall between the acid and the water. The acid is stronger than water, so water will die if the acid takes over, which causes the entire reaction to defeat itself. Yes, bacteria is designed to build walls between water and acid. If their experiment did not include bacteria, then that's why it failed. Finally, Saying "highly unlikely to form in the ocean" is really just ignoring the fact "I don't know what I'm talking about in the first place" - the entire planet we live on was all water at one time. Amino acids had to have existed in water - the experiments simply lead people to believe that the water was at fault, not the people doing the experiment. The acid took over the water because it did not have bacteria sustaining it. The way amino acids behave can be scaled up to how the animal body and human body behaves.

The amino acids are easily broken down when exposed to simple things like sunlight, oxygen and time. This here demonstrates their stupidity truly. How does one miss this? First they say "the amino acids could not have possibly thrived in water", when Earth was all water at some point - then they say "they are easily broken down when exposed to sunlight, oxygen and time", when the Universe's version of amino acids do not face the same problem, therefore it's not the amino acids; it's the arrogance of these people believing everything else besides their own error and failure as a tester.

Non-intelligent people should never speak of intelligence every again - period.

Everything else is basically everything I know without saying "there's a god" - no, there's a Universe that's "becoming". It's not "being", hence it's an unfinished design - bacteria are as naive and young as we are along with this planet we thrive off of.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, Con was supposed to use round 2 to given opening arguments in favor of abiogenesis as agreed in round 1 and reiterated in my opening arguments in round 2. Instead, he presented a rebuttal instead of opening arguments.
Second of all, Con seems to be confused between amino acids and peptides. Peptides are composed of multiple amino acids which are chained together by a reversable chemical process requiring dehydration.
Third of all, Con accuses the scientific community about being wrong about what forces of nature cause peptide bonds to break down without presenting evidence for why the experts are wrong. Con: "What could possibly be allowing such amino acids to replicate normally without breaking part in the Universe, but then break apart in human hands? It couldn't be because humans are naive and ignorant compared to the Universe."
Previously given link:
Fourth of all, he went against all modern doctrines of abiogenesis when he claimed, "The acid is stronger than water, so water will die if the acid takes over, which causes the entire reaction to defeat itself. Yes, bacteria is designed to build walls between water and acid. If their experiment did not include bacteria, then that's why it failed." Talk origins, a website dedicated to naturalism, and criticizes Christians for claiming that abiogenesis teaches that the primordial earth produced a living cell without prior stages. The early stages of abiogenesis involve chemicals creating amino acides which create peptides which create self replicating peptides.
Previously given link:

Now that I have addressed his rebuttal, I will continue with my original line of thought. To continue, I will first define logical possibility: capable of being described without self-contradiction.
It is logically possible that a deity exists and that a deity created the universe as long as this deity is defined to have the necessary attributes such as powerful enough, smart enough, etc. That is not evidence that such a deity does exist; it merely shows that it might be true that such a deity exists. Proving that such a deity exists is practically impossible and outside the scope of this argument. For Con to state that such a deity does not exist, he must show that it would be logically impossible for such a deity to exist; that is, he would have to show a logical contradiction based on well established facts. So then, if it is possible that such a deity exists, it is also possible that such a deity created the first living cell on earth. A keen reader might notice this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Whether the first cell ever to exist on earth evolved into other species is beyond the scope of this debate. I'm focusing specifically on the logical possibility of an intelligent source creating the first cell.
So if we were to revisit Occam's Razor, the existence of a deity should logically be considered as one of the available options, because it is within the scope of possible solutions to the topic at hand. However, "There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life." I have pointed out that the most commonly accepted model for the construction of the first cell is a "bottom up" approach starting with self replicating peptides. However, this approach has proven to fail so drastically, that others have taken the "top down" approach.

The following is a long quote:
No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen and Jack Szostak. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[69][70]

Models for the creation of the first cell have repeatedly failed. This is not a new field of study. The term biogenesis was coined in 1869. Before that time, spontaneous generation was the most commonly held scientific view. Since then, scientists have been looking for another explanation and have failed to produce even a proof of concept. Every past and current mode has either been proven wrong, or not shown to have evidence (for example the idea that aliens seeded the earth).

To reiterate, all current models, whether bottom up or top down, have been shown to be ineffective. In contrast, the proposition of an intelligent source for the first cell is a simple solution with the fewest possible assumptions. Therefore, Occam's Razor suggestions that an intelligent source for the first cell is the most likely proposition, and should be accepted. The reason this cannot and will not be accepted by the scientific community is that super nature events are outside the scope of science, and most of the scientific community are either skeptics or atheists. If it is in fact the case that an intelligent source (aliens or deity) seeded our planet with the first cell, science may never come up with a solution, but that will not prevent them from trying. Additionally, even if science did produce a viable hypothesis of how it could possibly happen, that does not prove that it actually did happen in that way. It may be a more complicated solution using natural causes, but that does not mean it is more likely than a simple super natural cause. It just gives atheists peace of mind that they can ignore the evidence that there exists a deity.


I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks any of this deserves rules when all you did was copy and paste sources like a sheep who cannot think for themselves can. That's all you people do. You're stupid - you don't think. You take this ignorance of yours, drum up something absurd, then look for other people's ideas similar to yours and call it an argument. It's pitiful - it really, really, is.

You clearly did not understand my response if you think I do not know that peptides are built on amino acids. Looking back at what I said, I have no idea how you got that impression - then again, I do not have a rotten brain built on hearsay either.

They are not the scientific community. Especially when one of them allegedly became theist after giving up on what is allegedly not their own lack of understanding of how amino acids are produced. They must be children to think they can recreate amino acids like the Universe - no wait, they definitely are by blaming their tools and not themselves.

I am a genius. I have a right to go beyond modern stupidity and laziness in studies. Today's science is not the same science as it was when it was philosophically driven and verily wise. The amino acids behave on a larger scale - I see nothing in their studies which suggest they used this idea to better understand the amino acids, no - they put the Universe's apparatuses together like a child puts sticks and glue together and wonder why it breaks apart while the entire planet stays together, floating in space while it is at it.

You addressed nothing. Your entire "argument" is built on your own stupidity. You know nothing of any of this. You're just another kid that never grew up, read one thing and guarded it like a sick dog.

Repeatedly failed means nothing - has no relevance to your positing and your lack of understanding is more than enough to prove that you know nothing of this - you do not think - you regurgitate anything that remotely foreshadows your "ideas".

If you want the peptide to not break, try actually understanding the Universe first. There's a relationship between acid, water and bacteria. I can figure this out without being in a lab - you're all just laughable.
Debate Round No. 3


You haven't provided any evidence in support of your position. I cannot debate name calling, so I will say no more.


I said all I needed to say, myself.

You said nothing. I showed your errors.

There's nothing more left in this besides your denial.
Debate Round No. 4


Let's move this to the voting phase and be done with it then.


There's nothing here to move.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Please show me one link showing abiogenesis that doesn't make assumptions. :)
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
Your attack to the likeliness of abiogenesis is irrelevant if you can't show the likeliness of intelligent design using numbers. You are making as much assumptions.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
I like John Lennox's story about semiotics.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Your turn. If you hold to the standard agreed to in round one, you will not provide a rebuttal to my argument in round 2. Rather, you will provide a positive case for abiogenesis with little to no regard to my first argument.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
I never created a reality - I accepted the one and only reality: The Universe, it's behavior, it's design, its rules and its becoming mind.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
You seem not to believe in the same reality I do. Not sure if we can even debate, but I'll try anyway.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
You don't even know why you exist, let alone how to interpret your experiences. This does not excuse idiocy (pretending to be knowledgeable, when ignorant).

They are all delusions. Aliens, gods and spirits are projections of the human mind. They are not real creatures.

I have noticed that you took the time to write your personal experience, which is nice, but you must face the consequences when you speak of things of which you cannot prove let alone understand yourself. It's detrimental to the truth when you keep making things up based on delusions.

It's also nice to know you have an open mind. It does not remove the idiocy you spread, however. People's brain are real - the consequences are real - your stories are not real outside of your own personal interpretation. Your experience is like a guy that fooled himself into thinking a girl loved him, when she never did.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
I'm sad you believe that people who believe in a deity are all idiots. Different people have different experiences. I have had multiple experiences that assure me that there is a deity. Some of these were observed by those who do not believe in a deity. I cannot prove my experiences to you in a debate, so there is no point.
Imagine that you had a very convincing experience with aliens that others around you also saw evidence of, such as seeing your abduction and removal of an implant you saw them put in you during your experience. You might start believing in aliens, but you would not be able to prove it to others. In such a scenario where you were convinced it really was aliens, it could be very difficult to convince you that aliens don't exist. So it is with me. I've had more experiences that I know we're from a deity than I can count. Several times were the laws of nature were suspended and medical experts were dumbfounded. It is hard to prove to me that no deity exists as a result of my experiences working in unison with rationality.
I do not claim to know for certain how this deity did what it did, but I'm interested in finding out. I'm not closed minded. No, I have changed my beliefs worth evidence several times in my life. I grew up being taught young earth creationism. Today I would debate them. ;D
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
I don't assume. I analyze. There's a difference. I know you like professional psycho-analysts know serial killers based on their patterns and process elimination.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
I'm glad you assume to know everything I know about the universe.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were insults. Pro wins this debate.