The Instigator
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Life is most likely intelligently designed

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 4 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,632 times Debate No: 58578
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (4)

 

Envisage

Con

Debate is closed, read on if you want to accept:

Intelligent Design is an umbrella term, as it encompasses several methods, or attempts to demonstrate the intelligent design of life. Pro needs to present one or more of these arguments to fulfill their BoP to demonstrate the notion of intelligent design.

Please message in the comments with the types of arguments you want to defend for intelligent design, personally I am looking for a biological intelligent design or a fine tuning debate, which argues for an intelligence guiding the design of life. This is to prevent this debate going off-track.

The format is reversed, since the accepting party has the burden of proof, therefore:

10,000 Words, 72 hours.

Round 1: Rules, Opening Arguments
Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals (Closing from Pro)
Round 4: Rebuttals & Closing from Con, Pro will type "No Round as agreed"

The format is to ensure the same number of argument/rebuttal rounds.

Good Luck!
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Yo, we're freaking walking computers running our genetic code. We are obviously programmed by an intelligent designer; you don't see computers randomly arising from inert matter anywhere in nature, and Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation centuries ago.

As far as I'm aware, it's a dichotomy and there is no third option: life either came about randomly, or it was designed intelligently. Life is obviously intelligently designed, and this debate is making Pasteur do somersaults in his grave.
Debate Round No. 1
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

Interesting. Remember the burden of proof is on Pro, I will be issuing a number of arguments against intelligent design of my own but Pro’s arguments need to stand on their own if Pro is to win.

II. Rebuttals

Since Pro has been so kind to offer me plenty of room, I will rebut opponent’s arguments first.
First, Pro equivocates us with computers running a genetic code, this is an equivocation that Pro actually needs to demonstrate first, at this prima facie is clearly false, given that our cells do not ‘compute’, and mostly just translate and duplicate. Cells generally do not process inputs digitally (assuming the nucleotide chain as a digital one) in a way in which new outputs are produced which give meaningful semantics.

For example a computer will be able to process 2*7=14, where it will have the input data, and generate a meaningful output which gives agreeable semantics. This is something that cells generally have not been demonstrated to do.

Now Pro’s argument in summary appears to be:
P1) Life was either designed intelligently, or came about randomly
P2) Life was designed intelligently
C) Life was designed intelligently

This is obviously circular reasoning/begging the question, and hence invalid, it just assumes the conclusion in the premises. Strangely however it seems Pro advocates for this formulation from his second paragraph:

“As far as I'm aware, it's a dichotomy and there is no third option: life either came about randomly, or it was designed intelligently. Life is obviously intelligently designed…”

I would kindly ask Pro to clarify his argument here.

Alternatively, he seems to also defend a valid form of argumentation:
P1) Life was either designed intelligently, or came about randomly
P2) Life did not come about randomly
C) Life was intelligently designed.

This argument is logically valid, so I will attack the premises of such.

P1:
First, this is quite simply a false dichotomy, and there is only 1 premises would be clearly valid here:

P1*) Life was either designed intelligently, or not designed intelligently

Pro states that there is no excluded middle, and that there are only the two options in P1 that are valid, yet provides zero reason to accept this as true. So he has yet to fulfil his BoP on the matter, and to make things worse this premise almost certainly false.

Virtually all physical processes are in some sense random. Gas molecules in the room you are breathing in are jiggling and bouncing around at random, at random speeds, in random directions. Yet you never do suffocate, the air molecules don’t suddenly collect in one corner of the room until you suffocate, and then returns to its usual business. Note there is NOTHING in the laws of physics that makes this impossible, it’s just that when you multiply many random processes together, you get a general order of things that occur.

Another excellent example is quantum mechanics, which indicates the world is entirely random, with particles existing only as probability distributions, but clearly we do not see teacups warping/smearing all over the place, the macroscopic scheme of things prevents this from occurring.

What’s more is that this ‘tendancy to randomness’ is actually the most significant driver of ANY natural process, the second law of thermodynamics, which depicts that the entropy of any isolated system will tend to increase over time.

This is important for many reasons, it means that processes that tend to increase entropy will be driven, and also will direct random events to occur in an ordered fashion. Take any physical process, such as hydrogen fusion, radioactivity, and of course, life, every single one of them act to increase the total entropy of the system, and in fact every single one of these processes would be impossible without this driver, protons would not fuse, nuclei would not disintegrate and cells would not metabolize, as there simply would be no driving force whatsoever.

With this in hand we can clearly see that there are driving forces for physical processes to occur non-randomly, and without the requirement of intelligence. Ergo I hold that P1 is a false dichotomy, there are other options. Don’t forget this is a premise that Pro hasn’t even supported yet, and hence has not fulfilled the BoP.

P2:
There is another way life comes about that we clearly see every day, and without the use of intelligence, and that is from OTHER life. Remember, life reproduces, and clearly unintelligent species are all capable of reproducing. In fact there is not a single example of ANYTHING that would even be remotely considered life-like that does not reproduce. Ergo, clearly we have an existing mechanism from which life comes about, which is a self-sustaining one. Life produces more life, which produces more life ad infinitum.

This obviously is not going to be satisfying yet, although it already refutes the premise, if ‘life’ was to include all life that has ever existed, has an origin in an intelligent/non intelligent process, then we need to know what the very first lifeforms actually were. Since there is absolutely no reason to accept that today’s life is anything like the life that would have existed at the origin of life. In fact with knowledge of extinct species, physical changes within species, genetic variation as well as speciation seen on human timescales,[1] I can say with exactly zero confidence that life at the origin of life is anything like life today.

Our oldest physical evidence appears to show us that our oldest life was originally very, very simple, simpler than the common bacteria, which gives excellent reason to suspect that progressively simpler forms gave rise to what would be classifiable as ‘life’.[2]


III. Non-Intelligent Origin of Life

The BoP is on Pro, and he needs to actually present a case for intelligent design, but it’s rare I get to talk about my favourite subject, chemistry! In chemistry we like to stick things together, and addition-type chemical reactions are very common in synthetic chemistry and natural chemistry, one famous example is the synthesis of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen.



This reaction is exothermic, yet does not readily occur at ambient conditions, despite having a thermodynamic drive to do so, even elevated conditions only perform this reaction slowly. This and a great variety of reactions are enormously accelerated by introducing a catalyst that regenerates itself at the end of each cycle. In the Haber process (shown above), the rate of ammonia formation is accelerated to commercially profitable levels with the use of a metallic catalyst. Similarly catalysis generally reduces the temperature and increases the rate of formation of the end product. This is accomplished by lowering the ‘activation barriers’ that prevented the chemical reactions occurring at room temperature.



Such processes are quite life like, as life itself is essentially a type of ‘catalyst’, converting high energy molecules such as glucose and oxygen into lower energy molecules such as CO2 and water with an increase of entropy. The biggest difference is that they do not reproduce.

Autocatalysis is a special case of catalysis where the product itself is identical to the catalyst (see below). We have the same thermodynamic drives to produce the product, but now the reaction is self-sustaining and self-accelerating! Any decreases in the concentration of catalyst, through loss or contamination, are negated by the new catalyst being produced at an increasing rate with each cycle. Moreover the reaction occurs at an ever accelerating rate as the catalyst that originally accelerated the reaction is present in ever higher quantities, effectively a ‘runaway reaction’.[4]



Here we have a system that is very much life-like. It reproduces itself and is resistant to external effects. A good autocatalytic process will likely continue ad infinitum until the concentration of input reagents exhausts, which is never if there is a continuous source of these.

An autocatalysis system is a system well-known in chemistry and is close to a system that could be classified as rudimentary life, as it is a system that not only reproduces, but is also adaptive.[4]
Life is an example of such a system, that copies itself auto-catalytically, but not perfectly. Essentially all we need is a system that templates itself. The templating process is catalytic, as it would catalyse the formation of polymeric bonds (such as in DNA/RNA oligomer formation), and hence would be thermodynamically driven, and also would be autocatalytic, as the templating process also directs the formation of itself, moreover templates are not perfect, and hence have an adaptive mechanism available within it which allows for a cycle that can increase in sophistication with each cycle.

This is very thermodynamically favourable, and any process that can accomplish these steps would very quickly become established and adaptive, and very conceivably lead to live as we know it today.

There exist many OOL theories that are being researched that seek to fulfil this step, the most heavily researched is the RNA-World hypothesis, largely due to its obvious fulfilment of the aforementioned templating process which would lead to an adaptive autocatalytic system, but there are innumerable others.[5]

Therefore, steps to producing life are very much conceivable without the introduction of intelligence, using physical processes and physical drives. Hence, intelligence is unnecessary to explain the OOL, and to suggest such is to violate Occam’s razor.

IV. Conclusion:

Pro has
A. Not fulfilled his BoP
and
B. Has a mountain to climb on the abiogenesis arguments.

V. References:

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Con said our cells don't compute but that's not what I said. I said WE are computers and this is self-evident; we compute stuff all the time. I'm sure you computed mathematical formulas in high school, for instance.



Con's argument that individual cells don't compute is a red herring.



I said there's a dichotomy: either life was designed intelligently or came about randomly. Absurdly, Con tries to nullify this dichotomy by positing a supposed third option: non-random. LOL. This isn't identifying a third option, this is dodging the question of “what is the 3rd option?”



Using Con's logic, I could resolve the dichotomy between good and evil by positing a “non-good” option... lolwut?



Con's opting for a “non-random” origin of life could be viewed as a concession, since “intelligent design” certainly falls under this umbrella of “non-random.”



Con says there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevent all the air molecules in a room from clustering into a corner and leaving you to suffocate, but obviously Con has forgotten the Laws of Thermodynamics which say that entropy in a closed system increases over time, not decreases. All the air molecules clustering together in a corner would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics because this would represent a reduction in entropy.



Con says when you multiply lots of random processes together you get general order but this is laughable. Show me an instance where you multiply a bunch of random processes together and get “general order.” And then, you can make this argument actually relevant to the topic at hand by showing how random processes can create walking, talking computers.



I don't know why Con is bringing up the Laws of Thermodynamics when it contradicts his earlier argument.



Life increases the entropy of a system? What system? How? I'm pretty sure the Great Pyramids are not an example of life increasing entropy, but decreasing entropy.



Con's argument that life comes about from other life is disingenuous since he knows I'm not denying we were born to our parents, but that the first biological life was intelligently designed and didn't sprout out of the earth randomly.



Con flaunts his example of a possible runaway reaction but I'm not sure why since runaway reactions cause tumors and cancers in existing life; they don't create life... not sure where he's going with this.



Interestingly Con denies I made the positive case for ID which I posted in my first argument: computers require intelligence to be programmed.



Con said, This is very thermodynamically favourable, and any process that can accomplish these steps would very quickly become established and adaptive, and very conceivably lead to live as we know it today.



Yeah uhm no. We can't even comprehend how the simplest cell works yet you think this simple chemical reaction suggests people can evolve randomly from inert matter?



Con says intelligent design violates Occam's Razor but I guess he's fine with violating the Laws of Thermodynamics which effectively state that the entropy of the universe (a closed system from what we can see) increases, and the evolution of life would require a reduction in the entropy.



If Con can violate the laws of physics to make his case then I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull out my magic wand and challenge Con to a duel!

Debate Round No. 2
Envisage

Con

I. Dichotomy

Recall from my first round, the valid first premise by the law of the excluded middle is:
P1*) Life was either designed intelligently, or not designed intelligently

Therefore, in order for Pro's argument to work, he needs to demonstrate that "not designed intelligently" is equivalent to 'naturally randomly'.

Pro has done nothing but baldly assert this is the case, the BoP is on him, so he needs to demonstrate it to be the case. My arguments from the last round regarding order arising from aparent chaos and randomness stand, Pro simply has not contested this outside of demanding 'what is the 3rd option?'.

The obvious answer is 'naturally non-randomly'.

That is not to say that there wasn't an element of chance involved, but it is to say that processes exist which would naturally bias the formation of life, and the most notable process, and driver is the second law of thermodynamics.

A nice way illustrate this point, is in the linked picture below:

http://www-personal.umich.edu...

Here we have one water barrel which is filled with more water than the other. Obviously one has a greater gravitational potential, and without the siphon in the two barrels we can imagine that this system is under 'thermodynamic stress'. The system WANTS to reach equilibrium, with an evenly distributed water load and an output of the gravitational potential energy as diffuse heat/sound. That's the driving force.

Similarly with early life, the Earth would have been under substantial thermodynamic stress, with high energy molecules, UV Rays etc under 'stress' to become lower, more diffuse energy entities. This is the thermodynamic drive. What life provides, is effectively the 'siphon' as shown in the example with the water buckets. With the introduction of a siphon, the system reaches equilibrium much more easily, and it greatly favoured by thermodynamics, as it allows the system to reach equilibrium much more rapidly.

Equally with life, life is a catalyst for many, many processes, and as such it's development is massively favoured by the laws of nature, essentially if life could develop, then life WILL develop. Thermodynamically 'stresses' systems such as volcanoes, the water cycle, stars, etc all provide a self-reinforcing pathway for this increase in overall entropy. Each and every physical process in life is driven by this, and as such, debunks Pro's false random/intelligent dichotomy.

I will drop my air molecules example, it's a bad visual example, what I have stated so far should be adequate to hammer this point home.

II. Entropy & Non-intelligent OOL:

Pro attacks my application of increasing entropy to life with his pyramids example. Let me ask Pro, how did the great pyramids get to their current state? I will answer that question for him, they were built, by thousands of workers, over decades. Decades of blood sweat and tears, and quite obviously, a MASSIVE increase in overall entropy. While the pyramids are themselves examples of lower-than-usual entropy systems, the overall entropy which lead to their formation increased, since we need to account for the system as a whole.

The exact same process is at work for the formation of life. While life is relatively ordered, the overall thermodynamic output it gives more than overcomes the higher local entropy the ordered system is in, especially when we account for life being an adaptive autocatalytic process.

Remember the autocatalytic chemical reaction I described in my opening round:

[A] + [B] + [Catalyst] ---> [Catalyst] + [Catalyst] + released heat (increase in entropy)

Now compare this to a (grossly oversimplified) schematic of life, with a cell as the 'catalyst'.

[Food] + [Other stuff] + [Cell] ---> [Cell] + [Cell] + released heat (increase in entropy) + waste (increase in entropy)

Summarise the processes of life enough and you will find that it really is this simple, life is an autocatalytic process which produces more copies of itself and is driven and favoured principally by thermodynamics. The 'food' and 'other stuff' (oxygen, nutrients) are high energy dense molecules which want to become more diffuse, lower energy molecules. And life indeed is the siphon in the buckets that makes this happen.

III. How this relates to Pro's argument:

Remember, Pro's (modified) dichotimy states that life could not have arisen by non-intelligent processes, and I have thoroughly demonstrated that this is just false. We have at least two processes which life arises by non-intelligent processes, abiotically as discussed, and from reproduction from existing life.

I have also shown that life adapts and changes, and dies over time, and thus it's very conceivable that the type of life I have demonstrated would lead to something like the life we have today, which is of course, biological evolution.

Remember the burden of proof is on Con for this debate, so he needs to actually demonstrate the positive (non-zero) possibility of intelligent design for it to be considered, and he also needs to demonstrate the very low or zero possibility of life arising non-intelligently.

To illustrate this let's revisit Pro's argument in inductive form:

1. Either it was intelligently designed, or not designed intelligently (naturally)
2. Probably not not designed intelligently (naturally)
C. Probably intelligently designed

This is perfectly valid reasoning, and I have provided a schematic on how life could have come about naturally. Pro may contend that such a scenario is very unlikely, and thus it occurring intelligently is more likely.

... But that's the crucial problem, we have no idea how intrinsically likely it is for life to have occurred intelligently, which is the likelihood we need to compare with it occurring naturally.

For an analogy, let's say we have a person who is a 'winner' at a game, and there are two possible games. One is the national lottery, and the other is a game of Russian roulette with all six chambers filled. Clearly, the person must have played the national lottery to stand as a winner, and not played Russian roulette, since the latter is a guaranteed 0% win rate, even though the former is also a very low-probability game. It's the comparable probabilities that matters.

In the case of intelligent design, we have been given no reason to believe that this is anything other than zero, sure it might be an epistemological possibility ("for all I know it might be designed"), but it needs to be demonstrated it is a physical possibility for the argument to work.

Pro has not done that, and hence has not upheld his burden on his dilemma argument.

IV. Other objections:
Tumours are excellent examples of life's emergence contrary to Pro's attempt to appeal to absurdity. Clearly once the 'barriers' that stop the system from becoming runaway autocatalytic are released, then we have a rapidly multiplying, highly adaptive growing entity. Which is why cancer is so deadly. Life on the grand scale of things is very much skin to the tumour it grows and multiplies and adapts, and is overall more persistent and self-sustaining than a tumour.

V. Computer Argument:
So this is literally Pro's only standing positive argument for intelligent design. I will let Pro state his own case here:

Round 1:
"Yo, we're freaking walking computers running our genetic code. We are obviously programmed by an intelligent designer; you don't see computers randomly arising from inert matter anywhere in nature"

Round 2:
"Con said our cells don't compute but that's not what I said. I said WE are computers and this is self-evident; we compute stuff all the time. I'm sure you computed mathematical formulas in high school.."

Con's argument that individual cells don't compute is a red herring."

Pro seems to fluff what he means by 'we', since if Pro was originally referring to our brains computing math etc, then his 'running our genetic code' is an absolutely bizarre statement. Since the 'genetic code' is in no way used in the 'data processing pathways' in our brain as far as I can tell. I ask Pro to support this assertion lest Hitchen's Razor be applied to it.

Pro's argument appears to be as follows:

P1) All things that are computers are intelligently designed
P2) Humans are computers
C) Humans are intelligently designed

The first, obvious problem is that it does not demonstrate the truth of the resolution, which is 'Life is most likely intelligently designed', and only applies to Humans even IF the conclusion is true, hence his argument already falls short.

Second, there is no reason to accept either the first or second premise. First I would like to attack the second premise, which is quite clearly applying euphemisms to the concept of humans being capable of calculating things to entail that humans are a 'computer'. However Humans are quite clearly nothing like computers in any other sense, and violates Leibniz' law.[1]

If the human brain was a computer, then the human brain would same properties as a computer. This includes both physical and non-physical properties.

Humans/Computer
XYZ qualities XYZ qualities

What we quickly see is while humans and computers VERY superficially share some calculating similarities, they vary enormously from their chemical composition, shape, size, morphology, and even their fundamental methods of processing.

A computer processes to give largely discrete and quantifiable and quantitative answers (e.g. the 51st integral), and the human brain gives largely qualitative answers (e.g. who what where why). They are about as different as 'computing' entities can possibly be! Moreover the physical architecture is absurdly different, one is silicon and transistors, and the other is water and carbon.

Jonathan Schaeffer illustrates this in the attached video (13.30-16.00).

VI. Conclusion:

Pro has still failed to meet his BoP...

VII. References:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
GarretKadeDupre

Pro


I just realized my opponent is not displaying an understanding of what “randomly” actually means! A quick peek at the dictionary or Google search reveals that randomly simply means without conscious decision. Thus, it is oxymoronic and moronic for Con to say life came about “naturally non-randomly”... unless he wants to argue that nature evolved life on purpose, which would actually be a concession that intelligent design is true!



Naturally non-randomly” is an internal contradiction that makes no sense.



So, we're back at our dichotomy: life either arose randomly, or was designed intelligently.



Con's siphon illustration is absurd in the context of this debate. Life isn't a siphon, and I think that's pretty obvious. Evolution of life is not compatible with increasing overall entropy, no matter how many times Con says it is. Like something similar to what Hitler supposedly once said, “A lie, big enough and repeated oft enough, will be believed.” Con acts as if saying over and over that life increases entropy will convince you, the voter, that he's correct.



Since Con is so intent on arguing that evolution of life reduces thermodynamic stress, I challenge him to stick a frog in a blender, let it rip for a couple minutes, sterilize it, then stuff the resulting biological (but inert) mush inside a pressure cooker and turn the pressure knob past the limit 10 times and see what happens.



According to Con's logic, life should evolve out of the frog mush to reduce the thermodynamic stress. However, I should warn Con to stand back a good distance, since it's probably just going to explode in his face.



P.S. If you're going to appeal to millions of trials, than just get a million of your evolutionist friends to run this experiment :)



When it comes down to it, Con's “proof” of the plausibility of abiogenesis is a water hose and a couple buckets of water. Lolwut



I've siphoned my swimming pool plenty times but I've yet to hear of anyone observing abiogenesis in action.




I agree with Con that the entropy of the universe as a whole is increasing over time. What I don't agree with is that abiogenesis is a net increase in entropy. It's obviously a net decrease. Here's a challenge for Con: if the evolution of simple life to complex life doesn't increase the overall entropy of the universe... then what conceivably could???



Con says, “The 'food' and 'other stuff' (oxygen, nutrients) are high energy dense molecules which want to become more diffuse, lower energy molecules.”



So I guess your argument is that since oxygen wanted to diffuse, it created life to be siphoned through? What



Not taking into account the fact that the concept of food wouldn't have made sense before life existed to eat it...



Con unashamedly asserts that “We have at least two processes which life arises by non-intelligent processes, abiotically as discussed[...]”



This is absurd. We do not have abiogenesis as an option on the table; Louis Pasteur disproved that centuries ago, and this dead horse is beaten again everytime abiogenesis fails in the lab. It's been failing ever since the Miller Urey experiment, unless of course you set the standard of success for abiogenesis as something other than abiogensis, which would be absurd.



Con says, “In the case of intelligent design, we have been given no reason to believe that this is anything other than zero, sure it might be an epistemological possibility ("for all I know it might be designed"), but it needs to be demonstrated it is a physical possibility for the argument to work.”



Actually no, I don't have to show it's a physical possibility. I only have to show it's a logical possibility, since it's the only option in our dichotomy that has not been proven false. Prove intelligent design is false right now... aha! You can't. Because such a designer would necessarily transcend our universe' physical laws in order to design physical life. We are arguing about the origin of physical life, after all, and not the origin of metaphysical life.



Con makes the absurd claim that my computer argument violates Leibniz' law. The law states that 2 different objects with all the same properties can't exist. A quick Google search for the definition of a computer reveals that it is:



an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.



Life has all these properties. It doesn't have all the properties of a WINDOWS or MAC computer, but hey, did I ever argue that? No, I did not. So Con's reference to Leibniz' law is misplaced.



Are we electronic? Yeah, electricity is one way distant parts of out bodies communicate with each other. Do we store and process data? Yea, we store data in our genomes, written according to the instructions of our genetic code, which accounts for variables in the environment via epigenetics.



the physical architecture is absurdly different, one is silicon and transistors, and the other is water and carbon.”



This is a strawman since I never argued life is exactly like the computer I'm writing this argument in in every shape and form, but it may surprise Con to find that he is, indeed, composed of silicon since silicon is an essential nutrient in humans.(2)



(1) type the following in Google: define:random


(2) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...


Debate Round No. 3
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

Burden of Proof

Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro for this debate, and he needed to demonstrate that it is most likely that life was designed intelligently.

He has taken one or two approaches in this debate, the first is by denying the contra-proposition, in the dichotimy, and second is by appealing to the fact that humans are computers.

I argue that he has not fulfilled his Bop, or even come close to on either of these propositions, and that I have demonstrated that they are just plain false, and that we have excellent reason to accept that life arose non-intelligently (be it randomly, or whatever).

II. Semantics

"Random"
The word random is frequently used as an euphemism for unordered, by chance, etc. Clearly this is the definition of random I was arguing against. The full definition from Merrimack-Webster is given below and the parts I objected to I have highlighted in asterisks.

"1
a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or *pattern*
b : made, done, or chosen at random **
2
a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite *probability* of occurrence
b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements
" ran"dom"ly adverb
" ran"dom"ness noun"

Nowhere do I see non-consciously in this dichotimy, but in either case it does not matter, my arguments so far have demonstrated that Pro's assertion of the impossibility of "non-intelligently", be it defined as randomly or not, is just plain false, and it equivalent to saying a cliff collapsed randomly, where clearly erosion have made such an occurrence inevitable.

Moreover Pro has given zero reasons apart from prima facie reasons why such a proposition is impossible.

III. Humans are Computers

I hold that Pro is just extending euphemisms to make it appear that humans are computers in the sense that they are clearly constructed.

Pro is effectively asserting:

"All 'computers' are intelligently designed"

If Humans were intelligently designed, then I must ask when was I designed/constructed? Since to the best of my knowledge I emerged from a single cell in my mother's womb.

Of course here Pro will argue that the original humans were intelligently designed, and we are reproductions, in which case I don't know how Pro can state his premise that "All computers are intelligently designed" with any confidence whatsoever. Since we know variation occurs between generations, and hence it is very conceivable that the brains of Humans could have evolved to develop such capabilities via. natural selection.

It's entirely physically possible, and hardly implausible, especially given we have incrementally lesser intelligent species than ourselves (chimpanzees, cats, mice, worms) in existence, the fact that we are top of the bunch of increasingly intelligent species leads me to ask, at what point do species' become 'computers'?

The answer is, never. Computers are clearly something man-made, and I can make the competing CAMESTRES syllogism with equivalent evidence:

P1) All computers are man-made
P2) All humans are not man-made
C) Humans are not computers

And I can press the exact same type of assertion into Pro, show me one example of a non-man made computer.

It all comes down to semantics, which do not prove anything either way. Pro needs to provide evidence that humans are positively intelligently designed, he has not.

IV. Pro's myopic view on thermodynamics

"I was near sighted. I was born myopic, and I got glasses, right after that." - Kitty Carlisle

I would like to encourage Pro to put some on and look at the bigger picture!

Sure, life itself is of greater order than the same 'stuff' in a mush, that much is true, but there's a reason why it is of greater 'order' (and hence lower entropy) than if it were dead, and that is because it's part of a bigger process, of which the bigger process, or 'larger environment' is working towards a larger and larger entropy over time.

Hot things radiate heat, loud things radiate sound, and bright things radiate light. All excellent examples of systems attempting to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. Life's role in the grand scheme of things is to facilitate that, and much like the turbine that spins in the river, or a power generator, it receives a large 'usable' energy incentive to do so!

Now, let's take Pro's (disturbing) Frog experiment. First let me get this clear, I made the claimed that the conditions for the first adaptive autocatalytic systems were available anywhere, so this entire analogy is a big strawman.

But moreover, Pro's analogy just goes to prove my point further. The frog when alive, facilitates a process of 'relieving thermodynamic stress'. It was eating, breathing, excreting, radiating, cell-replicating, and as such it was doing it's 'job' of relieving that stress remarkable well. Once the Frog died, it is no longer capable of performing that role anymore, and it has lost it's 'usable energy incentive'.

Ergo, the higher-than-usual ordered Frog will tend towards a high entropy state.

Note that I use 'ordered' with respect to life very loosely, as thermodynamics is more concerned about energy, and 'useful energy' than the superficial structure of stuff. Since if life truly had an extremely low entropy, then so would mountains, ice and caves, which would all become dust very rapidly. Clearly this is false.

"What I don't agree with is that abiogenesis is a net increase in entropy. It's obviously a net decrease. Here's a challenge for Con: if the evolution of simple life to complex life doesn't reduce the overall entropy of the universe... then what conceivably could???"

Pro, abiogenesis is only a net decrease if you maintain a myopic view on where the changes in entropy are occurring, looking at life as an isolated entity is just a bad way of doing it, since life is most definitely not in isolation, it sits on the Earth, which is a much larger system, in a soup of chemicals, as well as the energy received from the Sun.

V. Abiogenesis
Not that this argument isn't even needed to win the debate, as I have already shown the dichotimy to be absurd. First, to respond:

"We do not have abiogenesis as an option on the table; Louis Pasteur disproved that centuries ago, and this dead horse is beaten again every-time abiogenesis fails in the lab."

Louis Pasteur demonstrated that 'spontaneous generation' was astronomically unlikely. But spontaneous generation =/= abiogenesis. As abiogenesis is the move from chemical origins to very simply life origins. And I already showed in my first round just how simply the life origins could be, and conceivably well-within reach of conditions that could have occurred on Earth.

Note that we have absolutely no reason to believe the conditions on Earth have remained uniform throughout Earths history, moreover existing life today is at such a level that any abiotic life that does somehow emerge today would inevitably be rapidly out-competed by existing life. Sterile conditions are needed and a large number of environments need to be tested, which in summary makes OOL research tedious and difficult.

Moreover it is by no means a failure as Pro describes, as increasingly sophisticated systems have been shown to possibly emerge from several branches of abiogenesis, which is in line with what I have argued so far.[1]

IV. Physical Possibility

Pro makes a remarkable concession!

"Actually no, I don't have to show it's a physical possibility. I only have to show it's a logical possibility, since it's the only option in our dichotomy that has not been proven false. Prove intelligent design is false right now... aha! You can't. Because such a designer would necessarily transcend our universe' physical laws in order to design physical life. We are arguing about the origin of physical life, after all, and not the origin of metaphysical life."

Fantastic, Pro argues for an intelligence that is beyond our natural laws and hence,our realms of scientific experience. This is something that is not shown to be possible with our existing natural laws, and as such we can give this entity an a priori physical possibility of zero.

I don't need to demonstrate intelligent design to be false, Pro needs to demonstrate it is at least possible, and then show it's likely. He hasn't even gotten over the first hurdle yet, and in fact has set the hurdle so high it's inconceivable he could jump it. There are many reasons to apply a zero physical possibility (which is required for the argument to work).

Not even clear is such an entity is logically/metaphysically possible
Is beyond any scientific experience
Similar contradictory claims can be made for virtually anything

Note that I am not ruling out an epistemological possibility of the physical possibility of a transcendent ID. The statement that "for all I know it is possible that a transcendent being could possibly ID life" is one I would quickly make. But this initial epistemic possibility needs to be demonstrated to be very likely before it's physical possibility can be considered.

Remember, we are comparing the possibility of life arising naturally (be it randomly. Or non randomly, non intelligently, or whatever) and the possibility of life arising intelligently. But we cannot do this if we do not have a positive possibility of life arising intelligently, and Pro has provided no way of finding out what this possibility roughly is.

It is simply not enough to attack the possibility of life occurring naturally to demonstrate ID, it is logically unsound.

V. Conclusion

I stand where I started. The resolution is negated. Best of luck in voting!

VI. References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

This was fun! I'm disappointed Con didn't enjoy it as much as I did.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
gg
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
gg Envisage
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
yea thx for the RFDs guys
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Out of interest WF, where did you think I was weak in this debate?
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Thx for RFD WF.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Sigh...
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
lol whiteflame

jk

...

lol xD

I was trying out a different form of debate which obviously I won't be doing again xD
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
ill take a look
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Btw my debate with v3nesl will be finished soon (90% though the final round arguments). He took a different approach to you (argument from consciousness), you might find it interesting... I dunno.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
lmao
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
EnvisageGarretKadeDupreTied
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: Pro effectively lost the debate in their opening argument, as it was too short. As such Con could load their argument (when the BOP did not lie on Con) making it an impossible task for Pro to win as Pro needed to rebut and make arguments that were not rebutted. Con rebutted the argument made by Pro about computers, and also showed that Pro misunderstands thermodynamics and its application to evolution. I actually wish creationists and ID proponents would not use this thermodynamic argument, as it is impossible to win using it. Source points also must go to Con for providing them, and I was impressed that Con brought in Leibniz as I never expected to see that in a debate on evolution.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
EnvisageGarretKadeDupreTied
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: Generally, I think Pro treats Con's arguments with too much derision and addresses too little of the logic behind them. While I agree that there are some holes in Con's analysis, Pro builds too much of a negative case in stead of seeking to uphold his burdens within the debate and making the effort to show that life is most likely intelligently designed. I get a logical avenue for that, which gets little in the way of warrants and seems to lack essential logical support, and what I have to compare that to from Con is an extensive explanation of how life could have been derived from other methods with plenty of evidence. Even if I find that evidence lacking, it is the sole evidence in the debate, and versus what seems to be weak logic, I'm not getting a high degree of likelihood from Pro. As a result, I end up voting Con. I'll also be providing sources to Con, as he's the only one that provided evidence to support his arguments. Careful with the "lol"s Garret, almost enough for conduct.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
EnvisageGarretKadeDupreTied
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: Good debate. I felt like the roles were reversed though, as if Con had the main burden and was met mainly with rebuttals from Pro instead of Pro spending a majority of his time building his own case. Instead, Pro's only real case throughout the debate was that humans are computers, computers are intelligently designed, therefore humans are intelligently designed. Pro never proved how we were intelligently designed nor did he prove how humans & computers are one in the same. Con, on the other hand, built several cases including abiogenesis and physical possibility. For me, Pro failed tremendously at maintaining his BOP. Everything else was even, although I was tempted to take Conduct from Pro as well for his somewhat unnecessary "lolwut?" remarks that spanned the entire debate. All in all, this is a win for Con in regards to arguments based on the reasons I've listed above.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
EnvisageGarretKadeDupreTied
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: GKD made some pretty good points throughout the debate with his countering of the law of thermodynamics as well as the randomness within evolution (of inert matter) helping his points of the intelligently designation, and finally the entropy of the universe. However, Envisage makes good--better arguments by suggesting that people were actually made from inert matter and the similarity to computers, and at the end strengthens his argument concerning thermodynamics, makes the right point at abiogenesis, and concludes with the psychical possibility demonstrating "the idea of life occurring naturally unsound", as Envisage says so himself. This was a monster to read but I will reread it if the debaters think my vote unfair or not detailed enough.