The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY

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 3 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 434 times Debate No: 103408
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

SPECIES = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Any and all similarities between any two different species, including similarities in their respective DNA/RNA, their respective organs, and their respective behaviors, are evidence for Intelligent Design Science, not for so-called evo THEORY. In fact, scientific evidence for intelligent design is everywhere: Even if there were any "transitional forms" (which there have never been), such an imaginative scenario still would necessarily require an immense amount of planning, imagination, and implementation by an immensely powerful intelligent designer, with his own individual consciousness, as well as a personal desire to create such a scenario. Just as the similarities among different vehicles indicate the same intelligent designer, and the similarities among different telephones indicate the same intelligent designer, so the similarities among any two different species also indicate the same intelligent designer. Related short video: https://www.youtube.com...
Emilrose

Con

Accepted.

Let's first review how 'species' is actually defined:

1a.) 'A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.'

1b.) 'A species is defined as organisms that produce fertile offspring but this is sometimes limited as some organisms do not always reproduce sexually, and some hybrids are fertile.'

And 'intelligent design':

1a.) 'Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'

I'd first note that as the instigator of this debate, it's on Pro to demonstrate further evidence in support of his resolution and show it to be correct.

Pro is essentially arguing that all species, derive from intelligent design (meaning they are the direct result of a higher being/authority), but all species derive from cells, and all cells originate from pre-existing chemical processes (example, biological processes directly involve chemical reactions as a causative factor.) [1.] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Chemicals, are of course a fundamental part of life--with the air, the ocean, the clouds, the ground, and the planets all containing chemical elements that enable their continued existence. Where intelligent design bares any direct connection to any of this, is again for Pro to demonstrate; which they have so far failed to do.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"I'd first note that as the instigator of this debate, it's on Pro to demonstrate further evidence in support of his resolution and show it to be correct."

In actual debate, burden of proof is equally on both sides. You're probably not used to actual debate, though, so I'll forgive your ignorance.

"...and all cells originate from pre-existing chemical processes...."

No they don't, but you offered no evidence for your above-stated personal belief anyway, so again, I forgive your ignorance. No evidence for your side = good news for my side.

Your position on this subject is 100% your own personal faith-based religion, but is not observable science.

You provided exactly zero evidence for your side, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Emilrose

Con

Pro argues that cells do in fact not derive from chemicals, but this is quite easily disputed. A few different scientific outlets have addressed the cell-origin question, and they all state things like this:

'What is certain is that, at some point in evolution, larger organic molecules " such as nucleic acids and amino acids " began to form, aided by the volatile climate of the time. Scientists can only speculate on how many different combinations of molecules were rejected by natural selection before molecules that had the qualities needed to persist evolved.' [2.] https://bigpictureeducation.com...

The fourth edition of Molecular Biology and the Cell had this to say:

'Matter is made of combinations of elements--substances such as hydrogen or carbon that cannot be broken down or converted into other substances by chemical means. The smallest particle of an element that still retains its distinctive chemical properties is an atom. However, the characteristics of substances other than pure elements--including the materials from which living cells are made--depend on the way their atoms are linked together in groups to form molecules. In order to understand how living organisms are built from inanimate matter, therefore, it is crucial to know how all of the chemical bonds that hold atoms together in molecules are formed.'

And:

'There are 92 naturally occurring elements, each differing from the others in the number of protons and electrons in its atoms. Living organisms, however, are made of only a small selection of these elements, four of which"carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O)"make up 96.5% of an organism's weight. This composition differs markedly from that of the nonliving inorganic environment (Figure 2-3) and is evidence of a distinctive type of chemistry. The most common elements in living organisms are listed in Table 2-1 with some of their atomic characteristics.' [3.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

To reiterate again--Pro has one final round to support his resolution (with evidence, further elaboration, etc.) and properly negate my case.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Pro argues that cells do in fact not derive from chemicals..."

I never made that argument, actually, so your above statement is a straw man logical fallacy.

You offered exactly zero evidence in favor of your side, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Emilrose

Con

Pro denies that they said this in round two:

'No they don't, but you offered no evidence for your above-stated personal belief anyway, so again, I forgive your ignorance. No evidence for your side = good news for my side.'

(As can be seen, they explicitly stated that cells do not derive from chemicals.)

The evidence provided in support of my statements regarding the cell-chemical question has been totally dropped by Pro, and they've failed to extend their argument/provide further proof in any way.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts.

My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment.

I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment.

Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website.

If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now.

You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on.

Good-bye! =)
Posted by Masterful 5 months ago
Masterful
Why?
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Because without God, there could be no objective standard for truth.

Thanks for asking! =)
Posted by Masterful 5 months ago
Masterful
Why?
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between truth and lies.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
The so-called "voting" system on this site is nothing but a group of severely biased individuals stroking their own egos, and their votes are merely subjective opinions from unqualified individuals that have absolutely no relation with the merits of the arguments made.

I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes.
Posted by Masterful 5 months ago
Masterful
The voters did not buy his BS.
Posted by Masterful 5 months ago
Masterful
-Pro round 2-

""...and all cells originate from pre-existing chemical processes...." -Con

No they don't, but you offered no evidence for your above-stated personal belief.........." -Pro

Pro caught lying.
This debate also tells us why he no longer allows his debates to be accepted. Because he has an inability to debate.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"...stated that cells do not derive from chemicals.)"

No, I never made that statement -- you are a liar.

"The evidence provided in support of my statements regarding the cell-chemical question...."

You provided no evidence for that personal belief of yours -- you only presented some unsupported personal opinions of other people who have no connection to this debate.

You have provided exactly zero evidence for your side. In reality, your belief in evo THEORY is your own personal, faith-based religious belief, but it is not observable science -- so you lost the debate -- and you lost hard.

Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by NDECD1441 5 months ago
NDECD1441
What a douchebag
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is nothing more than a dead man walking.
Vote Placed by Outplayz 5 months ago
Outplayz
PurushadasaEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes no arguments and resorts to ad homs. Nuff said.
Vote Placed by JimShady 5 months ago
JimShady
PurushadasaEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Emilrose wins a point for conduct because I felt Purushadasa was being smug, calling the Con ignorant and then not even backing up his/her claims. Con also caught Pro in a lie in Round 3, so yeah. Also, for CA, Con wins for actually making a case for herself. She suggests that cells, the building blocks of life, are made of natural chemical bonds and such. Also, her quotes added to the legitimacy of her argument. Pro just made claims without back-up and ignored arguments from Emilrose. So, I don't necessarily agree with Con, but Pro lost this debate big time and knows nothing of debate by what he/she has shown.