The Instigator
pc1114
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 5 votes the winner is...
pc1114
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,356 times Debate No: 8184
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (5)

 

pc1114

Con

This will be a free debate not subject to any format. I will accept the first person who wishes to debate and will let the affirmative go first as is usual.
InfraRedEd

Pro

The beginning of life can be explained (by) other than intelligent design at least as well as the "intelligent design" explanation. That explanation is called "science."

For those unfamiliar with the term, the scientific theory holds that life arose by other than intelligent design, with chemicals and heat and lightning thought to have been present in the early Universe. The creation of the Universe is another matter altogether. I may be oversimplifying but it does leave open the possibility of God creating the Universe but not life.

By "intelligent" I mean something exhibiting intelligence. Well then who created that intelligence? And so on. So that's not much of an explanation. You cannot create intelligence without intelligence.

And why does God demand that we worship Him? Just because you create something does not mean you have the right to ask it to worship you especially if it doesn't want to be worshipped and so, following the Golden Rule, does not worship. Anyway then shouldn't God worship us?

And what is this "Vengeance is mine" garbage? Scientific studies have shown that vindictiveness is not effective.

Is this God's first Universe? Can God be an atheist?
Debate Round No. 1
pc1114

Con

Ok first of all all I have to do as the negative is prove him wrong on every situation he presents. If he thinks I need an actual case of mine own then please tell me.

My opponent says that life could have arisen by science, "For those unfamiliar with the term, the scientific theory holds that life arose by other than intelligent design, with chemicals and heat and lightning thought to have been present in the early Universe." Then he goes on to say, "You cannot create intelligence without intelligence." So is he saying that humans aren't intelligent, because the last time I checked, "chemicals and heat and lightning thought to have been present in the early Universe." don't have any intelligence of their own. So how they come together to make something as complex as DNA, in which every little piece of a strand holds a ratio of around five gigabytes of information? If that's not intelligence then what is?

My opponent also says, "And what is this "Vengeance is mine" garbage?" What this means is that in the end all vengeance will be gods because in the end he will decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Isn't that vengeful?

He also says, "Is this God's first Universe? Can God be an atheist?" Well we obviously don't know, we only know the things of this world, of which God is not. By saying is God an atheist are you saying that God doesn't believe that He himself exists?

"And why does God demand that we worship Him? Just because you create something does not mean you have the right to ask it to worship you especially if it doesn't want to be worshiped and so, following the Golden Rule, does not worship. Anyway then shouldn't God worship us?"
Obviously we don't deserve the praise, he does, and hes given us grace enough, there isn't a single person who gos one day without breaking one of the ten commandments which is why he sent Jesus to fulfill the law, because if he hadn't we would all go to hell. If you create something then don't you deserve to be worshiped especially if you are a very gracious creator?

Thank You I will await my opponents response.
InfraRedEd

Pro

Opening sentence of my opponent's argument:

"Ok first of all all I have to do as the negative is prove him wrong on every situation he presents."

Good thing I came along when I did before my opponent gets any more stupid ideas.

Great care is taken to make debates fair. Each participant has an equal burden of proof.

Another startling thing is that the Challenger gets to take a stand, and it does not have to be complete opposition to the Instigator's position. Here are the rules:

And noting that these rules are assuming Pro goes first but if Con proposes the debate it is not fair to just sit and wait for something to shoot down. Opening argument should be posted with the opening round or you have just forfeited the round. It doesn't matter anyway since the real advantage to being a challenger is going last.

Rules During Lincoln-Douglas Debate
1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative.

The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution.
The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement.
(1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life').

(2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution.

(3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety.

Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent.

2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so.

Additionally there are rules, taking the form of definitions, as to how a debate may be presented. The concept of "value" is critical.

From http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us... :

Value: The value is usually given in the wording of the resolution. Its purpose is to establish context (what the resolution is about, the topic of debate), and to establish ground (what part of the resolution each side must defend). The value should not be confused with something that most might think of as a value, i.e., something that is necessarily intrinsically good (such as freedom or liberty). Rather, a value should be thought of as a position or a stance of belief within the presence of other positions or stances— it is relational. In this sense, a resolution may have a value of "increased environmental regulation" or "civil disobedience." In short, the value (sometimes referred to as a value premise) is the position that the resolution is asking you to defend. Thus, in the resolution "violence is a justified response to political oppression," the affirmative value is violence and the negative value is political oppression. The debate should then focus on the contexts in which the choice between the two value positions must be made.

There is a good description of value and criteria in http://www.nflonline.org...

And that is what is lacking in my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 2
pc1114

Con

First of all I would like to point a few you things out to you the reader of this debate. In my opponents last argument he makes absolutely no try to defend himself from my critiques and I will assume the they have been conceded. He only goes on and on about how stupid I am and that I absolutely need a case. He also gets very stuck up in that I have stupid ideas and also says that, "Another startling thing is that the Challenger gets to take a stand, and it does not have to be complete opposition to the Instigator's position. Here are the rules:" Rules?? All the rules he gives are subject to the Lincoln-Douglas style debate, but if you will just take a quick look back to the beginning I state, "This will be a free debate not subject to any format. I will accept the first person who wishes to debate and will let the affirmative go first as is usual." By accepting my debate challenge he agreed to my terms and therefore accepted that this debate will not be subject to any format, including Lincoln-Douglas.

On the lack of a negative case.

1. Intelligence cannot be present without another form of intelligence putting it there.

As my opponent himself said, "You cannot create intelligence without intelligence." He was at that time talking about God, but if he has done any reading of the Bible God is believed to have always been and always be forever. In saying this he also contracted himself when saying that science could have created life, or is he saying that all the life here on earth is unintelligent? Maybe he is saying that science itself has intelligence. Although science does not posses any intelligence of its own and therefore could not have created something as complex as the human cell. In which each cell hundreds of gigabytes worth of information is stored, how did that get there? Did science put it there? I think not.

2. Even If it were possible for science to create life the chances are hundreds of trillions to one.

For life to be formed, so called scientifically, which isn't possible, even the most studied evolutionists say that around 250 proteins would have to be present which is close to impossible without someone putting them there

Thank You, I await my opponents response
InfraRedEd

Pro

I think we can see pretty clearly that God has taken great pains to make sure that
if you want to get in touch with God it will not happen through any purely logical process.

The stupid notion of an Eternal God probably came from that scene in Genesis where Abraham planted a tree and call on the name of "Everlasting God."

Abraham may have had a tendency to exaggerate.

There is nothing infinite in time or space in the physical Universe.
Debate Round No. 3
pc1114

Con

As you can see my opponent has conceded all of my arguments and therefor I win this debate. He has not given anymore reasons for why science can even possibly create life. He only says something about God, but as he said this is a debate about how life started, not about how what started life got there. Therefore he has accepted that it is impossible for science to create life. If anyone can please answer me one question, how do you believe in evolution when it doesn't make any sense, and why do you?

Thank you and please vote con.
InfraRedEd

Pro

Now that question I can answer:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Why do all ID Chrstians presume God=Intelligent design. If God started the big bang, then it is evolution, yet he still exists.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ID is creationism thinly disguised, so even though it technically does not address the origins of life, only evolution, its often used interchangeably. The premise of ID is that intelligence is required to create an intelligent life form. If so, the Intelligent Designer must have been similarly designed. This leads to a regression that leaves ultimate origins unexplained. Any alternative that provides an explanation is a better alternative.
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
By that kind of reasoning though, nothing could be exempt. If a stone wall suddenly became intelligent clearly it is because that stone wall was built by intelligent people, or by a machine built by intelligent people, etc. I could take a skin cell, dedifferenciate it, and grow it into a clone of myself (all possible with today's technology) and the resulting child would be intelligent whereas my skin cell certainly isn't intelligent. If I did the same with a dog, that dog would be intelligent and somehow, by your logic, I would be responsible for that dog being intelligent. It's simply a bizarre line of reasoning.

Functional brains are intelligent and they grow out of basic developmental processes. There's nothing about how the process starts that transfers any sort of magical intelligent input. Just as there's nothing within our evolution which required the same.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Well, I'm removing it a step, unless you think I'm claiming machines to be sentient, which I am not. But, the technology by which we would use to synthesize such a human being would still have to be designed by something, or more aptly, someone. The machine didn't just end up here of no accord. Someone built it. Someone, we presume, who is not brain dead. There is no oozing of intelligence going on, even with two sentient parents who procreate in the normal fashion. There is the exchange of genetic material to create a fetus with intelligence potential that will eventually be intelligence, genetic mutations aside. However, though with far less manipulation, the natural parents of a child "built" that child, just as the builder of the synthetic kid machine designed said machine, which is the only way that the synthetic kid could be produced in the first place.

And the clear interpretation of the comment would be to refer to me as freakishly stupid, considering that you made the observation directly after responding to my post. So, you'll excuse me if I took it to mean as much.
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
I didn't say you were freakishly stupid, I was talking about people in general.

The fact that what you said isn't any more wrong than what other people say is what makes it "people" who are "freakishly stupid" rather than specifically you.

The idea that you could grow a kid with a machine or from a single cell exactly establishes the point that intelligence doesn't need intelligence. However, the idea that somehow intelligence oozes out of a nearby lab tech or something is, particularly and specifically, nutty.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Tatarize:

I'm not absolutely sure why my philosophical precepts inherently make me "freakishly stupid," but I don't appreciate the disrespect in your post. The principles I'm suggesting could apply to your comments are actual, academic principles discussed by metacognitive philosophers and scientists alike. Just because they don't agree with your position doesn't require me to be the stupid one.

Not only that, but asserting that something is "bullsh!t" does not make it so. And if your responses are to be our gauge of intelligent, respectful debate, than I would prefer to be unintelligent. Though, I think that to be patently false, as are your judgments of me.
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
>>Tatarize: first of all, this can't be settled until you determine what intelligence is.

I determined what intelligence was several years ago. I'm right you develop from unintelligent to intelligence, insofar as you can be said to possess it.

Intelligence isn't really based on tissue or the amount of tissue. Still the point I've made.

--

"I also wasn't aware that a brain dead individual could achieve an erection :D"

The brain dead individual is the mother.

--

"But, on a more serious note, if intelligence is a potential, rather than a matter of being sentient at the time, then the brain dead person still had a brain that died, so that person had the potential of being intelligent."

No. Brain dead people have no intelligence at all. Intelligence is not a potential.

Intelligence is an actuality and has nothing to do with potential. An embryo is not as smart as a college professor it may give rise to.

If your brain doesn't work right, then you aren't as "intelligent" as you would have been. Assuming the cause is non-genetic though, this would have no effect on any children you have.

--

"Along this same vein, it can be argued that test tube babies and the like are still created via intelligence, whether the intelligence is the lab tech or the donors."

Bullsh!t. This is very wrong to the point of being irksome that you could say something so stupid.

--

"Even if we could reproduce the process of fertilization entirely synthetically (egg, sperm, all of it), it would still be intelligence creating intelligence."

No it wouldn't.

--

The cell number distinction has nothing to do with anything, it's not even a distinction. I'm saying that embryos start out without intelligence and develop into people with intelligence. Intelligence from non-intelligence is a reality. Evolution can find no issue here, as developmental biology finds no issue here.

--

I wish people weren't so freakishly stupid when it come to intelligence
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Aw...sad...change "fetish" to "fetus" in the first paragraph. No clue what I was thinking! :)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Tatarize: first of all, this can't be settled until you determine what intelligence is. Technically, something does become more intelligent with the number of accumulated cells it has...depending on what type of cells we are talking about and the mechanics of the developing organism. A tumor can get as big as it wants to and not be sentient, but a fetish with a developing brain is entirely different.

I also wasn't aware that a brain dead individual could achieve an erection :D But, on a more serious note, if intelligence is a potential, rather than a matter of being sentient at the time, then the brain dead person still had a brain that died, so that person had the potential of being intelligent. Hence, an intelligently designed thing (meaning a thing that, by biological design, would have been intelligent in a normal situation) was required to produce the egg/sperm that was used to create said fetus. The same can be said for the mentally retarded, and this assumes that I don't think those with mental retardation capable of intelligence. I believe that to be patently false and a little offensive. Along this same vein, it can be argued that test tube babies and the like are still created via intelligence, whether the intelligence is the lab tech or the donors. Even if we could reproduce the process of fertilization entirely synthetically (egg, sperm, all of it), it would still be intelligence creating intelligence.

As for the cell count, I find that to be a short-lived distinction. The only time it isn't more than one cell is the time in between the sperm itself dissolving/dying/releasing its genetic material/etc. and the split of the fertilized egg. It was hardly the meat of my argument.

Reminder: I heart evolution :)
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Everybody knows.

We just aren't so persnickety as to whine about it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
pc1114InfraRedEdTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
pc1114InfraRedEdTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pc1114 7 years ago
pc1114
pc1114InfraRedEdTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
pc1114InfraRedEdTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
pc1114InfraRedEdTied
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:70