The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
yesikant
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

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 12 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,648 times Debate No: 6339
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (12)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the theories of extraterrestrially seeded life are equally plausible with theories of creationism. A caveat - by creationism theories, I mean the more strict creation theories - not theistic evolution, Deism, or Intelligent Design and their derivatives.

In fact... a definition of creationism (Dictionary.com):
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

Next, I suppose it would be instrumental to describe what I mean by the theories of extraterrestrially seeded life. There are several of these theories:

1. That microbes from somewhere else traveled to Earth on asteroids or comets and crashed in the primordial soup where they thrived. This isn't actually THAT far fetched, as we've discovered meteorites with microbes on them.

2. Alien explorers visiting Earth for its stunning vistas of terrible weather and volcanic activity left some bacteria behind, or one peed on a rock and left some genetic material that eventually grew into human life. I find a perverse satisfaction in thinking that we arrogant humans are simply Xorgblag urine.

3. Alien visitors purposely seeded the planet with life as an experiment. I find this one to be personally amusing, as a race this advanced could be watching us at this very moment. Scary and enthralling.

******************************

I find each of these theories to be equally plausible as the notion that some deity snapped his majestic fingers and created life in a poof of purple haze (Jimi Hendricks anyone?). In any event, I also believe that these events are equally (if not more) logically coherent than Biblical creation, and equally provable.

******************************

Why do I say no to theistic evolution, deism, and ID?

1. Theistic evolution is simply tacking "God did that" onto a scientific theory. This is an untestable hypothesis, and isn't compelling at all.

2. Deism is a "hands off" approach - a way of saying "God made this and let it run." This is not significantly different from theistic evolution.

2. Intelligent design fails at the same place regardless of how you approach it. Was the designer God? Why not some very advanced Aliens? Both are equally plausible and/or provable, so the argument is a moot point.
yesikant

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate, however I think he has failed to meet the basic burden of his topic.

He failed to prove that the plausibility of creationism's truth is EQUAL to that of extraterrestially seeded life's truth.

His proof was: "[he] find[s] [seeded life] to be equally plausible as the notion that some deity snapped his majestic fingers and created life in a poof of purple haze…"

This is circular reasoning which is not a form of logical proof. The plausibility are equal… because the plausibilities are equal is not valid. He has nothing to prove the topic.

Even worse, he trends towards disproof of his own topic by saying seeded life is "equally (if not more) logically coherent than Biblical creation…." This is a concession that there is a greater probability that seeded life has a slightly greater chance of being true. If seeded life is more likely true than creationism, then they are not EQUALLY plausible. This means he loses.

Additionally, I am not sure how you can definitively establish the degrees of plausibility of something in the first place.
The best we can do is say "seeded life is… kinda implausible and creationism is… uh... kinda implausible too… hey they're equally plausible!". However, that's is disingenuous at best.

At best, one would thing you could perhaps establish the two equally "probably true".

However, even that is impossible.

Probability theory says you rarely say "two events are equally probable" if you know very little about the two events.
Given enough information, the probability of any event can be reduced to a certainty. For example, we know a lot about the properties of coins, that is why we can guess that flipping heads has 50% probability. However, in the absence of information, probability is a subjective guess. It is very difficult, for example, to establish the probability of weather predictions, especially far in advance. There is way to much data for us to establish such a calculation. We have to place a probability on how well we know the probability.

In the same way, it would be almost impossible to establish the "probability of creationism" or the "probability of seeded life". There are too many variables in the universe to establish such a probability, let alone say two probabilities are precisely equal.

Without any chance of proving two theories definitely equally plausible or any chance of proving them "probably" equally possible, it is absolutely impossible to prove the topic true.

In absence of proof of the topic, the topic is false since all statements are presumed false until proven true.
Thus, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Bah - my worthy opponent opens with a semantic argument that I had forseen, but dismissed on the assumption that nobody would attempt to prove degrees of equality. By "equally plausible" I simply mean that they are possible, and not logically incoherent. This is not a debate concerning the specifics of which is a better theory - just to demonstrate that they are each viable alternatives.

Unfortunately, it seems I will have to shoot down some of my own argument to reduce it to Biblical proportions (HA!).

Since the resolution states "plausible," it is clear that there is a component of subjective consideration. Thus, neither of us CAN or should be attempting to prove that one or the other of these options is the correct one, just that neither is logically incoherent. Thus, the winner of the debate is not determined by logic, but by the eloquence of the arguments.

My opponent states that I have used circular reasoning to prove the resolution. Once again, I remind the reader that I am not trying to PROVE the resolution, merely asserting that I believe these theories to merit equal consideration with creationism.

A few responses:

>> "he trends towards disproof of his own topic by saying seeded life is "equally (if not more) logically coherent than Biblical creation…." This is a concession that there is a greater probability that seeded life has a slightly greater chance of being true."

False - Much of the Bible is logically incoherent, yet it is still considered to be an acceptable source by many. Simply because something is more logically coherent does not indicate that it has a greater probability of occurring.

>> "The best we can do is say "seeded life is… kinda implausible and creationism is… uh... kinda implausible too… hey they're equally plausible!"."

Glad you agree. While he calls this disingenuous, my opponent has demonstrated a way to consider the resolution satisfied. While he may think it sarcastic, it is indeed equal by his own admission, and if he is willing to play these semantic games, so am I. Furthermore, this gives evidence that the notions merit equal consideration.

>> "At best, one would thing you could perhaps establish the two equally "probably true"."

Yet another way to satisfy the resolution! My wonderful semantic opponent....

>>"Probability theory says you rarely say "two events are equally probable" if you know very little about the two events."

But we're not talking about PROBABILITY - we're talking about PLAUSIBILITY. The rest of this argument is a red herring.

>> "In absence of proof of the topic, the topic is false since all statements are presumed false until proven true."

Innocent till proven guilty? I am asserting that I consider these to be equally plausible - the burden is on CON to show implausibility in them, not on PRO to prove equal probability...

**************************

Ladies and gentlemen, we are seeking to establish plausibility, not probability. My opponent has based his argument against improbability. All I ask is this: Are these theories equally PLAUSIBLE with Creationism?
yesikant

Con

My opponent is a clever one, for he has cleverly shifted outside of our original topic of debate.

We are supposed to be debating that "the theory of extraterrestrially seeded life is EQUALLY plausible with creationism."

However, my opponent decided to change the debate. He says in his first paragraph that "by "equally plausible" [he] simply mean[s] that they are possible, and not logically incoherent... [He] just [needs] to demonstrate that they are each viable alternatives. "

There is a very clear flaw in my opponents advocacy. He has totally scrapped the implications of the word "equally". To say they are each viable is by no means to say that they are equally viable – this is clearly different from what we are supposed to be discussing. Seeing that he had lost the original topic of debate, he has conveniently simplified the debate for himself. This enough seems reason to vote CON: my opponent has totally strayed from our original topic and, instead, has proved a totally different topic.

However, I suppose out of the spirit of the season, I will debate the new topic. (I would ask that he sticks to his new interpretation) My opponent said he must "demonstrate that [creationism and seeded life] are each viable alternatives". This means that if I prove that either one, either creationism or seeded life, is inviable, then I win the round.

First off. My opponent has done nothing to prove any of that whatsoever. In fact, he says in the fourth paragraph of his last argument that "not trying to PROVE the resolution". I am not sure how anyone would think he is winning a round without trying to prove anything.

Further, creationism is illogical if God is illogical. If I prove that creationism is flawed, then
Two. Occam's razor makes God illogical. Occam's razor says one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Adding something superfluous like God to proving everything is illogical because, since it is not necessary for proof, he cannot be from the facts. Everything can be explained without God. Hence, God is superfluous and an illogical assertion.

Three. Logic is based on proofs. Faith is based on the lack of proof. Hence, if the existence of God could be proven, faith would be eliminated. Logic and faith are thus opposing. It would be a contradiction to believe God is logical.

Four. There is no logic in turning water to wine, raising the dead, walking on water, burning bushes, parting seas, talking beaver felt hats, floating gold laws, or spaceships flying in the tails of comets. The notions surrounding God defy logic. They are greater, above and beyond logic.

Five. The notion of an omnipotent being is self-refuting.
1.Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.
2.If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question).
3.If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question).
4.Therefore God is not omnipotent.
However, God is defined as omnipotent. Meaning if omnipotence is impossible, then God is at best incoherent.

Thus, creationism is not logically coherent, so my opponent cannot meet the new burden he establishes for himself.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

A few responses to begin.

>> "However, my opponent decided to change the debate. He says in his first paragraph that "by "equally plausible" [he] simply mean[s] that they are possible, and not logically incoherent... [He] just [needs] to demonstrate that they are each viable alternatives. ""

This represents no change in the debate topic. It is actually CON who is trying to change the debate to "The theory of extraterrestrially seeded life is equally PROBABLE with creationism." There is a distinct difference between probability and plausibility. When you ask how probable something is, you get a percent. When you ask if something is plausible, you get a yes or a no. Thus, if the answer to all of the situations is "yes, they are plausible" then the resolution is satisfied.

>> "He has totally scrapped the implications of the word "equally"."

Q: Is creationism plausible?
A: Yes (well... lots of people think it is).

Q. Are these three theories plausible?
A: Yes.

How are these two answers not equal?

>> "This means that if I prove that either one, either creationism or seeded life, is inviable, then I win the round."

In a bizarre twist, it seems I will be arguing FOR creationism.

******************************************

1. On the provability of the resolution.

How does one prove something that is in principle unprovable? It's like a debate about the existence of God - neither side is provable. The result of the debate is the readers' interpretation of whether or not the scenarios we present are plausible.

2. Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor does not apply to creationism. In fact, from a Creationist standpoint, evolution fails Occam's Razor because it introduces many extra variables when the only one needed is God. And since theistic evolution, deism, and intelligent design are excluded from this debate - see the end of the first round - Occam's Razor has nothing to apply TO on the "God" side of the debate. The better logical coherence of seeded life is offset by the fact that it IS susceptible to Occam's Razor, and thus, my opponent's argument on that point is balanced.

3/4. Faith vs. Logic & The Miracles of God.

My opponent states that it is a "contradiction to believe God is logical", yet insists on applying logic to the miracles of this God. How convenient for him. Since my opponent has conceded that God cannot be a logically verifiable entity, he can make no further arguments trying to verify God's existence one way or the other via logic. His arguments in the fourth point are red herrings given his argument in the third point. In fact, he says that the actions of God are "greater, above, and beyond logic." However, this clearly does not indicate that they are implausible, given that God exists.

5. On Omnipotence.

My opponent has a strange notion of omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean you can break the confines of logic. The omnipotence paradox is a weak argument that is based on a misunderstanding of a contradiction of terms. Since omnipotence is a prerequisite for considering the puzzle, it is a contradiction to be able to make the impossibly heavy stone because the stone logically cannot exist. Consider another possibility. Even an omnipotent being cannot make a four-sided triangle. This is the same as saying that God could not make a four-sided three-sided figure. The creation of these objects is where the contradiction lies, not in the premise that God is omnipotent. Furthermore, I have provided no definition of God that states that he is omnipotent

**********************************

Readers, one thing is clear. All these situations have different probabilities of occurring. However, they are also all PLAUSIBLE. My opponent states that God's existence cannot be logically verified, and thus the truth value remains in question. In other words, it could be true, but it could also be false. Therefore, God's existence, and by extension, creationism remains PLAUSIBLE, while not very PROBABLE.

So these are the four theories on offer:

1. Creationism.

Is it plausible? YES.
My "proof"? My opponent has conceded that this scenario is not logically verifiable. Thus, there can be no proof against it, and conversely no proof for it. However, this does NOT mean the truth value of it defaults to false. Nor does it mean it defaults to true. However, since both truth values are possible, both are PLAUSIBLE as well.

2. Meteorite-Seeded Life.

Is it plausible? YES
My proof? It is not logically incoherent. Thus it is possible, and therefore PLAUSIBLE.

3. Bacteria in Xorgblag Urine.

Is it plausible? YES.
My proof? It is not logically incoherent, though unusual and quite amusing. Thus it is possible, and therefore PLAUSIBLE.

4. Alien Visitors Seeding Life

Is it plausible? YES.
My proof? It is not logically incoherent. Thus it is possible, and therefore PLAUSIBLE.

******************************

Ladies and gentlemen, the cases are above - the answer is clear.

AFFIRMED.
yesikant

Con

My opponent is a great debater. However, at least for this round, he seems a bit confused.

He has failed to prove the topic because of his confusion: he conceeds and openly accepts points that destroy any possibility of the topics validity.

First of all, let me reiterate the burdens. My opponent has to prove that both creationism and seeded life are plausible. Thus, if I prove that at least creationism is not plausible, then the topic is false.

My opponent's confusion is not readily evident, however the following quote makes it clear. He mixes up the Con burden with the Pro burden and... it goes downhill from there. He says: "Since [the Con] has conceded that God cannot be a logically verifiable entity, [the Con] can make no further arguments trying to verify God's existence one way or the other via logic."

He seems to think that it is MY burden to prove that God is verifiable. Sorry, but that is light years away from the truth. Remember that I argued that "creationism is illogical if God is illogical". Disproof of God is disproof of the topic because Creationism stems from God (and my opponent must prove Creationism to win). By accepting that God is illogical, he accepts that Creationism (since it stems from God), is also illogical.

This confusion is all I need to win the round. He has openly accepted a disproof of Creationism which means it is not plausible.

However, regardless, he is also nonresponsive to my 3rd argument. It said that "Logic is based on proofs. Faith is based on the lack of proof. Hence, if the existence of God could be proven, faith would be eliminated. Logic and faith are thus opposing. It would be a contradiction to believe God is logical."

My opponent says this argument is false "because I insist [elsewhere] on applying logic to God". That's not true, I never did that anywhere. He seems to be referring to my fourth argument, however that was a reason why logic CANNOT be applied to the alleged acts God. There is no contradiction.

Thus, Creationism is faith. Faith is opposed to logic. Faith is not logical and thus not plausible.

Thus, the decision is clear: my opponent must prove Creationisms plausibility to win the round. However, he openly accepts and concedes the biggest disproofs of its plausibility.

So, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Yesikant,

Apparently you only read the first sentence of my comment. I tried to elaborate as much as I could on what I considered good vs. bad arguments, but elaboration on specifics does not mean others do not exist. I don't believe you disproved his topic, and that is why I voted how I voted. I explained in my comment why I didn't feel you disproved his topic.
Posted by yesikant 8 years ago
yesikant
@Mangani
You said you "believe Con failed to attack the points made by Pro regarding Creationism- points that he brought up himself"
Why do I have to win all the points I bring up? My burden is not to be flawless, but to disprove the topic. So long as I win ONE disproof, that constitutes a... disproof of the topic. I thought my opponent did a good job responding to the others, so I did not respond to them. If I had clarified that point (that I do not need to win all my disproofs) would that have won your ballot?
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
This was a very difficult debate to judge, and I commend both debaters for their rhetorical prowess.

Conduct: Tie
S&G: Tie

Arguments: Pro
I believe Con failed to attack the points made by Pro regarding Creationism- points that he brought up himself. Con failed to disprove the plausibility of the existence of God, and by extension the plausibility of Creationism, which was his aim. Because Pro's resolution said "theories" of Creationism, and presented 3, it would have been easier for Con to argue against two of those three definitions, as similar options were mentioned for the alternative. The alternative, having more options for possibility, would then be more plausible- something Con touched on per Pro's admittance, but failed to follow up on. I think Con got stuck on trying to disprove the existence of God through logic, and in concentrating on this he failed to fully address Pro's argument.

Sources: Pro
Only one source was presented and it was by Pro.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Sorry. You managed to read it. But i have my days.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
>I believe that super natral being exist. Look into mystiors of UFO's Check out Chuck Missler. Other life from other Dymentions. In life i mean spirtal beings.

LEARN 2 SPELL
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
I believe that super natral being exist. Look into mystiors of UFO's Check out Chuck Missler. Other life from other Dymentions. In life i mean spirtal beings.

"Theistic Evolution. Intelligent Design. Hmmm....."Dont figure out the beginning of evolution the whole theory...well is pretty much gone.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
meh - a lot of people vote for themselves, but not in all categories... I usually leave a tie in conduct, spelling/grammar, and sources unless it's really clear either way...
Posted by yesikant 8 years ago
yesikant
Hah, well... I'm pretty sure just about everybody does that.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "All this alian planting life of Earth only moves the problem else where. All you are doing is adding on time."

Theistic Evolution. Intelligent Design. Hmmm.....

>> "And no proof of alians on anyother planet equally intelligent or more intelligent than us human beings"

No proof of God either.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
All this alian planting life of Earth only moves the problem else where. All you are doing is adding on time. There is no proof of alians ever existing of earth before humans. And no proof of alians on anyother planet equally intelligent or more intelligent than us human beings. Your also forgetting that God is a spirit, God isn't a phyisical being. But a supernatral being.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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 Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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 
Vote Placed by robert.fischer 8 years ago
robert.fischer
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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 HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
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 
Vote Placed by johnnyjohnsmithsmith 8 years ago
johnnyjohnsmithsmith
JustCallMeTarzanyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13