The Instigator
zach12
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Colucci
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points

The complexity of the human eye proves intelligent design

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,752 times Debate No: 7469
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (8)

 

zach12

Con

I am against the above resolution.

Good luck
Colucci

Pro

The complexity of the human eye doesn't alone prove Intelligent Design but it does shows how impossible it is for its creation to be from the result of evolution.
The chance that evolution lead to the creation of the complex world we live in is impossible. The only reason that it is still accepted by people is because the scientists that try to prove it are telling things to be fact that are just guesses or what they assume to be true without any proof of it and they justify this by saying well there cant be a God so "so and so" must be true. Evolution presupposes that there is no God before they have even proven it, this greatly hinders the whole theory of being reliable and true. Evolution at its core is just the ignorance of man trying to play God. Also Evolution is so contorted and twisted from what it used to be, that Charles Darwin himself would not even recognize it. This is because all of Darwin's natural selection theories were disproved and Evolution is just making wild jumps and leaps of faith (it is a little ironic that evolutionists have faith) that are again guesses of what happened. Charles Darwin is no longer the father of evolution because modern day evolution can not include the beliefs of its earlier theories. many extremely intelligent professors have been and still are kicked out of Universities for questioning some of its teachings. Evolution is in an extremely delicate state right now because its falsities are being exposed little by little and events such as kicking out professors are all defense mechanisms for protecting a giant lie, itself. Evolution in a way is just a conspiracy.
Debate Round No. 1
zach12

Con

I have won this debate because my opponent concedes my side of the argument in the very first sentence of his first post. However I will still negate his few, ignorance-based assertions.

First I will describe how an eye could evolve and prove that it is not irreducibly complex.

We will start in the Pre-Cambrian. Imagine you are a photosynthetic, eyeless, unicellular organism swimming around in the tide pool, hoping you are lucky enough to be in direct sunlight. Then, in some future generation, a mutation in a single one of these organism results in a little spot that can crudely detect light. This eye couldn't really "see" it could merely tell the organism when light is present. But this simple mutation is enormously helpful to the organism. It could sense day and night, thus knowing when to hide. It could know that it is underneath and tree and not getting any sunlight. Then it could move into sunlight. A sudden change from light to dark could signal a safe hiding spot such as a cave, out of the sun's reach. The organisms with the eyespot would more easily survive and have offspring. The flux of these organisms could out-compete the eye-spotless organisms and drive them to extinction. Then the eye would go through a phase of gradual changes. A slightly curved eyespot would be better able to detect direction and depth. Then a "pinhole" eyespot would further refine this. Then a transparent humor and retina could develop, furthering that specific organism better rate of survival (e.g. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" mantra). Then finally a lens could develop and eventually an iris and cornea. In the same way that competition among business drives innovation, competition between species would promote the innovation of the eye.

||| >>> the chance that evolution [can] lead to the creation of the complex world we live in is impossible. <<< |||

My opponent first says there is a chance that evolution could lead to a complex world but then says it is impossible for this to happen. He is contradicting himself. Nevertheless I will still show him it is very possible for evolution to lead to complex life starting with the origin of life.

It is estimated that there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with about 1-30 billion planets each. Even if we take the low end of the estimate concerning how many planets per galaxy we have around 100 billion billion planets in the Universe. Further, it has been estimated that only around 1 in a billion of those planets meet all the criteria to be able to support life (4000 to 7000 kelvin star, stable habitable zone, low stellar variation, high metallicity, mass, atmosphere, orbit, and rotation, geochemistry, "Good Jupiter" protector planets, and possibly micro-environments etc.) This still leaves us with 100 to 3000 billion planets ABLE to support life.

As my opponent has said, it is improbable that life will ever originate on a planet. But improbability does not equate to impossibility. (See Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable" The thing is, it only has to happen once, and then your everyday run-of-the-mill evolutionary adaptation can occur. So, as I was saying, we have these 100- 3000 billion planets that are potentially habitable and life must originate on only one of these, possibly by a poorly translating nucleic acid, such as RNA, in combo with photosynthesis. Even if this probability is small, say once again 1 in a billion (there is currently no way of knowing the correct probability but I suspect it is more common than this.) then we still have 100 to 3000 other planets containing life. From there, we leave it up to the cumulative powers of evolution infused with a little luck to overcome the problem of sentience and eukaryotic cells, it will inevitably evolve into organisms equally suited to their environment as the organisms on Earth are suited to theirs. This, in all possibility, could easily lead to evolution of an Eye.

||| >>> Evolution presupposes that there is no God before they have even proven it, this greatly hinders the whole theory of being reliable and true <<< |||

There are a lot of things wrong with this statement.

1. Most proponents of evolution do not see it as contradictory with religion.
2. God can not realistically be disproved. He can merely de deduced as "highly improbable"
3. Read "The God Delusion"
4. Whether or not God exists would have no bearing on whether a natural process takes place

Readers, you can read my opponent's argument and see many of the fallacies and I do not wish to waste my character count and my time disproving the ridiculous. I will if he presses them but some questions do not deign an answer, such as "Why are unicorns hollow?"

I will now advance another reason Intelligent Design (ID) is not true.

You would expect an omniscient, omnipotent (strange, as they seem to be mutually exclusive, but I will not question the unquestionable) Creator to create things that are 100% efficient with no flaws (optimal). This is not the case in the real world. Evidence of "unintelligent" design is all around us. (I don't know why my opponent thinks evolution is the only alternative to ID, proving unintelligent design would still negate the resolution) The wiring of the photoreceptors in the eye is poorly designed and Richard Dawkins, among others, has proposed that it is wired backwards.

Other examples include:

1. Unused muscle in the ear that some can use to an extent but have no other purpose
2. The ability of a human egg cell to implant on the fallopian tube, causing an ectopic pregnancy which is often fatal to the woman.
3. Male Nipples
4. The barely used plantaris muscles in the foot, whom some people lack and experience no problems.
5. Wings in flightless birds (ostriches. I am aware that penguins are flightless but use their wings to swim)
6. The human appendix
7. Inability for humans to synthesize their own vitamin C as opposed to other animals and plants because of a defective gene

I could go on and on but anyone with access to a computer can google the plentitude of other examples.

Conclusion
1. My opponent has failed to prove intelligent design
2. The world was either made by a non-omniscient (unintelligent designer) Being, or is a result of chance and natural selection

> Sources <

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Selfish Gene (all of these are by Richard Dawkins)
God, the failed hypothesis: How Science Shows God does not exist (Victor J. Stenger)
Colucci

Pro

Colucci forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
zach12

Con

Since my opponent is in hibernation, my points go un-refuted.

With this opportunity I will negate the other, ranting arguments offered up by my opponent.

|| >>> The only reason that it [evolution] is still accepted by people is because the scientists that try to prove it are telling things to be fact that are just guesses or what they assume to be true without any proof of it and they justify this by saying well there cant be a God so "so and so" must be true. <<< ||
This is complete nonsense but I must first point out to my opponent that religion is based on assumptions and beliefs by its very definition.

Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (dictionary.com)

|| >>> Also Evolution is so contorted and twisted from what it used to be, that Charles Darwin himself would not even recognize it <<< ||

It is still based on the same idea; just more evidence has come available. I think Darwin would be happy at how far we have come but frustrated that people refuse to accept it without trying to get a basic understanding first.

|| >>> many extremely intelligent professors have been and still are kicked out of Universities for questioning some of its teachings <<< ||

What the hell are you talking about?
Colucci

Pro

Colucci forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"I think its just so amusing that Kleptin, Zach 12, and TheSkeptic are the ignorant atheists that I was talking about *sighs*. Oh my this is just ever so amusing *sighs*."

You know what's amusing? How you shrug us off as ignorant atheists, when at the same time you don't even refute my argument. I told you, exaptation, now I await your answer. Because once you do even a LITTLE research on it, you will realize it fully explains your arguments pertaining to "irreducible complexity".

Ignorant atheists? Nay, it's you who is the ignorant Christian.
Posted by 1337Hal 7 years ago
1337Hal
"Is the person on the right of PRO's picture a chick?"

F*cking harsh, dude. Almost as harsh as making me out to be an April Fool the other day. ;)
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Is the person on the right of PRO's picture a chick?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Why does PRO have votes?
Posted by Colucci 7 years ago
Colucci
At what point in these comments did I say I won, and I don't really care whether or not I have won or lost. This is just a website and some of the people on here debating get way to into their arguments. I signed up for this because my brother does it and t seemed like fun, but now I have lost interest in this debate and I don't feel obligated to go out of my way to write you back. None of the people you debate against on this website matter, so I think it is kind of pointless to argue like it is the end of the world.
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
regardless of what you believed, you still did not debate. I debated, therefore, I won.
Posted by Colucci 7 years ago
Colucci
Wow! These are the exact reactions I expected to see from atheists who are anti-I.D. It's all just constant mockery and deep blind hate that is coming from your mouth. many of you never actually look at the truth in what I'm saying rather you look for reasons not to believe it. Whether or not u realize it there is a GOD, He gave us the BIBLE (which has been undistorted, all modern Bibles can be translated back into the original Greek very easily), and once you become a Christian you will realize that what you believe is not a blind faith, but it is the only ultimate truth in the whole world. The Bible when looked at through Christian eyes can not be doubted by man for its words breath the insurmountable truth of GOD.
Posted by dragonfire1414 7 years ago
dragonfire1414
And after reading the rest of the comments, i have just one thing to say to Colucci. "SHUT UP"
Posted by dragonfire1414 7 years ago
dragonfire1414
Colucci, maybe you should debate more in the rounds, instead of posting 20 videos in the comments. All points went to CON.
Posted by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
don't have videos argue for you, post your own arguments
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
zach12ColucciTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
zach12ColucciTied
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 dragonfire1414 7 years ago
dragonfire1414
zach12ColucciTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
zach12ColucciTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by JP 7 years ago
JP
zach12ColucciTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Colucci 7 years ago
Colucci
zach12ColucciTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
zach12ColucciTied
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 zach12 7 years ago
zach12
zach12ColucciTied
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