The Instigator
Tidus
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points

The pyramids are a product of intelligent design

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 8 votes the winner is...
Tidus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,408 times Debate No: 20211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (8)

 

Tidus

Con

The topic is as follows: The Egyptian pyramids are a product of intelligent design

Pro will argue that the pyramids were designed and created by people or otherwise in an intelligent, conscious way

I will be rejecting the notion that any intelligence was involved with the creation of the pyramids. I believe that the pyramids evolved into their current form over thousands of years, without the help of any intelligent, conscious beings at all.
THEBOMB

Pro

Alright, I accept this debate. Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Tidus

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

Today I will be arguing that we have no reason to believe that the pyramids in Egypt came about via intelligent design.

That is to say, that nobody, including the ancient Egyptians or UFOs, made the pyramids. Rather, the Pyramids came about via natural processes, evolving over thousands of years from clumps of sand into the current forms they are today.

Here are three points I would like to bring up showing why we should not conclude that the pyramids were made with any intelligence:

1. The only thing we know about ancient Egypt are unreliable texts. We have no conclusive, scientific evidence to suggest that this civilization was capable of creating the pyramids or that they did in fact create them.

Rather, it seems much more logical that the ancient Egyptians simply FOUND the pyramids in their current state and attributed them to a false god, and then decided to build their civilization around the pyramids.

2. Just because something has the APPEARANCE of design, does not mean it was designed. Take for example the Earth, or the human body, which, like the Pyramids, APPEAR to be wonderfully designed by a Creator. Simply because they APPEAR designed however does not mean that science cannot come up with an alternate explanation to show how they got here WITHOUT design. It is more logical and rational and likely that these "designs" are simply products of thousands and thousands of years of evolution.

Proponents of "intelligent design" of the Pyramids have been around for centuries- some believe the Egyptians made the pyramids using slaves, others think that alien life forms arrived on earth and helped build them, along with a multitude of other theories. If you were to believe that they were "intelligently designed" you'd then have to choose between the thousands of competing schools of thought and decide which is the "one true theory" which they ALL claim to be.

3. We see examples of pyramids forming in nature

Science has proven in many ways that the pyramids are a product of evolution over thousands of years and not intelligent design.

Perhaps the most striking proof is the pyramids on Mars.

On Mars, pyramids have formed purely from natural causes, see the photo of the "D&M Pyramid" in the Mars region of Cydonia Mensae at the bottom of Wikipedia article on Cydonia:(1)

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

This pyramid on Mars is known as the "D & M pyramid". Of course, many "intelligent design" theorists have jumped on board and claimed that this pyramid was also made with intelligent design, just like the ones here on earth. This of course is nothing but non-scientific rambling. Science has proven that the pyramids can come about by chance, and this is confirmed with the pyramids we see formed by chance on Mars.

Thus, there is no reason to jump to the fantasy conclusion that the pyramids were made by intelligent design.
THEBOMB

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent (and apologize for the delay) and hope we have an intelligent debate.

I have a single contention as to why the pyramids must have been designed and built by an intelligent creator.

The pyramids were utilized by the ancient Egyptians as a burial place for their monarchs, the pharaohs. Utilizing bobby traps, false passages within the pyramids, and a hard to find entrance they attempted to protect the body of their passed monarch.

Now onto my first contention.

1) The design of the pyramids MUST have been designed by an intelligent being.

The basic layout of Egyptians pyramids is like this: http://www.google.com...

As you can see, it is a quite simple design, passageways leading from the entrance to the underground and up to where the queen and king's body would be. What is not shown is that the passageways throughout the entire complex are unnaturally smooth there are no "jagged edges" poking out. Hieroglyphs line the walls. The great chambers are massive (depending on the pyramid, who the ruler was) columns line the inside of it. Nothing in nature is formed with smooth passageways, hieroglyphs, therefore, an intelligent being must have been part of the process at some point, in order to build these great chambers, smooth out the passageways, and design these hieroglyphs.
Debate Round No. 2
Tidus

Con

My opposition has raised an interesting point, regarding the fact that inside the pyramids there are halls and hieroglyphs which appear to be of human origin.

What my opponent fails to show however, is how these things suggest that the pyramids themselves were in-fact made by the Egyptians

As I've stated, science has shown us that the pyramids formed through evolution, AFTER WHICH the Egyptians showed up, discovered the pyramids and attributed them to some sort of intelligent designer. They then proceeded to build their civilization around the pyramids.

The Egyptians most likely dug these tunnels into the pyramids.The fact that the Egyptians added these tunnels however does nothing to suggest that the pyramids themselves were intelligently made.

Indeed, we do similar things today: Take a look at this image of a tunnel going through a mountainside. (1)

(1) http://photos.igougo.com...

Clearly the tunnel in this photo is man-made. So should we then assume that the mountain above it is also man-made? No, we all know that the tunnel is man-made but the mountain got there via natural evolutionary processes- the dirt and earth simply took that formation over thousands of years, before man came along and built a tunnel through it.

This is the same with the Egyptians pyramids, which were standing there for thousands of years before the Egyptians arrived and discovered them, then built tunnels into them.

Some people contend that a "pyramid cannot evolve because it does not reproduce". These people are confusing the general term "evolution" with the more specific term "biological evolution". Something does not have be alive or have the ability to reproduce to "evolve". If it did, life would never have arrived in the first place. After the big bang, our whole solar system "evolved", including our planets. Is earth "alive"? Does it have the ability to re-produce? No, but it's FORM has evolved over time based on the environment, just like the mountains, valleys and pyramids.

Most people fall into the trap of seeing what APPEARS to be design in the pyramids, and then thinking "Well it's very well designed, so there was probably a designer."

This kind of thinking, however, is unscientific and illogical. Then they make the connection between "Designer" and "Egyptians" based on some ancient texts that cannot be verified by science.

The Egyptians also believed that the sun was a god and helped grow their crops... Do you believe that too? As you can see, the Egyptians were nothing more then unscientific, desert-dwelling superstitious primitives.

You'll notice that people who believe in the intelligent design of the pyramids have no interest in learning. They are happy to sit on their easy answer "The Egyptians did it".

They believe they can fill any gaps in scientific knowledge on this issue with "The Egyptians did it". When you explain to them that science has a perfectly good explanation for how a pyramid can come about by evolution, they respond with "The Egyptians did it." You can't explain any logic to them because they have already decided that "The Egyptians did it" and they are not open to any other possibilities. It's the pinnacle of closed mindedness.

Basically, they are blinded by their faith that the Egyptian's built the pyramids... And all because some ancient texts say that they did, and because they "look designed".

To say that the pyramids are "well designed" is laughable. They are crumbling apart. (2)

(2) http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com...

As you can see in that photo, the pyramids are crumbing and becoming worn out, as they enter the next phase of their evolution.

I think it's safe to say that my opponent, while having good intentions, cannot overcome the scientific onus to prove that the pyramids were designed.

Anyone who believes they were intelligently designed must provide infallible scientific proof that their belief is true, while also proving scientific proof that all other theories (such as the theory of Pyramid Evolution) is false. This proof must be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals if it wants to be taken seriously.

In conclusion, I have proven that pyramids can form by chance (as seen by the pyramids which have appeared on mars) and explained why intelligent design believers believe what they do (they make the logical mistake of seeing design and ASSUMING designer when science has other, better explanations).

In my relentless quest to prove believers wrong, I will continue to heckle them, because making fun of people is the best way to show them how confident I am in my theory.

I am also going to be contacting members of the government to tell them CUT ALL FUNDING to any groups doing "Egyptian study" expeditions in Egypt, as well as CUTTING ALL FUNDING for any universities teaching that the Egyptians were made with intelligent design.

Why should my tax dollars be used to fund their non-sense beliefs? They are teaching people false lies based on ancient fairy tales, and I won't stand for it.

Science has put an end to silly ideas such as "things that look designed probably had a designer."

I will continue in my quest to destroy this scientifically blasphemous notion that the pyramids were created with any intelligence. We need to end the foolishness so TRUE reason can prevail.

I thank my opponent for a respectful debate and look forward to reading his conclusion!
THEBOMB

Pro

I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate and I will continue as such.

To begin my opponent starts by stating, that all we know about ancient Egypt are unreliable texts. He states that, "we have no conclusive, scientific evidence to suggest that this civilization was capable of creating the pyramids" then he goes on to state "it seems MUCH MORE logical that the ancient Egyptians simply FOUND the pyramids". My opponent is suggesting that he does not have any conclusive logic behind his assertions. While this scientific evidence may not be conclusive, he is not being conclusive with his theory.

My opponent is only providing one more "true theory" which "thousands of competing schools of thought...claim to be." He has not backed up why aliens could not have created the pyramids or why a God could not have created the pyramids. He is only providing an alternate explanation which may or may not be true.

Furthermore, my opponent has provided no empirical evidence to show that pyramids like the ones we see in Egypt and made out of the same material, limestone (which was later stolen) on the outside and granite surrounding the tunnels and the floors, are seen in any country on earth other than Egypt. Is my opponent suggesting this kind of evolution is limited to one country? The same conditions can be found in other places on earth and they do not have pyramids. Mars cannot be used as an example of this as natural conditions on Mars are not at all similar to conditions on Earth, it is a different planet.

To sum up, let's say my opponent is completely correct: the pyramids formed through evolution in a giant pyramid and then the "unscientific, desert-dwelling superstitious primitives", Egyptians, came along and decided to dig into the pyramids and create the tunnels and hieroglyphs. This still means that the Egyptians were part of the design process to create the pyramids we know today. Therefore, part of the pyramids were a product of intelligent design. The "pyramids themselves" encompasses the entire pyramid, inside and out, the inside of the pyramid is still part of the pyramid. Part of the pyramid was man-made and product of intelligent design. My opponent states that he "will be rejecting the notion that any intelligence was involved with the creation of the pyramids" it is quite obvious that intelligence went into creating at least part of the pyramids.

So here's what we know:

1. It is inconclusive that the Egyptian's created the entire pyramid.
2. It is inconclusive that evolution formed the entire pyramids.
3. Both my opponent and I agree that the Egyptians created part of the pyramid (tunnels, hieroglyphs, etc.)
4. Intelligence went into designing portions of the pyramids.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
In the comments I often bring up issues that did not arise in the debate, but I don't use those issues as reasons for voting on the debate. My main purpose is for people interested in the subject to better understand it. Some people may look up the debate for reference, and they would be especially interested in what was missed. In this debate, the fact that pyramids are designed with internal structure is relevant to understanding why they could not be natural but it didn't enter into the debate and I didn't use it in evaluating the debate.

There was no evidence offered in the debate that "pyramids" on Mars were comparable to the ones in Egypt. The forms are not remotely similar and were not claimed to be.

There is something called "The Devil's Post Pile" that looks man made (or devil man), but is actually natural. It's a bunch of nearly identical hexagonal stone posts packed together. Again, the theory of how it occurred naturally distinguishes it as natural.

In judging debates there is a question of how much knowledge a judge should bring to the debate. Suppose the resolution is "X is true." Pro offers A, B, and C as proof of X. Suppose A and B turn out to be incorrect proofs, but C is a correct proof and I happen to know it. Con denies all the proof, saying "that doesn't prove it." Pro probably doesn't know that A and B are wrong and C is right. So who wins the debate? I say Pro wins, because he cited the correct proof even if he didn't know what was correct and what was incorrect. My view on that situation is controversial.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I meet your satire and raise you a God of the gaps.

So we know the pyramids were intelligent designed but not by those primitive unreliable Egyptians ? Well it must be God, cause if we don't know why something exists it must be God.

God created the pyramids.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
@Roy,
I believe Tidus put forward a great case for the natural generation of the pyramids. He cited the Pyramids on Mars and all that its generation entails.

It went largely unrefuted by the opponent.
Posted by dipnt 5 years ago
dipnt
Tidus did an incredible parody of the unscientific, nonsense arguments of evolutionists against intelligent design. A powerful presentation.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I find it amusing that an atheist would not find a limited deduction argument based on negative premises against intelligent design valid.

Perhaps it will cause some soul searching on what is valid and rational.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
Royal, Roy isn't votebombing. Look at his RFD:

"A ridiculous debate. Con needed to show a plausible mechanism by which pyramids could have evolved naturally, and he did not even attempt to do so. Is this intended to be a poll on Creationism? I don't get it. Wasting readers time with a non-debate is a conduct violation."

Now, I don't agree with his evaluation, but that's not the point. He does not think Con fulfilled his burden of proof, and he thinks that making a parody debate is bad form. Complete explanation of his vote. He did not vote on his views of the pyramids, he didn't make any arguments for the debates; his was a perfectly fair vote.

In the comments, Roy usually brings up related topics; things that could have been discussed in the debate, but weren't. Oftentimes, his comments are the only redeeming factor to a "debate" where the opponents rehash tired arguments without adding a morsel of original thinking. He isn't adding arguments to be voted on; he is bringing up things to be thought about.

Roy isn't a votebomber. I may not agree with him on a lot of things, but he is fair.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
See, RoyLatham did it AGAIN. Please call him a votebomber, Chrysippus.
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
It is clear that the pyramids were made by stacking blocks on top of each other. Just look at this picture:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com...
The outer layer has crumbled, and it is clear that there are blocks underneath.
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
It is clear that the pyramids were made by stacking blocks on top of each other. Just look at this picture:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com...
The outer layer has crumbled, and it is clear that there are blocks underneath.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pyramids are built at angles above the angle of repose, the slope of a pile of sand. That means that they would fall into a heap unless there is an internal structure. Hence the pyramid was invented. One source attributes the invention to Imhotep.

I'm not sure what the point of the debate was. To justify a natural origin, Con would have to show a mechanism by which it happened, and he didn't even try to do that. It's not a prima facie case. Maybe it's supposed to be a poll on Creationism.

There is an interesting real parallel. In Mexico there is a place where large (> 1m) stone spheres lie on the ground. The sphere were attributed to the Mayans, but people wondered how they could have fabricated such good near-perfect spheres. It turns out they were formed as droplets in a mass of molten lava in which the hard material of the spheres precipitated first. The softer matrix eroded away, leaving the spheres. They were in fact natural. The key is understanding the mechanism.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: It should have been a simple debate for Pro. All he had to do was to ignore Con's digressions and list evidence that 'Egyptians did it'. He only came up with was 'hieroglyphs' and 'tunnels' - both of which were conveniently refuted. 4:1 to Pro. The score includes a bonus point to Pro for excellent parody.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to put more time and energy into the debate thus the Conduct point however Pro made arguments pointing to evidence showing that pyramids were created by humans.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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: A ridiculous debate. Con needed to show a plausible mechanism by which pyramids could have evolved naturally, and he did not even attempt to do so. Is this intended to be a poll on Creationism? I don't get it. Wasting readers time with a non-debate is a conduct violation.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was very poor and could have been easily refuted, but it was not. I am thus forced to vote for Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: although his arguments where presented late they where logical and fact based. They where stronger as well. But I give a point to con as he provided arguments earlier.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point aginst Pro for final round semantic change. It did nothing to detract however. Con got sources and argument.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
TidusTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Final argument was what won it, but presenting it that late in the debate means -1 cnoduct.