The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

creation is the only logical explanation for the origin of life.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 802 times Debate No: 25060
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




The only logical explantion for the origin of life is intelligent design. It is my duty to present the logical facts and expose the folly and delusion of atheism.


1. The only explanation to life being via ID can not empirically and scientifically establish, validate, or rule out any other imaginable possibilities of the origins of life to which includes self generation by a self-generating system, magical world that just simply pops things into existence, or even accidental table time dinner fart of some higher dimensional being.. So the first thing we need to see from the Pro argument is verification along with a scientific peer reviewed journals to which establishes with absolute certainty, and without assumptions or assertions that life could not have come from any other means or processes.

2. The Pro argument must establish the exact processes, methods, mechanisms to which were used in ID.

3. I will ask this poster to directly answer if they think this supposed entity is alive or dead by a yes or no answer.

4. If the pro argument states his entity is dead, then we can ask how a dead inanimate and lifeless entity could create life "Intelligently". Hence, how would a dead lifeless rock intelligently design life? If the pro argument claims this entity is a living entity, we can than ask how does one create that which one's self requires to exist and be alive into existence? Hence if life can only come from ID then you have an infinite regress problem that is not solvable and the argument becomes a self-refutation to which invalidates the argument by consequence of the nature of the argument. That problem then establishes the question if life needs a cause, and what cause is needed to establish life. Point 5 will go over this issue by addressing life and what is required to support a conscious state and intelligent functionality through the addressing of information science and theory:

5. Consciousness and intelligent functionality can not exist without cause. Cognitive systems are highly complex systems that require the same system life requires to exist, function, and be emergent properties of existence itself. These are systems with feedback to which involve the inertia of energy/information within the system that must be capable of self-interference and feedback in order to have something as basic as a reactionary system much less a cognitive system. These systems can not be ID created as the process of creation directly rely on these systems to function and even exist. And this goes into information science and theory and how it relates to existence being a self-generating system capable of producing life, and conscious life such as ourselves. We can demonstrate true origins and causality of both life and conscious life with a single question:

What is ID, GOD, or Life without existence?

Well, non-existent! Here we establish existence itself as the totality of causality, as every force to cause, as the foundation of every system, the necessity of function and operation of life, and even conscious life. This system is as a whole, a self-generating informational system that can interfere with itself and have feedback in the system to support reactionary systems, and higher complex living and living cognitive systems. And it only takes understanding information science and theory. Please reference:




* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization

* The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin.

* The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself.
It's here where we establish Energy and information as two sides of the same coin as both substance and value. It's also here where we can establish the fundamental governing rules in such a quantized informational system to which are a fundamental and inherent part of both energy and information:

There are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback:


These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything is made of energy to which includes energy itself. Thus Energy =/= information as both substance and value. Thus the 3 fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:

Mathematical equation
Piece of information
Electric Charge
Point of view
Or the relativity of anything above

This also gives us the ABC's:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

And finally:

E = Existence = Energy = information = force = cause = emergent properties = you, me, the stars, and everything else. Or:

E = Existence
E = Energy
E = Everywhere
E = Emergence or Emerging properties
E = MC^2
E = Evolution
E = Everything
E = Everyone
E = Me to

E = easy to understand without having to go into Everything E can do, or how E does Everything it can do. E is thus the only Established and Empirically supported truth we have thus far. E Enables us to do the things we do, and be who we are. And without E there is nothing, no Existence, no me, no you, not anything. And well, it's good to know that E exists simply because nothing can't. It's good to know that E can neither be created nor destroyed. E is even every letter in the alphabet since it is the Energy that makes up the very Essence of Every letter.

E Explains itself and is self-Explanatory. The video linked, as evidence, demonstrates every aspect discussed above.

Debate Round No. 1


warrior_for_truth forfeited this round.


Puff Puff Pass...? Any chance of an engagement here?
Debate Round No. 2


warrior_for_truth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My apologies for taking so long to reply. I have been lazy recently.

From what I have read so far, my opponent hasn't given us any good reason against creation. My argument will be based on what makes the most logical sense. I will present my case and wait to see if my opponent can refute my case using logic and reason.

Either the universe was created by an intelligent designer who has a puropse for our existence, or the universe is the result of a mindless process--natural selection. Which one is true? I believe the only logical answer is creation. No doubt the atheist will say that there is no evidence of creation, which I find absurd. But why is it absurd? If an atheist is walking along the beach and he sees a sand castle, instantly he knows that somebody designed it. He knows without a doubt that intelligence is behind the sand castle. He would never accept the possibility that the sand castle was the result of nature, that over the course of a few years the wind, sand, and sea, miraculously formed the sand castle. His common sense would never allow him to believe such foolishness. Yet he can look at the universe and proudly deny a Creator.

Everything we see either comes from design or something else. Even a rock has to come from something. It doesn't just come out of thin air. Every object that exists always comes from something else. Let's assume, as many scientists do, that before the big bang nothing existed. How could something as big and awesome as the universe come out of nothing? Usually the atheist will deny believing that something can come from nothing, because it is intellectually embarrassing, but ultimately that is what they believe. They just have to whitewash it to reduce the embarrassment. Scientists have never observed an object coming from nothing, nor have they ever witnessed information coming from non-intelligence. But anyone who applies the same standards to the universe will get accused of being stupid and irrational. This is pure arrogance and hypocrisy. What more proof of creation do you need than to have the universe and life on earth all around you? If the atheist is going to deny creation, he has to justify his position with evidence. Providing evidence is not something atheists are comfortable with, but until the atheist provides solid evidence for his beliefs, I think we can safely say that creation is the only logical explanation.




TheJackel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by warrior_for_truth 4 years ago
I said before the debate that I would argue why creation is more logical than non-creation. I made this perfectly clear. I didn't say I was going to spend time refuting the weak arguments that atheists make. My goal was to present a case why creation makes the most sense, not spend my time responding to the claims of atheists. It seems that my opponent didn't even bother to listen to what I said before the debate even started. Disappointing!
Posted by TheJackel 4 years ago
Warrior can't seem to address any of my first round post on a point by point basis to which is usually expected in a formal debate. He resorted to "I believe" in the end, and hasn't considered anything I had stated before making his reply.. He claim it doesn't make much sense, but fails to address what he thinks doesn't make much sense.. No refutation was given, and no answering of the questions asked, or the fulfilling of requested proof was given for his claims. Thus we can see why he goes from asserting it is the only logical to just I believe it must be based on X parroted argument without demonstration or validation... Thus my opponent was unable to substantiate his claim..
Posted by warrior_for_truth 4 years ago
My opponent never gave any good arguments against creation. He used meaningless arguments that didn't make much sense. Hopefully we can have another debate in the future.
Posted by warrior_for_truth 4 years ago
My opponent never gave any good arguments against creation. He used meaningless arguments that didn't make much sense. Hopefully we can have another debate in the future.
Posted by TheJackel 4 years ago
Totally forgot about this.. Essentially the other side of the debate changed his argument from assertion to "I believe", and surely did not address any of the content or points made..., most of which off hand invalidate entirely his last argument to which runs off the page :/
Posted by TheJackel 4 years ago
<--- Patiently waits for a point by point reply.
No votes have been placed for this debate.