The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

According to Carl Sagan, Intelligent Design Science = Valid and Observable Science

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 2 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,876 times Debate No: 103519
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

intelligent Design Science was initiated by scientist Carl Sagan, circa 1985.

Sagan, now dead, was agnostic, not a Creationist,
and Intelligent Design Science was originally intended as a scientific method for detecting life on other planets.

Although Intelligent Design Science also applies to the issue
of the origin of life on this planet " and indeed Intelligent Design Science
proves conclusively the fact that all life on this planet was designed
by an intelligent agent -- Intelligent Design Science
is certainly not Creationism. Short related video:
theta_pinch

Con

intelligent Design Science was initiated by scientist Carl Sagan, circa 1985.
Short related video: https://www.youtube.com...;

https://m.youtube.com...
The only proof my opponent has provided as of yet for Carl Sagan being related to Intelligent Design much less initiating the movement is a YouTube video. However, the video provided by my opponent is out of context and misleading. The full video, which I have provided above, at 56 seconds shows that Carl Sagan actually called natural selection "far more compelling" than intelligent design.


Although Intelligent Design Science also applies to the issue
of the origin of life on this planet " and indeed Intelligent Design Science
proves conclusively the fact that all life on this planet was designed
by an intelligent agent -- Intelligent Design Science
is certainly not Creationism.

My opponent is making a bold claim saying that "Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent. Calling it a fact more bold still. However, no citations or proof of any kind for these assertions have been provided as of yet.

My opponent has not provided citations for most of the claims, and the only citation provided is a YouTube video cut directly before Carl Sagan outright says natural selection is more compelling than intelligent design.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."

That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof.

Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts.

Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
theta_pinch

Con

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."

That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)
My opponent is once again attempting deception through the practice of quote mining.

I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions.
You have yet to provide any valid citations at all.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof.
This claim requires significant proof which you have not provided for this claim.

Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts.
If they are well known and undeniable historical facts then I am sure it will be easy for you to provide citations for Carl Sagan coining the phrase and declaring it valid science without further quote mining attempts.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."

That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof.

"Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts."

That is all true.

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
theta_pinch

Con

Sorry, but quoting me quoting your arguments is neither a concession nor proof of your own claims.


Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent did not respond to any of these facts:

My opponent wrote:

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."

That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof.

"Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts."

That is all true.

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
theta_pinch

Con

I hate to break it to you, but saying your argument is true and that you won this debate doesn't make it true.


Debate Round No. 4
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent did not respond to any of these facts:

My opponent wrote:

"Intelligent Design Science proves conclusively" that all life on the planet was designed by an intelligent agent."

That is true, actually: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

I provided conclusive proof for all of my assertions, but you have provided none at all for any of your atheistic assertions.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between proof and lack thereof.

"Carl Sagan is well-known for having been the front-runner of the failed "SETI" program in the 1980's, in which he tried desperately to find life on other planets, but embarrassingly failing to do so. During his time as frontrunner of SETI, he personally coined the phrase "Intelligent Design," steadfastly declaring to the world at large that Intelligent Design is valid and observable science: These are all well-known and undeniable historical facts."

That is all true.

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
theta_pinch

Con

Throughout this debate my opponent has stubbornly refused to provide citations for claims. Furthermore he has attempted to quote me quoting him for a counter argument as proof of his claims. My opponent has thus failed to fulfill his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 22 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Second off, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the holding of the Kitzmiller V. Dover trial, "intelligent design is not science and cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Additionally, the book discussed in the trial, Of Pandas and People, after the Edwards V. Aguillard case almost all cases of the root word creation were replaced with intelligent design and creationist was replaced with design proponent. However, the macro command messed up and created cdesign proponetists (my autocorrect is going nuts after typing that in), showing that they just changed a couple words. If a creationist book could replace just a couple words and become intelligent design, how are they any different?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I know how much my "friend" here Purushadasa loves debating in the comments. so I may as well do the same since I can't debate him due to debate requirements.

Cited Video Transcript
evidence for a great designer. The simplest organism is a far more complex machine then the finest pocket watch, yet pocket watches don't spontaneously self-assemble or evolve in slow stages on their own from grandfather clocks. A watch implies a watchmaker. So there seemed to be no way that atoms could spontaneously fall together, and create a dandelion.

Actual Video

Well, many people were scandalized for their ideas about evolution and natural selection. Our ancestors looked at the intensity and beauty of life and saw evidence of a great designer. The simplest organism is a far more complex machine then the finest pocket watch, yet pocket watches don't spontaneously self-assemble or evolve in slow stages on their own from grandfather clocks. A watch implies a watchmaker. So there seemed to be no way that atoms could spontaneously fall together, and create a dandelion. The idea of a designer is appealing and all together union explanation of the biological world. But as Darwin and Wallace showed, there's another way. Equally human and far more compelling. Natural selection, natural selection, which makes life more beautiful, as the eons pass.

You can easily tell when something is quote-mined when it starts midsentence. And to add, Sagan said in p29 of Cosmos, "The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Phenenas
Purushadasatheta_pinchTied
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 dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Purushadasatheta_pinchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.