EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
743

life is created intelegently

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
5 points
crossedcrossed (PRO)
everything is created intelligently.


you would have to know that a squirl is going to need to carry lots of nuts in order to give it balloons for cheeks
Greedy chipmunk gorges on nuts until his cheeks look ready to explode | daily mail online

your going to need to know that people are going to have problems sleeping i order to create herbs that help with sleeping
https://www.herdysleep.com/blog/the-6-best-herbs-that-help-you-sleep/



god intelegently created the lizard with tales that fall off so that if a predator grabs it by the tale they would be able to let it go so that they would be able to escape. you would have to know that they would be grabbed by the tail in order to give them this design
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_a_lizard%27s_tail_fall_off
Northwestern alligator lizard - elgaria coerulea principis

saffron when consumed helps with learning delays depression and helps and other mental health issues. god desighned it that way so that people with these issues would have that as medicine. and its not prescription medicine it a flower/spice
https://www.spamariana.com/saffron-an-herb-to-take-notice-of-for-brain-and-mood/

you would  have to know that the saber-tooth tiger would have to hunt in order to give it big teeth


you would have to know that the kitty would need to clean itself with there tongues in order to make there tongues feel like sand paper
http://whyzz.com/why-do-cats-clean-themselves-with-their-tongue


god gave the pelican a bucket for a beak so that it can swoop down and scoop up fish. you would have to know that the pelican would need to swoop down in or to get fish in order to get this design
November | 2009 | karen and michael's blog

god designed humans with hands so that they could grab things.

god gave us legs so that we can walk. and gave us 5 toes so we would be balanced when we stand up and not fall down on our butts
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3067
god designed humans with teeth so that they can eat things. though i do not mind eating ice cream


god designed us with an immune system so that we can fight off diseases

lions are yellow because the live in a yellow desert
Success of lion ranger pilot project


Return To Top | Posted:
2019-01-30 15:05:46
| Speak Round
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby (CON)
    My opponent has chosen to go the route of defending God as an intelligent designer. I have very limited space to write my opening statement so I apologize if this seems somewhat protracted.

1) Nature has more examples of bad design than good design.
     In the natural world, humans have a tendency to focus on beauty. We have a knack for pattern recognition, even when there is no real pattern to be found, so we have an easy way of fooling ourselves into finding design when there is none. But there are endless examples of bad design throughout nature. Indeed, one of the most popular creationist arguments, the human eye, has a number of flaws in its design that are so overwhelming and obvious that any designer who would engineer such a mess probably couldn't pass a high school shop class. The failure rate of human eyes alone is an indictment on any designer: half of all Americans, people who live in a country with relatively good access to eye care, have poor eyesight, according to a Reuters survey. The numbers together come out to around 66% of people with some kind of vision problem! This is just one example, but there are many, many more. Considering my limited space, I'll come back to this point.

2) We have an explanation for supposed design.
     Biological evolution is one of the most well-founded scientific theories currently studied. So well-founded, in fact, that according to a Pew Research survey, 98% of scientists support the theory as factual. This is not proof in and of itself of the theory, but the fact that so many scientists agree cannot be ignored. I will expand on this in subsequent posts.

3) You can't prove intelligence.
     You can't prove a design without proving a designer first.

Works Cited
Pew Research (http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/)
Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eyesight-usa/half-of-all-americans-have-poor-eyesight-study-idUSN1140765620080811)

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-01-30 16:58:48
| Speak Round
crossedcrossed (PRO)
my debater said
1) Nature has more examples of bad design than good design. 
and he used on how most people nowadays need glasses and that the eyeball is a faulty design


the reason why most people have bad eyes nowadays is because people are staring at tv screens and computers all the time
https://visionsource-castlerock.com/2016/01/06/the-negative-effects-of-electronics-on-your-eyes/

you do not see any animals that need glasses. there eyes are good

and most human diseases are caused by our diet and other stupid thing we do to our body.






3) You can't prove intelligence.
You can't prove a design without proving a designer first


alright you  made a card board fort in your moms living room because making it outside would cause rain to get on it and it would mold.  millions of years later someone an evolutionist says that the cardboard for was formed naturally in nature. the creationist says no  this was clearly built inside of the house so that rain does not get on it. they fight about it and the two walk off and go there separate ways who was right 




why can't i prove one thing without proving the other


proving the designer proves the design 

proving the design proves the designer



and he said something about how 98 percent of scientist believe in evolution.


how much of the world believes in an intelligent creator

84 percent of the world believes in a god
so its basically your scientist against everyone else in the world and a couple athiest
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-world-believes-in-God



what are the chances that your explosion from nothing created plants with healing properties. only possibility is god  must have

for example tumeric
Image result for health benefits of turmeric


for example cellary 



and apples 

Image result for health benefits of apples

what was that bible quote let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine thy food





Return To Top | Posted:
2019-01-30 21:03:58
| Speak Round
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby (CON)
     My opponent has made several assertions and has evidently ignored my second argument entirely. I'm going to work backwards myself, this round.
1) 84% of people believe in God, your scientists are against them!
This is Aron Ra's 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, namely that Evolutionary Theory and Atheism are the same. Belief in a God does NOT equate to belief in Creationism; most scientists also believe in God, but reject Creationism, so I'm not sure what the point of this statistic was. The argument is about whether life was intelligently designed, not whether people believe in God.
2) Plants make us feel better!
Yes, they do. Well, some do. My opponent seems to have happily forgotten about poisons like Hemlock. I'll go further; my opponent actually listed a poison. Apple seeds contain amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside. Same goes for cherries, plums, etc. Why would an intelligent designer create plants we are supposed to eat, then make part of those plants toxic to us?
3) Design suggests designer.
My opponent is completely backwards here. Let me clarify my last argument a little bit, because I think it went over Pro's head; We can tell what is designed because it is different from what is not designed. The classic "watchmaker" argument suggests that we be impressed by a watch on a beach because we recognize it as designed. Fair. But if you suggest that the sand, water, animals, trees, etc. are also designed, what makes the watch special? Cardboard is recognized as designed because it is different from naturally occurring things.

My opponent failed to explain the problems with the human eye; screens or no, the human retina is poorly designed. Indeed, we don't see animals with glasses, but when was the last time you took your dog to the eye doctor? There's a good chance that animals, too, would function better with corrective lenses, but they have no optometrists. I'd like my opponent to explain the laryngeal nerve in their next round, if possible.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-01-31 06:10:54
| Speak Round
crossedcrossed (PRO)
anyway i don't think my point is getting across

evolution believes that there was an explosion that produced  life and that millions of years past and animals adapted to there surrounding. for example the polar bear lived in snow  so it grew white fur so that it could hide. animals in the jungle adapted to green coloring so that they could hide. predators over millions of years produced big teeth so they could hunt. plant eater grew small teeth because they did not eat others

i believe that god created life and that he created the polar bear white so that he could hide better in the snow . he created the jungle animals green so that they could hide better in the green trees and he created the predators and or leave eaters with big or small teeth depending on what they needed to chew.

firstly my debater said that the eyes were a faulty design.

firstly if you or anyone else has bad eye site that is your own personal problem and that is not a flaw of the species. i have great eyes and i can tell you they were not faulty designed

and dogs smell mostly from the noses. 

alright most of the world does believe in creationism
2 billion people believe in Jesus 
https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-believe-in-Jesus-today

1.8 billion beleive in that muslim 
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

that is almost half the planet that believes in creation and my point still stands

scientist created movie genesis is history. talks about evidence for creation

https://isgenesishistory.com/

there are poison plants because god cursed the ground

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life
https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/3-17.htm

and if something is designed that means there is a designer

if there is a designer theirs a design

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-04 21:42:01
| Speak Round
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby (CON)
My opponent has now gone 3 rounds with a single argument in favor of their position. Pro's argument boils down to the following:
"I have no explanation for why things appear to be designed for an environment, so I believe they were the product of my chosen religion's God."
This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Any argument that goes "I don't know x, therefore y," is fallacious and should be discarded.
Since my opponent has simply repeated their argument I will clarify my previous rebuttals.

1. What my opponent and I believe is irrelevant. What can be shown to be true is all that matters.
We all know what you believe, Pro, but you have yet to demonstrate why anyone else should believe it in any non-fallacious argument.
2. My opponent has ignored examples of faulty design without demonstrating why we should discard these examples.
In the last argument they went back to the eye, but Con isn't interested in dying on that hill. Pro has failed to answer the question of the laryngeal nerve and, if we are being honest, the eye, the human back, the appendix (whose only function appears to be to get damaged and removed), etc.
3. My opponent continues to use a false equivalence that is, all things considered, irrelevant to this debate.
It's already noteworthy that popularity is unimportant. When Con brought up the scientific consensus on evolutionary theory, we had no idea Pro would find this so objectionable. Pro seems to think that belief in a God means belief in creationism, and that belief in evolutionary theory is equivalent to atheism, neither of which is true. Even if they were, neither has anything to do with whether or not life is intelligently designed.
4. Use of the Bible
To simplify this, I want my opponent to answer this question clearly: If the God you are appealing to is an intelligent designer, why did he design Adam and Eve to be disobedient to his commands?

Vote Con. At least we use punctuation.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-05 02:50:06
| Speak Round
crossedcrossed (PRO)
con says that human eyes the and the human back are faulty designs. he says that the appendix has no function. some of my post about Christianity i have said that the appendix does have a function it boost the immune system.




is not the fact that every part of our body had  a specific function not proof of an intelligent creator even the  appendix which is taken out of people because it is said to have no use.  but in fact it helps your immune system fight diseases  
   
   
    https://www.healthline.com/health/what-does-the-appendix-do     
   

again are eyes are bad because we look at tv screens all the time and if you have bad eyes it is not the fault of the species
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/screen-time-digital-eye-strain/

some people have hunched back's because they spend the first 18 years of there life in school in a desk and if you have a bad back it is not the fault of the species
https://www.themuse.com/advice/5-physical-problems-you-have-from-sitting-still-all-day-solved

con said why did he create Adam and eve to disobey him.

he gave Adam and eve free will. he new that they would not listen


this fish that is in nemo lives deep in the ocean evolution says that it grew that light over millions of years because it needed to  adapt to the deep dark ocean  so that it can see.

Image result for fish with lightbulb

Image result for fish with lightbulb


is it not reasonable to say that god created it with the light-bulb so that it would be easier to see in the deep ocean



con says that i belive that believe in a god equal to believe in creation. most people who worship god believe that there god created but he is right some do not but it is a lot


everyone can trace there ancestry to one female

java man was created using monkey and human parts well known scam


Lucy to was create using a mixture of human and monkey parts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts


and food is more than just good for you it has medical properties.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.findhomeremedy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FFeverfew1.jpg&f=1
8 natural headache remedies that really work | hello glow





15 potent herbs and remedies that kill pain fast

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-10 06:11:07
| Speak Round
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby (CON)
My opponent continues to provide the same argument they've been using this whole time and has not convincingly dismissed Con's points. None of the examples brought up dismiss Con's arguments, and in fact have made our point several times.

1: The HealthLine source my opponent cited does say that the appendix may contribute to the immune system. It also states "For years, researchers have noticed that appendicitis increases when
communities introduce sanitary water systems. Such modern conveniences
may lead to fewer friendly organisms in our environments. This may lead
to 'biome depletion' in your body. In turn, this may cause your immune
system to become overactive. It may leave your body vulnerable to
certain disorders such as, appendicitis."
In other words, it causes us to get sick. Which was what Con already stated.
2. The points regarding the eye, the back, the leg, and the laryngeal nerve are not single-point cases; they refer to all humans in general. Con doesn't think it's the fault of the species, but of Pro's presumed designer.
3. It created Adam and Eve with free will. Great. This does not answer the question of why your designer created them to be disobedient. Isn't this an example of poor planning and faulty design work?
4. Aside from the somewhat outrageous move of using a non-existent, animated fish as an example, bio-luminescence is not to help fish see, but to capture prey, and the evolution of it is relatively well-understood by the field of marine biology - nowhere near to the degree the eye is understood, however.
5. Even if Pro had disproved evolution completely (they have not), that still wouldn't prove creation or intelligent design true. Con requests that Pro stay on topic or concede.
6. The discussion about plants being intelligently designed has already happened, and has been readily dismissed by several points already made.

Does Pro have any new, and perhaps more useful arguments?

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-11 04:43:39
| Speak Round
crossedcrossed (PRO)
i put the wrong links for the appendix


the appendix helps the immune system it removes poisons




our body's are on constant attack 24/7 most of your food have chemicals. the air polution hurts skin. no wonder are natural detoxifing system aka the appendix is not working right do you know of anyone who had appendix problems past the 1900s

80 percent of us package food contains dangerous chems
https://www.rt.com/usa/banned-additives-food-outlawed-089/

air pollution hurting skin
https://eliasandwilliams.com/skin-air-pollution/


immune cells functionality with appendix for digestive health
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130130021.htm


appendix protects us from germs and protects good germs
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84937.php

appendix plays key role in immune system
https://www.rt.com/viral/373368-useless-appendix-key-role/


bad eyes
there are no bad designs and saying that the our eyes are faulty is just plain  lunacy

my intelligent design vs evolution points have not been disproved

intelligent vs evolution point

the owls have night vision. owls live at night so evolution says that they adapted to the night then grew night vision but i say god did it and ask why does a food have medical property

tumeric
New study finds turmeric compound boosts regeneration of brain stem cells, and more ...
Turmeric and curcumin - women health info blog
con claims i have no new points. the mitochandria eve points was new. i posted that argument other places but i don't think you saw it


con asks why did he create the tree  which caused Adam to sin.



the same reason he releases satan after the end of the 1000 years
after Jesus returns.  he  releases satan to trick all the people who were born during during jesus 1000 years and the people who are aborted or sacrificed to that demon . he does this to test them they have not been tested like you and me because we live in this sinful world. tree was a test
https://ebible.com/questions/443-why-is-god-going-to-release-satan-after-the-1000-years



says noahs ark was found. trying to fit this in
https://joeforamerica.com/2015/01/noahs-ark-found-keep-us-dark/



Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-16 08:00:25
| Speak Round
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby (CON)
Your point about mitochondrial eve only shows that you don't understand what these scientists are actually talking about. Mitochondrial Eve is only the point where human evolution can be traced back to a single female ancestor. It is not referring to the literal Eve portrayed in the bible, and the same genetic studies used to reach conclusions about this person also point to humans being inter-related with all other animals, including apes. You don't get to cherry pick the data for your claims, Pro; you have to take all the data. Had you watched your video all the way through you might understand this - indeed, by looking further, you'd have noticed that Mitochondrial Eve is dated back 150,000 years, well outside of the 6000 year time frame suggested by young-earth creationists. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve )

As this is the last round, Con's not going to point out all of the same stuff that has been refuted time and time again. Con's going to close, instead, by stating that my opponent hasn't made a useful or relevant point even once in defense of their position. Con has shown that unintelligent design choices are present in nature; even if there was a designer (which Con is doubtful of), not all life is intelligently designed, so Pro's position is inaccurate, regardless.

Further, it seems that Pro has no interest in honest intellectual debate. Their last round was a cheap attempt at a classic Gish Gallop, trying to bring out so many sources and topics that we would be unable to respond. Thankfully their points are the same as they have previously posted so Con feels no need to respond to these topics. Irrelevancies abounded throughout all of Pro's arguments.

Pro used sources throughout the debate that were not only biased and untrustworthy, but occasionally aligned more closely with Con's position than Pro's; this is an embarrassing mistake and should be noted by the judges.

Vote Con; our arguments were relevant and clear.

Return To Top | Posted:
2019-02-19 02:22:23
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
crossedcrossed


alright when Adam ate the forbidan fruit god cursed the ground that is why they are poisoning plants.


To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life
https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/3-17.htm


alright most of that video was mostly scientist are so smart and creationist are stupid and make money off there stupid books and they are silly for believing that the universe was designed and stated that evolution is based off fact but did not show any facts and did not state anything that disprove creationism but also says that many of the evolutionist use to be Christians and he royally pissed on the pope and Catholics which i agree with soo.


anyway here a royal beating on evolution that ken ham does bill nye is in it. i know that you love bill nye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogSttUF9mbo
Posted 2019-02-01 04:50:13
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby
I forgot to add this in my last round, but the 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

And a list of poisonous plants, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants

I apologize for allowing this to go unnoticed and for letting it bleed into the comment section.
Posted 2019-01-31 06:26:20
crossedcrossed
guitarkirby it is because my other debate i made these really long post and i don't think anyone read them. plus i was testing the controls
Posted 2019-01-30 20:30:55
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby
I have to say, I really wish that the character limit was higher. It's difficult to make my arguments in their full scope with so little room.
Posted 2019-01-30 16:59:34
nzlockienzlockie
most ironic resolution ever.
Posted 2019-01-29 04:04:35
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2019-02-19 07:45:50
dpowell3543Judge: dpowell3543    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: GuitarKirby
Reasoning:
I'm voting for Con. After having read through the debate, I have decided to grant GuitarKirby my vote. Their arguments were better structured, with better spelling and grammar, as well as did a very good job at shutting down Pro's argument. Pro kept using the same arguments, all of which were either irrelevant to the debate at hand, or disproven by Con. I found Pro's repetitive use of the same arguments to counter productive as well as the fact that Pro disregarded large portions of Con's arguments. They even went so far as to refusing to answer Con's question about Adam and Eve. Pro also attempted to use false scientific information (the part about the angler fish) and either didn't read through all of his sources and cherry picked as Con had suggested. Con did a great job at pointing out the flaws in Pro's arguments and shutting them down. One last thing I'd like to point out. Pro quoted me to try to help win the debate. The quote from me is irrelevant to the debate at hand, as it was a suggestion for the debate topic "Is the bible true".

Feedback:
crossed: Work on your grammar, spelling, wording and structure of your debates. You should also try to find better arguments.

GuitarKirby: Please refrain from using Wikipedia. It's not a valid source. I'm sure you could find some scientific articles that help further your point.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
2 comments on this judgement
GuitarKirbyGuitarKirby
Generally I try to use Wikipedia as a source finder, but I used it directly as a way to expedite things; you're right, of course, and I'll try to vet things more thoroughly in the future.

Thanks for the feedback!
Posted 2019-02-19 18:35:33
dpowell3543dpowell3543
No prob.
Posted 2019-02-19 19:22:21
2019-02-23 17:23:43
Mr. BillJudge: Mr. Bill
Win awarded to: GuitarKirby
Reasoning:
I may agree with crossed's opinion, but his arguments were much worse. Con had much better arguments with logic behind them while Pro didn't even have correct grammar.
0 comments on this judgement
2019-03-02 01:11:14
homericpirateshipJudge: homericpirateship
Win awarded to: GuitarKirby
Reasoning:
Crossed's arguments seem like a joke
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • 2000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None