CreateDebate


Debate Info

45
19
Smart people Nomenqueefer creationist
Debate Score:64
Arguments:45
Total Votes:79
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Smart people (31)
 
 Nomenqueefer creationist (16)

Debate Creator

FactMachine(412) pic



Can "codes" and complex patterns form naturally?

Nomenclature is a creationist who thinks ancient aliens created our genetic code. But as I already told him, if a code needs a creator then who created the creator? somewhere along the line a code must form naturally to create a sentient being to create the code so obviously something like DNA could form naturally, so where are you going with this? The only explanation is that your level of critical thinking is equivalent to that of a christian.

Smart people

Side Score: 45
VS.

Nomenqueefer creationist

Side Score: 19
3 points

Nomenclature: You have already demonstrated your absurd bias in this matter by proposing my disagreement with something you have absolutely no evidential support for makes me a conspiracy theorist...There is no standard consensus scientific view on the origins of the genetic code.

Here is a link to a standard Biology textbook stating the favored view in the Scientific community in regards to this topic (flip to page 194): https://archive.org/stream/biologycamp#page/194/mode/2up

Side: Smart people
xMathFanx(673) Clarified
3 points

Well, that shoots down one of Nomenclature's Conspiracy Theories. On to the next one..

Side: Smart people
1 point

Further links to sources on this topic from a separate and more recent Standard Biology Textbook:

I am certain that all of your links are red herrings without looking at them. The reasons I am certain of this are:-

A) Last week you posted similar links, claiming them to be from standard biology textbooks, and you claimed these textbooks discussed the laws of thermodynamics. Since the laws of thermodynamics are laws of physics not laws of biology, it was quickly determined that you were lying.

B) Photobucket is where Trump supporters dump their fake news links. There is absolutely no reason to link photobucket when the internet is awash with biology education. That is, there is no reason unless your reason is to deceive others.

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist
xMathFanx(673) Clarified
1 point

Nomenclature: You've never provided a sliver of evidential support that Francis Crick or anybody else in the world agrees with a single word you say

Refer to link provided above (in previous post)..

Well, I having already shot down one of Nomenclature's Conspiracy Theories, lets evaluate another. "Ancient Aliens"..

Question: "If the spontaneous formation of organic monomers, the linking of these monomers into polymers, the grouping of aggregates of organic molecules into droplets (called protobionts) that became capable of metabolism and reproduction, and the development of self-replicating genetic information capable of directing metabolism and production that led to biological diversity of life on Earth through Neo-Darwinism is the favored view in the Scientific community, then why would there be a need to invoke "Ancient Aliens" in order to explain our origins?"

Answer: You do not need to invoke "Ancient Aliens" to "sensibly" explain our origins

Well, that was easy enough. That is now two of Nomenclatures Conspiracy Theories down. On to the next one..

Side: Smart people
1 point

Refer to link provided above

Your link is an obvious red herring and you are an obvious liar. You have not provided a single sliver of evidential support for the idea that Francis Crick believes the genetic code evolved. It is patently obvious that you have misinterpreted something he has written, because evolution is a theory of biology not a theory of cryptology. I doubt it is Francis Crick who has confused these two disciplines. In summary, you are a liar, a charlatan and a halfwit.

Well, I having already shot down one of Nomenclature's Conspiracy Theories, lets evaluate another. "Ancient Aliens"..

You are just outright lying, both about me and about the things I have said. This is not debate; it is inexcusably dishonest nonsense where you attempt to turn the truth upside down. I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not believe in ancient aliens. You have been throwing typical fascist-style smear attacks at me for the last week, knowing full well they are false.

Question: "If the spontaneous formation of organic monomers, the linking of these monomers into polymers, the grouping of aggregates of organic molecules into droplets (called protobionts) that became capable of metabolism and reproduction, and the development of self-replicating genetic information capable of directing metabolism and production that led to biological diversity of life on Earth through Neo-Darwinism is the favored view in the Scientific community, then why would there be a need to invoke "Ancient Aliens" in order to explain our origins?"

Answer: because you have not addressed the complex mathematical code which regulates all the above processes you describe. You are purposefully trying to confuse us with unnecessary complexity because the simple facts prove you to be wrong. The fact is that no scientist understands or has a workable, evidence-based theory about the origin of life on Earth. That's a fact. The complex gibberish you posted is complex precisely because it is trying to disguise that simple fact. If no scientist can prove that life originated on Earth then you have ZERO logical ground to mock someone for pointing out other possibilities, and even less logical ground to arbitrarily turn the theory of Panspermia into the theory of "Ancient Aliens" just so you can mock it.

Your very first sentence begins with the bizarre assumption that organic monomers appeared "spontaneously". That is, for absolutely no reason. Nevermind that every attempt thus far made to repeat this process under laboratory conditions has failed. Let's just swap out "we don't know" with "spontaneously" and hope nobody notices, right?

You are such fascist political filth that you cannot even remain honest and act with integrity in a debate about science, let alone politics.

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist
3 points

Everything and anything CAN form naturally, yes it's possible. Likely? No.

There must always be a designer behind it. To think that all of this just formed out of spontaneous randomness is really stretching it and you're on the side of the 0.00000000000000001% that you are right, it all just happened naturally.

Let me put it this way, would you put all your money down if we took a bet that this pile of dirt will one day be able to code and build this website we are using now? Even if I gave you 100 Quadrillion years, the chances of that pile of dirt coding this website naturally without the aid of any designer or creator is practically nil. In 100 Quadrillion years, you'll still be sitting on your ass looking at a pile of dirt and I'll say, "I told you so." You won't win that bet, and you don't need to spend 100 quadrillion years to figure it out.

Side: Smart people
xMathFanx(673) Clarified
0 points

@logicaljoe.

To think that all of this just formed out of spontaneous randomness is really stretching it and you're on the side of the 0.00000000000000001% that you are right, it all just happened naturally.

Whoever said that it was random?

Side: Smart people
1 point

Whoever said that it was random?

Your entire argument is that it is random you serial halfwit. Either it happened randomly or someone decided it should happen. Do you even understand what random means?

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist

Reality is abstract. God is the highest conceivable, possible being that exists in said abstract reality. Within said abstract reality, time is manifested abstractly and so is the concept of being born, dying, etc. All things that can exist, do exist there, and time is meaningless. We just perceive abstractly that it exists.

Side: Smart people

He is correct. The alien demigods cannot be denied for long.

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist
-1 points

I'm more than willing to discuss this with you once you stop misrepresenting the things I have said. For starters, a code is not the same thing as a "complex pattern". I have literally no idea why you would confuse these two concepts.

Furthermore, I am not a creationist in the traditional sense and I never claimed aliens created the genetic code. I said it was a possibility.

I will not debate you until you stop misrepresenting the things I say.

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist
FactMachine(412) Disputed
3 points

a code is not the same thing as a "complex pattern". I have literally no idea why you would confuse these two concepts.

You are misrepresenting what I said, I never confused them as being the same thing, it's just a very similar related topic which I added to increase the scope of the arguments and now that you mention it a code can easily be called a type of "complex pattern" so your objection matters even less than I initially thought.

I never claimed aliens created the genetic code. I said it was a possibility.

Once you critically analyze AA theory like I did it becomes clear that it's actually NOT EVEN A POSSIBILITY. I used to believe in it strongly when I was 13 years old but by the time I was 14 I found all the blatant flaws and the total non-existence of real evidence for the theory.

I will not debate you until you stop misrepresenting the things I say.

Don't worry about it, you know I'm exaggerating just to piss you off, don't be a pussy just debate me like a man. Besides, you literally JUST misrepresented the title of this debate as being conflationary.

Side: Smart people
-1 points

if a code needs a creator then who created the creator?

You are making a fallacious appeal to an infinite regression. You cannot demonstrate that there has been an infinite regression. The same absurdity can be applied to any human invention, such as the computer. So you could say, "If a computer needs a creator then who created the creator?" But this would not be a refutation to the existence of computers, would it?

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist
FactMachine(412) Disputed
3 points

You are making a fallacious appeal to an infinite regression.

You are making a fallacious appeal to deliberate creation.

My argument doesn't imply that there must not be a creator, creators are perfectly allowed, the difference is I recognize that somewhere along the line intelligence must occur naturally or it DOES lead to infinite regression because every intelligence needs a creator. So if you think DNA just haaad to be created deliberately then you are quite plainly a superstitious nut job.

Side: Smart people
1 point

You are making a fallacious appeal to deliberate creation.

It demonstrably IS NOT fallacious you infantile halfwit. Every other code known to mankind is the product of deliberate creation. You find one which you don't know the origins of and you think it logical to decide it wasn't created?

Keep upvoting your own posts if you want, but you are still a gigantic idiot.

Side: Nomenqueefer creationist