Proof that intelligent design is a bunch of crap.
True.
Side Score: 19
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
Whilst I don't agree with some of your, light hearted, suggested design modifications I am of the opinion that, given the opportunity I could have designed a much better human anatomy myself. As it is, due to a catalogue of design flaws there are too many things to go wrong, and they usually do. Since the dawn of mankind we have had to spend considerable time and money treating 'the great architect's'' design failures. Side: True.
1
point
If you want to deny there is an intelligent God because of our design, you would also be saying evolution created our terrible design. I thought the theory of evolution was survival of the fittest species with the best designed bodies surviving. After trillions and trillions of years, one would think we would have evolved into the perfect designed body. I would say your observation of a poorly designed body would tend to lean more towards creation than evolution. Remember how darwin says the giraffes have long necks because they were the ones who survived by reaching the higher branches for food. Your analogy of arms on our head would suggest we did not evolve. Side: True.
1
point
So then what does the Bible say about this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/10132762 I'll bet it has nothing to explain that. I made a separate debate about whether or not scientists can make artificial life based on this, although that's retarded because technically this proves they can. Side: True.
1
point
Remember the killer bees? That was a scientist playing with nature. It would be great to have a bacteria eating up green house gasses. We already have natural bacteria eating up oil spills. All the doom and gloom of environmentalists telling us how these oil spills would take centuries to clean up. Well it seems the oceans already had their own answer for it. I believe the same will happen with green house gasses. Nature has a way of cleaning up our messes. Side: True.
Well where to begin, 1) It's magic. Poof, here it all is. Perfectly planned out. From then to now forever. 2) It really sounds no different from any pagan's fantasy story of where everything came from. How can you spurn a Native American's creation story and then beam about your own? 3) It involves going far out of your way to ignore or discredit the observable world including astronomy, geology, evolutionary theory, etc. 4) And this is similar to your example up top, it ignores any and all design flaws or justifies them as necessary to the big picture. Humans standing upright as invertebrates makes us prone to back pain and injury. A perfect god could have made a spine that isn't prone to that, couldn't he? 5) In essence it forgives anything we would do to survive, yet the God still judges us for what we do to survive. We're designed to need to eat and stay warm, but if we have to fight others to stay alive then we're sinners he throws in hell for doing it (unless it's his chosen people, and then they can rape or steal whatever they want from the not-chosen people). 6) A perfect omnipotent God that could make everything in the galaxy and universe and plan for forever could surely have orchestrated a more consistent and concise holy book than the Bible, which is essentially a family scrapbook of the early believers. Side: True.
|
1
point
This sounds a bit ridiculous. If you're going to attack intelligent design, try and get to the molecular level, or the universal level. If gravity were off by just . Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2
points
The Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, causing the distance between the Earth and the sun to vary by 3 million miles (5 million km).[1] It could be many millions of miles closer without us burning up. There are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the observable universe.[2] It's no surprise that some of them are at a habitable distance from a star. Do you have a source for your gravity claim? Sources: [1] http://factsfromfiction.blogspot.com/2012/06/if-earth-was-ten-feet-closer-to-sun.html [2] http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/ Side: True.
1
point
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
|
