CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
@dadman: Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
No, asking if you can name something intelligent that came from something unintelligent to show that there must be an intelligent designer is begging the question. Stating the currently accepted science concept is not.
Oh, this is an attempt to prove an intelligent designer? That is something I do not see happening. I was under the assumption that this was a general question.
It is a common question that would lead to the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer. I have never seen anything intelligent created from something unintelligent, therefore, there must have been an intelligent creator.
Ah, but if it were for the purpose of proving an intelligent designer it would be. I don't see that as your goal. I don't believe you did anything bad here.
Indeed it is since bacteria is an intelligent and complex organism. If the organism is capable of passing down DNA with the potential to mutate and allow those organisms with successful mutations to thrive then we can say the organism is intelligent.
No, I must not have been clear enough. What I am proposing is that an organism is an intelligent "thing" by means of possible DNA alteration in hopes of making survival easier for those will successful mutations.
Yeah, that's the same as saying that anything with DNA is intelligent. But, I don't think your point is invalid. I am just comparing bacteria to humans and it is such a huge stretch to call them both intelligent, but I don't know what the proper definition of intelligent would be in this scenario.
I must comply with you and say thay I also cannot assess "intelligence" in such a far sense. I'm not even sure if the standard definition of intelligent is agreed upon.
Are you going to say that intelligence requires fundamental cognition? I'm saying that bacteria are intelligent organisms. Mircobial intelligence is shown by bacteria. I believe you are only assessing intelligence in human regards.
I am not convinced that Intelligence is the proper word for it, no. You can put it on a spectrum from microbial intelligence->sentience->sapience, with one ultimately leading to the other evolutionarily, yes. But they are distinct things, much in the way the gliding and flight are related but different.
Semi-sophisticated stimulus response is a different world from self-awareness, in turn notably different from abstract thinking.
You are only qualifying high intelligence. Even the lowest form of intelligence qualifies as intelligence. Intelligence fits properply. I would even go as far as to say their structure is intelligent. They way they can adapt or even undergo mutations is intelligent.
The problem with that is it implies chemical reactions are intelligent. Especially that last sentence. When you conflate everything that is similar, you can make anything look like anything else.
I would not call a rock intelligent, but the system of matter transformation intelligent. I would not call wind intelligent, but the system of it's creation is. You and I are mere bags of chemical reactions. Are we not? Then any low system of a living organism is intelligent. It's system of life is intelligent.
None of which contends with my stance. That said, this may prove to be an "agree to disagree" scenario verging more on philosophy than science.
In some sense, I have hard time even considering US intelligent, in that, as you said, we are "mere bags of chemical reactions". But we are such a bag that has the characteristic of intelligence, a characteristic not seen in all chemical reactions. We can trace the physical, chemical and energetic means by which this "intelligence" manifests within us. Can we trace such structures in systems?
Indeed this is a mere philisophical argument. He have yet go ordain a consistent definition of intelligence. However, I believe you are holding a humanistic bias towards intelligence. What makes the systematic transformation of matter non-intelligent? Have you ever stopped to wonder how such constructs exist and functiom as they do? Bacteria is alove and that is a pretty well established agreement. Bacteria most lekely cannot think, but they can act. The bacteria I have presented you seem to be capable of holding microbial intelligence. I would also insist on reading this post. This also touches on microbial intelligence.
However, I believe you are holding a humanistic bias towards intelligence. What makes the systematic transformation of matter non-intelligent?
The more appropriate question is what makes it intelligent? Specific qualities don't generally exist intrinsically until you fail to find them.
I would argue that you have a humanistic bias of your own.
A) we are intelligent.
B) we use our intelligence to foster specific outcomes.
C) nature has order and this order creates specific outcomes
so you add
D) therefore nature is intelligent.
But I argue that is anthropomorphize of the universe, and backwards.
A) nature has order and this order creates specific outcomes
B) we are intelligent
C) we use our intelligence to foster specific outcomes based on our ability to observe and make sense of the order around us.
Have you ever stopped to wonder how such constructs exist and functiom as they do?
In the most general sense it is due to the forces and to the laws of physics. Though it is never wise to be that general if you actually want to make sense out of things. Break it all down. Look at specific constructs and you learn what circumstances led to their formation.
As far as the article, I have respect for Dr. Margulis and her impressive body of work. But nothing she said here really changes the point I am making. These are differing levels of stimulus response. Once again, gliding to flying. Wings likely evolved from flaps that allowed for gliding and both allowed controlled movement through the air. But they are not the same thing.
On Earth we know the first things to form were amino acids from essentially dead matter in the oceans. Amino acids = protien. Protien = cells. Cells = bacteria. Bacteria leads to multi celled organisms. Multicelled organsisms lead to more complex ones which in earths case were fish like creatures. Fish like creatures evolve vastly and lungfish arise. Lungfish become the first land creatures. They branch off to become reptiles. Reptiles become mammals. Mammals = apes. Apes = us. This is extremely extremely dumbed down and simplified and keep in mind this is over billions of years. But is basically how it went
We don't KNOW that, we theorize that. That's not even correct, because the scientific term for theory requires repeated testing (which cannot be done). The theory of evolution has a thousand holes in it, and ADMITS to those holes which "need to be discovered." If any creationist were to suggest a theory that needed missing links to fill in the data, they'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community. Why is it then okay to have these admissions for Mr. Darwin? Why is it that this theory gets a pass without data? Data that, I might add, is STILL incredibly inconclusive.
The early Earth would have been able to synthesis small forms of preRNA (I forget what the term for it was) and amino acids. This would have probably come from lightning reacting with the chemicals at the time. The preRNA would be able to connect the amino acids together. Eventually the amino acids are able to form longer chains because the preRNA is constantly changing in the environment. The amino acids form more complex features and become working proteins that can create more and more reactions. Every time the protein gets just a little bit better, the number of reactions skyrocket. Eventually proteins can create lipid chains to keep everything together. PreRNA gets better and better at remembering. The preRNA starts making proteins that create a full lipid layer and a cell is formed. Bacteria created.
Who says I want to put arguments to rest? If they came to their senses, I wouldn't have anyone to debate. Look at Centifolia. She realized how bad I was beating she had to rage quit from all communication with me.
Come to their senses? Has an intelligent creator been disproven yet? If you are referring to Young-Earth creationism and the traditional interpretation of the Bible, then yeah, I agree... But still, how can one belief be better than the other?
Seriously though, everything came from a blast of energy. Energy had the ability to do all of this. If we plant an apple seed, we know that it will grow to be a tree, and from that tree, apples will appear. Most people look at intelligence as if it just appeared, but nobody looks at apples as if they just randomly appeared. A tree is known by it's fruit, even though the tree appears before the fruit... But it is only because of the fruit, that we are able to grow another tree. I would say that intelligent beings are sort of like the fruit of the universe... And that it is because of intelligence, that the universe was able to appear... But that is just my interpretation. I'm not trying to prove it.
Yeah, like not trying to use the Bible on someone who rejects the Bible. Stuff like that. It takes 2 to argue, like the Centifolia thing.
Has an intelligent creator been disproven yet?
I don't argue against an intelligent creator .... much.
But still, how can one belief be better than the other?
When they are mutually exclusive, usually, one is better. Like evolution, or no evolution. Intelligent design is fine, though.
Seriously though, everything came from a blast of energy. Energy had the ability to do all of this.
Are you asking if that is what I actually believe or confirming that is true?
If we plant an apple seed, we know that it will grow to be a tree, and from that tree, apples will appear. Most people look at intelligence as if it just appeared, but nobody looks at apples as if they just randomly appeared. A tree is known by it's fruit, even though the tree appears before the fruit... But it is only because of the fruit, that we are able to grow another tree. I would say that intelligent beings are sort of like the fruit of the universe... And that it is because of intelligence, that the universe was able to appear... But that is just my interpretation. I'm not trying to prove it.
This is getting too hippie for me, but I will try to respond. This feels like you are discounting the evolution of intelligence by not comparing it to the evolution of the apple. Your summary of intelligence works so passively. It doesn't seem like a designer at all.
When they are mutually exclusive, usually, one is better. Like evolution, or no evolution. Intelligent design is fine, though
I was referring to intelligent design.
Are you asking if that is what I actually believe or confirming that is true?
Well, I believe the Big Bang occurred... If that is what you mean?
This is getting too hippie for me, but I will try to respond.
Good grief, man. I can't use a tree analogy without coming off like a hippy?
This feels like you are discounting the evolution of intelligence by not comparing it to the evolution of the apple. Your summary of intelligence works so passively. It doesn't seem like a designer at all.
Everything is one organism. A tree and the apples on it are one organism. The apples and the tree are the same. We're the beginning point, the seed of creation, which grew and is continuing to grow. I guess you could look at it in an atheistic light, but I don't see it that way. I think there is more than meets the eye. Some people, including Nikola Tesla, have suggested that there is a universal soul, and intelligent beings within the universe act as an antenna of sorts. That's just another idea, though.
The fact that we exist is incredible. Why would anything exist? Something had to have always existed, but then we find people interrogating theists with, "Who created God?" and then the theists respond with, "God has always existed." Then the atheists get fed up, "that's impossible!" Well, either way, God or not, something must have always existed... I don't see why, whatever IT is, can't be intelligent. We get so caught up in the notion that intelligence was a result of the Big Bang, that we ignore that it could have been the cause, as well. That was the point of the apple tree analogy. Apple seeds are a result of other apple seeds.
I was referring to Christians rejecting science, in general.
Well, I believe the Big Bang occurred... If that is what you mean?
Nevermind, your statements needed question marks I think.
Good grief, man. I can't use a tree analogy without coming off like a hippy?
Nope, sorry tree hugger.
Everything is one organism. A tree and the apples on it are one organism. The apples and the tree are the same. We're the beginning point, the seed of creation, which grew and is continuing to grow. I guess you could look at it in an atheistic light, but I don't see it that way. I think there is more than meets the eye. Some people, including Nikola Tesla, have suggested that there is a universal soul, and intelligent beings within the universe act as an antenna of sorts. That's just another idea, though.
The fact that we exist is incredible. Why would anything exist? Something had to have always existed, but then we find people interrogating theists with, "Who created God?" and then the theists respond with, "God has always existed." Then the atheists get fed up, "that's impossible!" Well, either way, God or not, something must have always existed... I don't see why, whatever IT is, can't be intelligent. We get so caught up in the notion that intelligence was a result of the Big Bang, that we ignore that it could have been the cause, as well. That was the point of the apple tree analogy. Apple seeds are a result of other apple seeds.
What I am saying is that intelligence evolved from very low levels in bacteria to very high levels in humans. Your notion suggests that there is only one kind of intelligence. I am just saying there is a level of intelligence and it varies. The apple seeds haven't always been the apple seeds of today. The apple seeds have changed over time to become better.
Your notion suggests that there is only one kind of intelligence.
How many kinds are there? At the core, there is only one intelligence, there just happens to be several different factors that make intelligent beings differ. Just like with water. We have fresh water, salt water, tea which is made with water, coffee, etc. It's all water, just like all intelligence is still intelligence.
The apple seeds haven't always been the apple seeds of today. The apple seeds have changed over time to become better.
Yes, but everything came from a single point, and it introduced things that allow other things to thrive and improve. We do not see a fully developed apple tree just appearing out of nowhere. Other factors are necessary for it's growth and survival, just as other factors were essential for our development as a species. The person planting the seed cannot speed up the process, nor can the apple tree instantly introduce another full grown apple tree.
There isn't much we can relate to in terms of creations just appearing. There is a build up for everything. The only things that I can think of that just appear without any sort of build up, are thoughts... But technically there were building blocks to those thoughts, which were really other peoples thoughts to begin with. Every man-made invention was as a result of our imagination, and the things we imagine are from what we know.
So, lets add this kind of mentality to "God", and just for the sake of the argument, we'll go with the idea that "God" is energy. If "God" is energy, and always has been... Then that is all he would know, especially considering that is all there is. He could not imagine humans or planets, or anything other than himself. But he could work within his capabilities. So, he experiments a little bit, just to see what he can do. He causes a bang, which later leads to the formation of planets. Now he can imagine planets. Later on, other things form, like water (I know I am skipping a few steps lol)... So, now "God" can imagine water. When humans discovered the wheel, they did not instantly think of the carriage. They built up to that point. Same with "God". As more things appeared, he discovered more, and he could build off of it more. We must understand that in this idea, "God" is everything. He was experimenting with himself, so what ultimately appeared consists of the same components that he is made of.
Anyways, bacteria arrives, containing only minor traces of the intelligence of "God". Eventually, the bacteria evolves, and we get other life forms... We'll just say fish. Although, they are more developed than bacteria, they still only contain minor traces of "God's" intelligence. Once we get to the early land creatures, we see an even more developed species that is more intelligent, but still containing only minor traces of "God's" intelligence, which is to say that although they contain intelligence, which is a single trait, it is limited, and varies from species to species. So, lets skip all the way ahead to humans. We have improved significantly from what we initially were. This makes sense, though. People often improve their creations, if not, then they don't progress. They become obsolete.
So, throughout all of this, "God" has been obtaining knowledge of himself. Intelligence has improved, and us as humans have been using that intelligence to discover even more components. We have reached a point of intelligence where we can be both a creator and an observer, which is what "God" ultimately is... But in our human bodies, our intelligence is still limited.
What we know is this, whatever created us, whether it was intelligent or not, intelligence came from it. Everything is that starting point, how could it not be? Ultimately, that starting point became intelligent. We are our own creators, but our knowledge of this is limited, because us as humans are limited. To argue that what created us was not intelligent, is the same as saying that we once weren't intelligent, which could be true. However, assuming that everything is made of "God", then whatever is responsible for his intelligence/consciousness, is what allowed us to receive intelligence, as well. The same components, introduced through different varieties of itself, and experienced by different species in a limited form.
Are you saying that he's the dumb parent with a smart child? I mean, "unsmart" is not a word so.... I'm extrapolating based on that and your smart ass attitude on this site. ;)
You have admitted that at least one child is smart and came from a dumb parent that is you. Since both children are yours, both must have dumb parent because you are dumb and their parent. Boom, proven.
Yes, I can. Non-sentient microbes were around long before any life with brains. The microbes reproduced by splitting apart. And when that happens, a mutation occurs, changing the microbe very slightly. This microbe does the same. Splits, mutates, splits, mutates. Once enough mutations have occurred, the microbe has evolved - slowly - into another type of microbe. This happens over and over millions upon millions of times until it develops sentience. Thats evolution for ya ;)