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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
In the beggining.......???..?.?.? what happened
alright this debate out there is for all you athiest to prove once and for all how God Gods aliens robots or imagination didn't create the world.
after the world cooled from the pre-cosmological stew and everything settled where did life come from? how was it that random chemicals mixed to cause a living organism to thrive, and evolve all the way to the present a whopping 4.6 billion years later
now i know all you religious guys will say God did it but please refrain (i don't have a problem with the man the woman the people the unity or however you veiw it, upstairs) I want the sci-guys to come up with a compelling arguments to sway the views of the rightous.
i decided to go with the religious catagory since you sci-guys will never miss the chance to trample on the faith of believers
Really, when you think about it, we shouldn't be alive. Life, first of all, happened by chance and a chance that's probability was practically zero (1 out of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).
Or the idea that life began on the backs of crystals. Now, nothing was there, and then it became life. that's another explanation.
Then there's the thought that God did it. Sure, there's a conscience, Unnatural being that decided to create us, people who shit and vomit and fuck and all other disgusting shit. Sorry, if i were God i'd make all girls hot and all dudes bad ass.
Intelligent Design is the most vague theory and can be looked upon in many different ways. Some can actually be Darwinian, but that will go back to the never ending origin of life. Others can go to some unnatural or superior force of energy... who knows. But intelligent design is currently the most open theory that can be approached in many different ways.
But even so, the way we look at it, nothing should exist. but somehow it does. how? who the fuck knows. We may figure it out, but if something that shouldn't be happening is happening, how exactly do you explain that in today's terms? That our existence is, in fact, supernatural.
Soccer's video shows how it's possible to make the jump from inanimation to sentience.
Given time, any number of combinations are absolutely bound to produce something resembling life.
I think the only mystical part of the whole thing is why on a molecular level, one thing is attracted to another, thus eventually leading to life.
Even that though, you could easily say some are not, and they did not survive.
Okay, pretend for a second that you are not a person at all. You are an alien who lives millions of years. You came to earth just to check it out about 300 thousand years ago.
Not much going on, some cool animals, maybe humans had made an impression with their primitive tools, maybe they just looked like any other animal.
Now you're here again...
Hm, how did they go from what they were, to having art, science, communications devices that allowed them to talk to another human on the other side of the world, etc? They'd even figured out how to get off the planet.
You may even think there must have been some intervention,
maybe another alien race taught them a thing or two,
maybe it was god.
But we know, that even though our drastic rise in civilization over such a short time would seem miraculous, it is very much expected given
evolution.
Well, we're the aliens looking at the origins of life. We see what was 1.7 billion years ago, now we've come back, and we see what is here today... and it seems mystical.
But, had we been there the whole time, it wouldn't seem mystical at all. It's very logical, even expected.
In the beginning there was Joe and life was good but Joe was lonely so he created the world and everyone in it so he could mess with them and life got better.... sort off ;)
the only idea i got is that somehow water leached nessicerry chemicals from the rocks to create life but the water would've been highly acidic unsustainable to life based as we know it
Life began through abiogenesis. Scientists have evidence for this, and at the end of the debate I am going to post a link to a video that explains it (it's complicated, and really don't feel like writing an explanation).
Also, in the debate description, you seem to be confusing atheism with science...don't make that mistake. There are plenty of scientists who are perfectly capable of reconciling their religious views with their work.
actually, the info i got didn't come from Fox News...
and, religion deals with a set belief from a bible or some shit like that.
Intelligent Design, as i clearly pointed out before, has no definitive point of view, and, as i (sort of) pointed out too, even Richard Dawkins (Darwinian theory) gave his own point of view on how Intelligent Design could exist.
At least you're consistent in your misleading quotations. Richard Dawkins said that if there was some kind of Intelligent Design, it could be from aliens. He was in no way supporting the idea of Intelligent Design, and more importantly he was not advocating it as a theory. Why? Because it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Theories must be falsifiable, and, as of yet, there is no way to falsify Intelligent Design. Right now it's vague enough to avoid any attempt to disprove it.
Allow me to repeat what I said earlier. Intelligent Design is not science. It might be a philosophy, but not a scientific theory.
As for the whole fox news thing, that was more just some general advice that any intelligent person should heed.
My first question is this: are you getting your information from Expelled, the movie with Ben Stein? If so, then let me know so I can stop actually looking up your quotes and just assume they're wrong.
Here is an honest interview with Richard Dawkins where he talks about ID.
and another interview (He also says why he's not an agnostic in this one as well, so if you hated him before...)
Anyway, I could go on, but the main point he makes is that any designer would have to have evolved, because complexity does not arise by chance. Therefore, you have to start somewhere, and there is no reason to believe that we shouldn't start here...why? Because there is no evidence to the contrary.
In addition, almost everyone who ever proposes that ID should be taught in school, is talking about some type of God. But hey, that's not supernatural or religious...oh wait.
why does something beyond explanation have to be considered religious now?
ID doesn't have to be God. the name doesn't even notion God. it simply states that things are NOT random, that they are guided in some way, some how.
many people who believe in ID (i don't believe in it exactly, but i accept it as a probable theory) don't think of it as a supernatural being or a God, they think of it as being part of a natural process. my problem isn't really with whether we should teach it in schools or not, but on how scientists are actually afraid to bring it up because they will lose their jobs or be outcast from the scientific community (which has and is still happening). Dawkins (who accidentally admitted that it's possible, LOL) is one of the assholes that believes that we must stop any mentioning of it at all. here's the real reason why though, cause most people who believe in it are NOT religious. he likes this little world of his where science is taught to tell others that is was random and happened for NO reason at all. ID, not saying it was for a reason per say, says that it didn't have to be random. the reason is still up in the air though (if there is any).
but that's why i say there's no answer to the beginning. technically, we shouldn't be here (if you look at it from a completely logical and rational point of view). But this is cause i don't believe in God but i also don't believe that something that had virtually zero of a chance of happening still happened. our existence makes no sense.
I'm going to assume your answer to my question about getting your information from the movie Expelled is correct. Therefore I am going to have to argue against a whole lot of misconceptions that you clearly have about the subject.
1) You are right that the idea of ID does not mention God. The religious people who came up with the idea were very clever about this. They knew creationism was banned from schools by the supreme court, however, they still wanted some alternative to evolution. Therefore they came up with an idea that sounded scientific. In fact this was all merely a rebranding. I strongly encourage you to watch the nova special on the court case involving ID. There you will see that ID has no evidence, and is in fact just creationism with a new fancy sounding name. There was even a text book called Of Pandas and People that originally mentioned creationism as an alternative to evolution in its 1st editions. When the supreme court ruled that creationism couldn't be taught in schools, the makers of the book had to take out the word creationism. In its place they put Intelligent Design. In fact, in their haste they made a mistake, and forgot to delete creationism, so it said: "creatintelligent designism". If this isn't proof of the clearly religious backgrounds and motives, then I am a five year old girl.
2. You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is. First you must have a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is that evolution is being guided by some "intelligent agent." Next you come up with a test and make predictions for this hypothesis. Then you must observe the facts, and come to a conclusion. Then after all this, if your conclusion is that your hypothesis is correct, you submit your findings for peer review, so other scientists can critique them. So far ID has only come up with a hypothesis. There are no tests, nor observations that can be done to either prove, or disprove the "theory" (to make myself clear, ID is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word). As I stated in an earlier argument, a theory must be falsifiable. You decide to ignore this comment, so I am just going to assume you overlooked it. I hope this time you will respond.
3. Show me one person who believes in ID who is not religious.
4. Evolution is not random. At this point you are revealing your own ignorance on the subject. Mutations occur by random, but natural selection "chooses" those traits which are most likely to allow the animal to survive. Here is a video that rebuts your flawed logic.
5. Let's take what we do know: we are here. Clearly then we should be here. Our current limited knowledge cannot fully explain our origins, but there are some things we do know:
-The universe we currently know began about 14 billion years ago with the big bang, and event in which every type of matter was compressed to a singularity
-The universe has been expanding ever since
-Our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago from the collapse of a molecular cloud
-About 4.54 billion years ago, the earth formed
-The first life on earth began about 3.5 billion years ago, and the most likely explanation of this is abiogenesis, a well explained phenomenon
-These organisms evolved over billions of years into the organisms we see today
So this is what we know, and we're still learning all the time. Considering the fact that we thought the earth was flat, just a few hundred years ago, we have made some incredible progress.
Allow me to end by saying that there is no evidence for ID.
This video addresses the whole ID "debate" from a scientists perspective:
natural selection chooses something? how can something that is not conscience make a CHOICE? the fact is, natural selection does not choose anything at all. it just SOMEHOW works. but how can that be? the notion that something with no conscience or intelligence or any awareness at all can somehow make things work in an intelligent favor is impossible. natural selection doesn't choose shit.
Freud's theories have been shown to be mostly wrong, but we still use his theories as a basic idea because over all, he had very good points. same with BF Skinner and Carl Rogers. The start was insane but we later transformed their ideals into more plausible ideas. Despite how intelligent design may have started off, it has become so obscure and so broad that it's origins hardly mean anything.
I believe ID as a plausible theory (technically, i don't believe in anything but i do believe in both skepticism and rational) and i am not religious at all. I go by no standard and no faith, and i do not except anything as true until proven. but i can accept things as plausible, just how i accept that ID not being true as plausible. But since it's terms are so vague and since the debate for it has been censored, i feel like i have to defend it.
the fact that people make so many misconceptions about it, saying that it's religious and trying to force God into schools is another reason why i defend it so much. As someone who constantly researches theories and scientific fields i find it unfair that the best argument atheists have come up with to rebuttal ID is that it's religious. complete bullshit.
ID has not been scientifically proven, yes, but it has filled the mathematical void. so, mathematically it works.
some believe in that it might be God, others' believe it could be something completely different. but they don't follow a bible, they don't go by some belief system. they just question and try to come up with answers.
If you noticed I put the word "chooses" in quotes. There was a reason for this. Although there is no conscious choice, natural selection is the exact opposite of random. Those species which survive better are "chosen" to pass their genes on to the next generation. Obviously there is no consciousness, no free will, no choice. However, if famine strikes a population, those who can find a new way to eat, or live with less will survive. If a new predator attacks a population, then those in that population who can hide the best, run the fastest or fight back will survive. In no way is any of this random... to say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts, and demonstrative of your ignorance on the subject. Nothing "SOMEHOW works". Instead, the process is very well understood.
I have almost no idea what your second paragraph has to do with anything... Freud's theories were important because of his method of approaching the mind (aka, in a scientific way). The actual theories themselves were wrong. You are arguing that the exact opposite is true for ID. The method of approaching ID may have been wrong (you know, with the intellectual dishonesty, misrepresentation of the facts, and an appeal to "common sense" as opposed to rationale), however the theory itself is still legitimate.
I will indulge you for a moment, and forget about the fact that ID is merely creationism rebranded (and trust me on this, it is). Well lets look at it based solely on it's scientific merit. Would you disagree to such a proposition? If so stop reading now.
Intelligent Design states that evolution cannot occur on its own, without help from some "intelligent agent." So let's ask ourselves, what is an "intelligent agent"? The response of most people would be God. But you're arguing it doesn't have to be, so I will allow you to fill me in on what it could be other than God.
What is the evidence for ID. None. The only argument is that evolution can't happen on its own. There is no positive evidence for ID, only against evolution. But let's assume for a second that this is a reasonable argument: can evolution happen on its own? Yes. We see it everyday. In fact, take a look at the numerous observed instances of speciazation.
So you admit that ID is not a theory? That it can't be falsifiable? Good. However you should know, there is no mathematical void. Numerous computer simulations of evolution have been done that created complex organisms out of simple organisms through evolutionary process. No "intelligent agent" is ever necessary to make up for the "mathematical void." Why? because there is none. Also, ID doesn't fill a void. Filling a void would mean that you have actual calculations and explanations. Instead ID is pretty much like saying "magic happened." It's pretty much like this.
As someone who constantly researches theories and scientific fields i find it unfair that the best argument atheists have come up with to rebuttal ID is that it's religious
First, you seem to confuse atheists with scientists. Second, the best argument scientists have is that there is no evidence for ID, and evolution is a damned good theory. Third, it seems you are either a) bad at researching b) can't distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources or c) you're being dishonest. For your sake, I'm going to assume it's a or b. The debate has not been censored about ID. If any ID proponent submitted a research paper for peer review to a journal, it would receive the exact same treatment as any other scientific paper. Because no one has done any research regarding ID, this has never happened.
First, my reason for asking you about expelled is recently you have been copying many of the same arguments Ben Stein used (Darwin inspired Hitler, the ID debate is about intellectual freedom, people are losing their jobs because they talk about ID).
Secondly, if you will not provide me with specific people who you claim were fired for "merely bringing up ID" then I will have to guess who you are talking about... please feel free to provide more accurate examples if mine are not those you had in mind.
Here is one example of a teacher teaching ID and then getting fired. Maybe he was being persecuted, or maybe it had to do with the fact that he burned a cross on his student's arm.
In his movie, Ben Stein uses the example of Richard Sternberg who he claims was fired publishing a peer review paper about ID. However, according to Jonathan Coddington, his supervisor at the NMNH, Sternberg was not discriminated against, was never dismissed, and in fact was not even a paid employee, but just an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term. source
Then there is Caroline Crocker, who claimed to be fired for "mentioning Intelligent Design." Turns out there's a big difference between mentioning ID and teaching creationism. source
So maybe I'm wrong and you do have a perfectly legitimate instance when someone was actually fired for bringing up ID. If so, show me.
As far as I know, however, the only person legitimately fired for ID, was someone who refused to teach it... sourcesourcesource
you do know that the abiogenesis link firstly takes you to wikipedia and secondly is the study of the origion of life not an actual theory so according to you life began by studying how it began so life started once concious thought came and the early monkey thought hey i wonder where i come from so in essence life didn't come till after life began and as such we live in an exastentual existance which goes against the topic of this debate and as such holds no sway towards an answer or even addressing the topic and as such you might as well say
1) It's called punctuation, use it or I will never respond to another one of your arguments (it's just too hard to understand what you're saying)
2)I am aware that my link takes you to wikipedia. If you want scientific evidence, then just ask and ye shall receive. Scientific evidence for abiogenesis.
3) The rest of your argument appears to be gibberish
hey. punctuation. is. just. as. vital. as. anything. but. i. have. literary. licence. and. i. choose. to. use. it. as. i. please. besides i know you'll still reply to my arguments/debates you like to argue as do i and it gives you someone to argue with besides your never gonna let me have the last word are you? cuz thats not very fun. and you know that by refusing to answer it only proves that i have a superior intellect and you have crumbled to my logic. (which is the same if you do respond since thats what i said you would) your only hope is to respond with a better argument and refrain from being angry and swearing (i'm not saying you swear) since a being of your intellect should be able to string a reply together to show your intellect.
