Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

19
11
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:30
Arguments:32
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (18)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (9)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



Proof that evolution makes more sense than intelligent design.

If intelligent design were true, we would be amazed at how smart God's design is.  Instead we are like, what moron designed this?

Evolution makes more sense because the possible solutions for a given problem come about by chance.  Then, out of these random, idiotic, solutions, the best one is selected.  It is not optimal but it is good enough and better than the other stupid solutions.  Evolution's solutions are not optimal because there isn't a smart, thinking, being making the choice.

For example, who, in their right mind, would pick the male to give birth to sea horses?  Giving birth is the females' job.

True.

Side Score: 19
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 11
1 point

Not only that but, according to Christians, God would not have created gays nor people who have special bathroom needs. Therefore there is no God. Only evolution could come up with gays and special bathroom needs individuals ;)

Side: True.
1 point

What aboug the platypus? Duck billed, beaver tailed, egg laying mammal. Really? God created that? I don't think so. Either there is no God or He was tripping balls when He created the platypus ;)

Side: True.
1 point

Still not convinced? You need more proof? OK..., how about mosquitos? Who the hell creates mosquitos? And if He had stopped there I guess you could forgive Him but then He goes on and creates flies? What kind of asshole does that? ;)

Side: True.
1 point

What about spiders? How sick does someone has to be to create spiders? ;)

Side: True.
jolie(9805) Clarified
1 point

Actually, I see God creating spiders just so that He could see people do that little dance people do when they walk face first into a spider's web ;)

Side: True.

.
Side: True.

The intelligent designer seems to have a few flaws in his design (NSFL)

Side: True.

If God really created the human race, why would he create gays? The Bible makes it clear that He despises them - why make something you despise?

Side: True.
2 points

I think we should hedge our bets on this one.

Let's look at the fundamental process of eating food.

As the we draw the food towards our mouth our eyes and nose are strategically positioned so we can see and then smell what it is we are about to eat before we put it into our mouth.

Any visible blemishes would probably be detected by our eyes and any invisible defects could be sniffed out by the old bugle.

Our eyebrows are there to stem the flow of, or deflect sweat from entering our eyes.

One could study the anatomy of humans and marvel at the ingenious characteristics of it's design.

Most animals in existence have many features in common with humans, some obvious, some not so obvious. In this context it could be argued that such similarities are as a result of evolution fine tuning the positioning and functioning the various organs of all living creatures.

It could also be argued that on the contrary, ''The Great Architect'' built in these design elements to all his creations just as a design engineer has to conform to certain repetitive principles of construction.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

As the we draw the food towards our mouth our eyes and nose are strategically positioned so we can see and then smell what it is we are about to eat before we put it into our mouth.

Any visible blemishes would probably be detected by our eyes and any invisible defects could be sniffed out by the old bugle.

And yet...., people eat ass ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Antrim(1286) Clarified
1 point

Yes, people do eat and drink a wide range of toxins, but, up to a point the body's organs are designed to allow and compensate for abuse.

Intoxicating liquor, or the intake of toxin/poison, really means that we drink poison but if we damage our liver with our suicidal habits it can repair itself and operate efficiently on about 50% capacity.

If through eating processed foods laced with a deadly cocktail of preservatives, artificial colourings, excess sugar and salt, (''eating ass'') smoking tobacco and following a sedentary, unhealthy lifestyle we develop coronary artery disease our body will try to get blood to the heart by bypassing the blocked artery/arteries and find other routes.

Lung cancer is almost always the result of smoking tobacco products exacerbated, and, regularly caused by the man made poisons in the air which we breathe.

We have polluted earth's atmosphere, poisoned it's oceans with a witches brew of lethal chemicals which contaminate all marine life including the fish we eat and then blame God for allowing us to contract the enormous range of life threatening and debilitating diseases which we have inflicted upon ourselves.

The residual fallout from the testing of nuclear bombs in the last century and the building of nuclear power stations which leak poisonous radioactivity into the atmosphere as well as our seas, and fail completely, as we saw with Chernobyl and the meltdown of the Japanese nuclear plant at Furushima Daiichi, has contributed significantly, if not exclusively to the development of leukemia and other forms of cancer.

When we have the sense to apportion blame for our plight to where it originates, i.e. mankind, then maybe we will have developed sufficient sense to seriously address the problem.

Side: True.
seanB(951) Disputed
1 point

Now I understand why you feel the need to aggressively assert the superiority of your intellect all the time, Antrim.

Laughable.

I defer to the brilliant Steven Hawking on this one:

"What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favourable case, because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn't be asking why it is so finely adjusted."

In otherwords, biochemistry naturally produces complex results, and asking "what if it didn't" is stupid. It's like asking "what if nothing was like it is?": the conclusions to which can literally be ANYTHING, which is why the theological argument from fine-tuning is total bogus.

How little sense it makes: "God must exist, because the universe is the way that it is, not some other hypothetical way that it isn't and can't be".

Drivel.

Side: True.
Antrim(1286) Disputed
1 point

Good to see I've got my little parasitic leckey following me around hanging onto my every word.

The mark of someone with a strong personality( that's me) is when they stir a response, good or bad, in people of diminished character and a low intellect, that's you.

You see shithead, I haven't the first idea what you're on about because, apart from the first few words I never read your posts.

You're totally wasting your time by typing whatever it is you type to me, which is absolutely fine, but I'm not wasting my time reading it.

I mean did you honestly think, in your wildest dreams that I would read your stuff?

Man, man oh man, get a grip on yourself.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

Evolution naturally produces features that are going to be beneficial to the organism, that's a given. You're still ignoring the fact that if it were by a "Great Architect", then we would be a perfect organism. Take cancer, for example, where the own cells of the body grow out of control and can be fatal. That doesn't sound like perfect design to me.

Yes, homology could indicate evolution or intelligent design.

The fact that we see homology while also seeing imperfect design indicates that animals must have had to adapt to their environment with what they already had (from their common ancestors). Another good example of this would be human spines. Any engineer would have designed a spine to be in the center for walking, but ours are in our backs. One explanation is that our ancestors, which walked horizontally on four limbs, hand their organs hang down, which would have been useful with spines now above the organs for support. When this model was transferred to an upright organism, however, the spine did not adapt because the change would have been too drastic.

Side: True.
1 point

Evolutionists believe that in the beginning there was nothing. Then, (without knowledge of where the energy for an explosion came from), something (even though there was nothing) exploded and then there was everything. The evolutionist viewpoint is religion as well.

The thoughts we have in our head can only be measured quantitatively not qualitatively to the absolute so, prove to us, supporters of intelligent design, that despite your utter dependence upon 'chance', we as humans can be sure that tomorrow everything we know to be true as of right now will be true tomorrow? After all, pursuant to your worldview, there are no absolutes. There are countless gaps in the atheistic perspective, and if you're willing to step back and objectively evaluate it, you'll find that not only do atheists contradict themselves everytime they question concepts and ideas(non-matter nouns), but also when they try to be good to one another without any believing in any absolute morals.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
1 point

Evolutionists believe there was nothing and from that came a single cell via chemical processes and that life is merely chemical not beautiful.

Side: True.
1 point

That's what you get when you reduce things too much and then refuse to see the big picture.

Evolutionists don't deny beauty.

Side: True.
17liberty76(1) Disputed
1 point

How did that single-cell come about via "chemical processes" if there were no chemicals to conduct the appropriate process to yield this mystical single cell that we all emanated from?

Just for arguendo, let's say you are correct about your single-cell. When and how did that cell acquire intelligence? Emotion? Memory?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

Actually, that's more of a reductionist view, which ignores emergent properties and has been highly refuted. Furthermore, "beautiful" is a construct and relative to the person.

Side: True.
sylynn(626) Disputed
1 point

Evolutionists believe that in the beginning there was nothing

Evolution is the explanation for how life developed on this planet. It does not attempt to answer what caused life to begin, nor where the universe itself came from. I will agree that most evolutionist typically does ascribe to the big bang, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. That said, we still don't know what occurred or what existed prior to the big bang, so we can't definitively say there was "nothing". For now we just leave it at, "we don't know", and until we find an answer (if possible), we can accept that we don't know. There are theories out there that suggest there was never "nothing".

exploded and then there was everything

If by "everything" you mean some elements and the start of a process, sure, but it's not like we instantly had planets, galaxies, or even stars right from the beginning of it.

that despite your utter dependence upon 'chance', we as humans can be sure that tomorrow everything we know to be true as of right now will be true tomorrow

We don't know what we know to be true today will be true tomorrow. That's the point of learning new things. There used to be a time when we knew it was true that the sun revolved around the earth, but one day we learned that wasn't the case. How can you not rely on chance? When you get into a car to go somewhere, there is a chance you may wind up in an accident. If you don't ascribe to chance, are you suggesting that everything that happens is predetermined? That your god chose some people to suffer for no reason? What a terrible outlook on life! Even when I was a Christian I believed in chance.

you'll find that not only do atheists contradict themselves everytime they question concepts and ideas(non-matter nouns), but also when they try to be good to one another without any believing in any absolute morals.

Give examples. Everyone contradicts themselves at some point. Whether you're Christian or an atheist, most would agree murder is wrong, but if it's out of self defense it's okay. Everything in life has gray areas and what is or isn't moral is often times subjective. Some believe it is immoral to eat meat, wear leather or even drink milk. Some say it's immoral to use curse words, but there's no clear definition of what a curse word is. Damn is bad but darn is okay? Shit is bad, but crap is okay? Talk about contradiction! A lot of atheists would also call themselves humanists; meaning the things we do and the morals we have are centered around the idea of furthering our species, rather than appeasing some magic guy in the sky. Are the decisions we make sometimes contradictory? Sure, sometimes, but it's because we're not perfect, but like I've pointed out already, Christians are often far worse since many of their "morals" don't make sense and in turn often fall into gray areas.

Side: True.