Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

19
5
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:24
Arguments:25
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (16)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (5)

Debate Creator

jolie(9805) pic



Proof that intelligent design is a bunch of crap.

If there is a God, He would have designed us differently.  Either that or He's an idiot as an engineer and came up with a crappy design.

First off, the arms should be on top of the head so you cold reach higher.
The ears should be on the shoulders for better stereo reception.
The birth canal should be wider for easy deliveries.
The naughty bits (sexual organs) should not be anywhere near where poo and pee come out.
And that's just for starters.

True.

Side Score: 19
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 5

You want proof of unintelligent design? Here you go

Side: True.

100%

gnjrklhjlafdlsafhjashrjlsahjrsalfhdsajfsalhfrsdkljhrlashrjksdhyjrdsakllraewokq

Side: True.
1 point

I have no idea where God got His engineering degree but it must have been a second rate school ;)

Side: True.
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

True. No civil engineer worth his salt would have built the playground so close to the dump!

When I look for an argument against "intelligent design", a picture of Sarah Palin always comes to mind. Not a bad picture, as long as the mouth is closed. :-)

Side: True.

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.
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
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.
FromWithin(8240) Clarified
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.
1 point

Evolution comes up with a few solutions. Those solutions are not perfect because there isn't a thinking entity making the decision. Out of the non-perfect solutions evolution comes up with, the best one of those is selected. I don't see a problem ;)

Side: True.
0 points

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 .0000000000000000000000000000000000000043% then the earth would implode. If the sun were any closer to the earth we would burn up. There are many other variables that suggest and intelligent designer.

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/ 2013/01/05/how-many-planets-are-in-the-universe/

Side: True.
coopermclark(4) Disputed
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!!!
1 point

The universe is not fine tuned for human life. ;)

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