Evolution (Pro) vs Intelligent Design (Con)

Silly me, I forgot to do citations. My bad. Rebuttal: “Rather, the concept of "god" is better understood as an all-powerful and all-intelligent force beyond the limits of space/time/matter. When considered in this way, god does not seem so far fetched.” This is an opinion and does seem far-fetched in my opinion. There is no evidence to support your theory of an all-powerful being existing so why should you believe it? If I came up to you and told you that leprechauns made the universe and knows every single fact ever, that they can transcend time and space and matter, knows the future, present and past, created everything, is infinite, you would think this crazy. The only reason a sane person would believe this would be through evidence of its existence. That is hopefully the only reason a sane person would believe this. Like fossil evidence, video sightings etc. But there is no evidence. So why should you believe this? Now go up to the top line and reread the sentence, except take out leprechauns and replace it will “God.” It’s the same. In this thought game you exchange two different words into the definition and they both still fit. When you read it as leprechauns, it seems crazy, yet when you substitute in God, it seems different yet it is the same. Why believe in God? I hope this game has dawned realization. “But this observation does not answer the original question of "first cause." Even if all the matter was once "in one spot," it still had to come from somewhere. Where did matter come from? What caused it to explode?” Brilliant question. There is substantial evidence that the Big Bang happened as we both agree it did, but why did it explode. There is no answer to that question yet. If you want to believe that God ‘set it off’ that is fine for I cannot prove otherwise right now. Since science has not figured out or found any evidence, then any kind of myth can fill the gap. Just remember that there is no evidence at all to prove your point and God can be easily substituted for; unicorn, leprechaun, Zeus, all of them can be substituted for your God and it would make just as much sense. So you kind of win here, until actual evidence comes out, you are entitled to believe whatever you want did it. The rest of your response is the same until argument 2. First paragraph doesn’t have any real arguments, just good information except for making clear that it was an estimate as I understand it was. “Pro then discusses the probability of life developing by chance (again, assuming that there actually are 8,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth-like planets). However, I return to the original probability for the universe to exist in the first place: 1 in 10^10(123). To truly grasp the impossibility of this number, that is 1 followed by more zeros than there are particles in the universe. In other words, if you tried to express this number by writing a zero on each particle in the universe, you would run out of atoms before running out of zeros. [2] I maintain that such an impossible probability cannot be the best explanation of life. As my opponent so perfectly said themselves - "Today we don't know how life first started." After careful examination, I realize that my opponent does not argue about the origin of life at all. My opponent tries to defeat natural origins of life, but defeats it by arguing about the Big Bang. “However, I return to the original probability for the universe to exist in the first place: 1 in 10^10(123)” So instead of arguing my point, my opponent actually argues the Big Bang again with their “probability” equation. “I maintain that such an impossible probability cannot be the best explanation of life.” But this is the probability of the Big Bang, not life. I hope that my opponent did not purposely try to deceive and evade this point. My opponent probably didn’t, but still. In your next response, please rebut the subject of the origin of life not with the Big Bang and explain, please. Is it any less logical to accept the possibility of a divine power than to believe that lightning struck a "slimy soup" and accidentally created life? Yes. Now the humongous number that I calculated was rough, but the idea is; that the universe is vast and holds billions, upon billions of planets, I hope you agree. Now as time progresses, though billions of years, a vast amount of time, the chance of this pool being created is on a planet is very probable. Then the chance of a thunderstorm occurring that strikes this pool is very low. But over billions upon billions of years and billions and billions of planets the chance of this happening is high. And it happened on one of those planets, and we call it Earth. “It's difficult to imagine anything prior to the universe's existence that is not quite nothing but also not quite something.” Sounds like your transcending time/space/matter God. And I do not have I point on this. Mathematically all of matter would have had to be in one spot. It is a fact and I have no position on it. “The lottery example is only valid if there actually is a winning ticket.... and as of yet, science cannot demonstrate that a winning ticket exists.” In my analogy, winning ticket was; life being created. Sorry if that wasn’t clear earlier. “Flopping Fish: I tried to find the species Pro is referring to, but since they did not site their source I cannot. In this specific example, I have several questions: How cans a fossil show that a long-extinct species that has never been observed can jump clear from one pond to the next? Even if they could, it's difficult to imagine two distinct ponds with independent resource systems that are close enough together for a fish to jump between them. And even then, how could a fish who is unaware of the other pond's existence know to jump into it? And if it's a pond, how are those flopping fish genes propagated universally, since a pond, by definition, is an isolated body of water?” The fish I was referring to is called a tetrapod. Archeologists have found ancient fossils of it. The rest is based off inference. We know that this fish hopped from pond to pond, so we can infer that it did so for resources and gained an evolutionary advantage. The fish with longer fins, and able to survive out of water longer had a better chance of making it to the next pond. Eventually we can infer they chose to stay on land for advantages such as food or such. This evolutionary process, proven through evidence, continues until the creatures we are today. You can answer all of your questions that you are confused on, on your own. “It does not account for how life can emerge from non-life or how simple organisms can become unfathomably complex.” If you understand the evolutionary process, then you would understand how simple organisms can become complex. An example is sperm. It attaches onto the egg, and that egg eventually becomes a complex human being. A simple organism such as a sperm can become unfathomably complex as you will. 1.Nothing evolves into everything (Universe explodes into existence) 2. Everything evolves into a few finely-tuned life supporting environments 3. Non-life evolves into life 4. Simple life evolves into complex life 5. Complex life evolves into more complex life I will answer 1, 2, and 3. On number one, you seem to be referring to the Big Bang, but the Big Bang did not evolve. There is evidence that it happened, and that it exploded, it did not evolve. And there wasn’t nothing, matter was a very tiny spec, but not nothing. This question is incorrect. On number 2 I assume you are referring to biomes, or ecosystems. I think that is what you meant so I will reply accordingly. If life was put in the desert with temperatures above 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Then life would evolve to suit that environment. That is the beauty of life, or natural selection, life will evolve to suit its environment, and has been proven time and time again. On number 3, I’m confused on this one also. I assume you are referring to the slimy soup theory. If you remember the definition in the beginning it was about organisms evolving from simper organisms. It has nothing to do with the first living thing. Assuming this is a fallacy, Theory of Evolution is a separate theory from Slimy Soup Theory. So this question is incorrect also. “It must embrace both astronomical improbabilities and unnecessary extravagances (such as the existence of a multiverse or extraterrestrial panspermia) to explain the origins of life.” Evolution is not about the origin of life. I defined it in the beginning. I went out of my way to take on the challenge and do that. The multiverse has nothing to do with evolution either. “Conversely, the theory of Intelligent Design offers a satisfyingly complete explanation that's just as (if not more) probable and vastly less extravagant than evolution. Since I.D. offers a simple and complete explanation and evolution offers a complex incomplete one, I.D. is the better explanation of the two.” I hope we are not trying to determine who explains it better, for that is basically an opinion. If we were trying to explain it better I would go with the leprechaun theory so we don’t have to deal with the confusing truth. So if you’re stating that God makes more sense, that’s an opinion, I could say leprechauns make the most sense, but neither leprechauns nor your God have any evidence or proof. I know I mentioned this in the first round, but I meant who makes more sense based off evidence, sorry if this was misleading. Conclusion: Since this is my last response, this conclusion summarizes my entire argument. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan (Rest in comments)