Life is most likely intelligently designed

I just realized my opponent is not displaying an understanding of what “randomly” actually means! A quick peek at the dictionary or Google search reveals that randomly simply means without conscious decision. Thus, it is oxymoronic and moronic for Con to say life came about “naturally non-randomly”... unless he wants to argue that nature evolved life on purpose, which would actually be a concession that intelligent design is true! “Naturally non-randomly” is an internal contradiction that makes no sense. So, we're back at our dichotomy: life either arose randomly, or was designed intelligently. Con's siphon illustration is absurd in the context of this debate. Life isn't a siphon, and I think that's pretty obvious. Evolution of life is not compatible with increasing overall entropy, no matter how many times Con says it is. Like something similar to what Hitler supposedly once said, “A lie, big enough and repeated oft enough, will be believed.” Con acts as if saying over and over that life increases entropy will convince you, the voter, that he's correct. Since Con is so intent on arguing that evolution of life reduces thermodynamic stress, I challenge him to stick a frog in a blender, let it rip for a couple minutes, sterilize it, then stuff the resulting biological (but inert) mush inside a pressure cooker and turn the pressure knob past the limit 10 times and see what happens. According to Con's logic, life should evolve out of the frog mush to reduce the thermodynamic stress. However, I should warn Con to stand back a good distance, since it's probably just going to explode in his face. P.S. If you're going to appeal to millions of trials, than just get a million of your evolutionist friends to run this experiment :) When it comes down to it, Con's “proof” of the plausibility of abiogenesis is a water hose and a couple buckets of water. Lolwut I've siphoned my swimming pool plenty times but I've yet to hear of anyone observing abiogenesis in action. I agree with Con that the entropy of the universe as a whole is increasing over time. What I don't agree with is that abiogenesis is a net increase in entropy. It's obviously a net decrease. Here's a challenge for Con: if the evolution of simple life to complex life doesn't increase the overall entropy of the universe... then what conceivably could??? Con says, “The 'food' and 'other stuff' (oxygen, nutrients) are high energy dense molecules which want to become more diffuse, lower energy molecules.” So I guess your argument is that since oxygen wanted to diffuse, it created life to be siphoned through? What Not taking into account the fact that the concept of food wouldn't have made sense before life existed to eat it... Con unashamedly asserts that “We have at least two processes which life arises by non-intelligent processes, abiotically as discussed[...]” This is absurd. We do not have abiogenesis as an option on the table; Louis Pasteur disproved that centuries ago, and this dead horse is beaten again everytime abiogenesis fails in the lab. It's been failing ever since the Miller Urey experiment, unless of course you set the standard of success for abiogenesis as something other than abiogensis, which would be absurd. Con says, “In the case of intelligent design, we have been given no reason to believe that this is anything other than zero, sure it might be an epistemological possibility ("for all I know it might be designed"), but it needs to be demonstrated it is a physical possibility for the argument to work.” Actually no, I don't have to show it's a physical possibility. I only have to show it's a logical possibility, since it's the only option in our dichotomy that has not been proven false. Prove intelligent design is false right now... aha! You can't. Because such a designer would necessarily transcend our universe' physical laws in order to design physical life. We are arguing about the origin of physical life, after all, and not the origin of metaphysical life. Con makes the absurd claim that my computer argument violates Leibniz' law. The law states that 2 different objects with all the same properties can't exist. A quick Google search for the definition of a computer reveals that it is: an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program. Life has all these properties. It doesn't have all the properties of a WINDOWS or MAC computer, but hey, did I ever argue that? No, I did not. So Con's reference to Leibniz' law is misplaced. Are we electronic? Yeah, electricity is one way distant parts of out bodies communicate with each other. Do we store and process data? Yea, we store data in our genomes, written according to the instructions of our genetic code, which accounts for variables in the environment via epigenetics. “the physical architecture is absurdly different, one is silicon and transistors, and the other is water and carbon.” This is a strawman since I never argued life is exactly like the computer I'm writing this argument in in every shape and form, but it may surprise Con to find that he is, indeed, composed of silicon since silicon is an essential nutrient in humans.(2) (1) type the following in Google: define:random (2) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...