Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

Welcome to Round 4 ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to apologize because, reading the pro's statement, I don't think this debate will get any further beyond the initial statements in round 1, despite my attempt in round 2 to provide additional constructive arguments. It's kind of funny that you try to point out "strawman" thinking in my words when they aren't really an argument they were just comments - My argument never claimed intelligent design has grandeur........STRAWMAN. This is ridiculous to even have to point out but whatever right? Let's move on. "I never argued about a uniformed design............STRAWMAN" This is false. He's saying that when parts work cooperatively/complimentary "2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts." - design can be deduced. I think we are getting carried away with calling strawman. Can we have an actual debate now? In Round 4, I found out this - "Yeah intelligence is still a bit iffy". I think that is pretty ridiculous considering the crux of this debate is in its very essence to understand what intelligence is and its distinctive act and involvement within the creation and design of things. My opponent hasn't changed his conduct and is continuing to use ambiguous terms to support his case (and it's even more disturbing that he's admitted to this). "Time is still a bit iffy, but we don't deny its existence just because its a bit vague." - Time is not at all iffy in the same sense as "intelligence". In fact, intelligence, I've argued, is very clear. It's a degree of natural processing, and simple beings like atoms have a very primitive form of intelligence and adaptation, complex beings like biological organisms, while ultimately composed of primitively interacting lesser beings, behave in an increasingly intelligent manner. My opponent has refused so far, 3 rounds later, to acknowledge this and I am getting further frustrated that my points aren't being deconstructed at length. Oh well. I mean just look at this, "How does something become "undesigned" either something had its origins in design or it didn't. The short answer is no.". He mocks my argument but does so completely assertively rather than argumentatively, "humans has no origins in intent due to it breaking down, sounds like a rock solid argument to me.". It is a rock solid argument because just like any natural thing in the universe there occur problems - problems in adaptation and development. And like any natural thing in the universe, human beings nor the universe itself have its causal roots in some intelligent being (of which, after what pro said in round 4 - we have no concrete definition of at this point of the debate). There is further sort of implicit argumentation - if humans are faulty that means they deviate from their intended purpose - therefore there is an intelligent designer to give them a purpose to deviate from. However I will argue that this is not the case and that human beings have failed to adapt to their particular environment. There is an inherent deviation from the intended survival mechanism to a faulty problem within the organism. "I am curious, how do you define "design" ? since you actually objected to premise 1". I asked what is the distinguishing factor of intelligence, its relationship to human beings and to simple things like subatomic particles - but you've not acknowledged this and continued to use seemingly complex, "designed" examples like keyboards etc. "For instance in archeology when they come across some artifact the question is raised, is this the product of some ancient civilisation ?" This is another ridiculous instance of begging the question, of course when we come across an ARTIFACT we must semantically deduce that it came from civilization. "Out of interest I'd like to ask if evolution is not producing life outside of earth that is suitable to its environment, does that mean evolution is no longer a process absent any intent ? If evolution is so good at producing life to suit its environment it puzzles me why it wouldn't work outside of earth just as much as on earth. " I don't understand why I am being asked this question. There is no inherent value in having particular life forms form in far-off regions of space. I would like to further state that my opponent has contradicted himself in saying that "the universe is hostile to life" while at the same time saying " its very very big place (this would be the understatement of the century perhaps)". How do can we assert that the universe is hostile to life if we haven't fully explored it. " If evolution is so good at producing life to suit its environment it puzzles me why it wouldn't work outside of earth just as much as on earth." - It's not that you are puzzled it's that you deliberately ignore my arguments to rhetorically persuade the reader. Evolution is an explanation of the origins of complex organisms from simpler organisms. These simpler organisms are the result of the initial conditions of their environment. That's why on PLUTO, there are no life-forms, because the conditions are too volatile for any life form to ADAPT and DEVELOP into COMPLEX, SEEMINGLY DESIGNED, BEINGS. Here's the thing, my opponent doesn't care to talk about anything except human beings, or anything that is an "intelligent" product of the human beings (like keyboards etc). I asked him, is the carbon atom intelligently designed? Are subatomic particles intelligently designed? Is what we observe to be seemingly random behavior by electrons a designed portion of the universe? Does my opponent answer these claims? Of course not. But to answer these claims are critical. For if they are not designed, then it is these very same foundations of subatomic particle movement, adaptation and interaction that develop and grow into the complex beings with seeming "minds" that we know today as human beings. ======= SUMMARY ======= I've further re-examined what my opponent has said. Unfortunately, my opponent's arguments are continually being revealed to be under a veil of ambiguouity as he proceeds to pursue intelligence in design through a circular definition (a design which is intelligent must have an intelligent designer) and then through that for some reason he must also pursue intent (for if anything exists purposefully it must have been willed into existence by some external designer). Note* When I say external designer, it's NOT a strawman. It must be true that the designer is external to the process of development itself, otherwise the process itself explains the origin of development (as I have explained continously in the debate). At this point, I'm not really sure what to ask of my opponent to do. I've made several arguments, many of which have gone ignored by my opponent, but even further, the most essential questions I've asked, like "what is the distinguishing feature of intelligence" have been concede to be inherently vague. If we are arguing about vague terms here, I'm unsure of how to proceed in the debate, it seems to me you don't know what you are talking about and are just pulling out cyclical argumentation to win the debate. I urge the audience to recognize this fault, to take note of the arguments that I have made and the rebuttals that have been clearly outlined by side opposition and vote appropriately.