Intelligent Design

The final round begins with my opponent wasting much of his valuable space talking about Christianity, and why Christian doctrine about Jesus is correct. That strategy is egregiously flawed. Responses: >> "I was suggesting that if there was a creator the evidence that we would be presented to us would be in a way, filtered." Why? Where is the evidence for this assertion? My opponent presents no evidence for the proposition that there IS a creator in the first place, NOR that if said creator existed, that it would, for some inexplicable reason, doctor its creative process to fit our perceptions. In fact, the notion delivered by this statement is that the creator did NOT create man, as somehow, the creator was unable to create man in such a way as to experience the rest of creation unfiltered... It simply doesn't make sense. >> "(http://www.seekfind.net......) Here is your source." Right, because "seekfind.net" is a reliable, scientific source. The article you reference has a breadcrumb trail called "Home > The Meaning of Life > The Cult > Evolutionism > Arguments Against Evolution > Evolution is Flim-flam > Statistics ." It's a little late now, but in order to actually cite scientific "evidence" it needs to come from a scientific source. The article doesn't even show any basis for it's calculations. Here's just an idea of how far these writers depart from reality - a quote from their website footer: "Human theology and reasoning is not necessarily correct, but the Bible is without error." If you want to be taken seriously at all, use science, not theology. >> "science's theory of how life started needs almost the same amount faith then an intelligent designer" This statement is patently false. By definition, faith in something requires a lack of evidence. Science, by definition, builds on previous evidence. So first of all, the statement doesn't make any sense, and second, the statement also concedes that there is in fact no evidence for intelligent design, and thus, concedes the entire argument. >> "Christianity. Jesus was the son of god. That's what he said. So why should we believe him? " Who gives a diddle? There is no evidence whatsoever that if there is an intelligent designer, that it was the Christian God!! But I'll respond to some of these statements simply because they have enormous comedic value... >> "The reason I say reliable is because it was written by normal eye witnesses." This is rich... you do know that only one of the Twelve could likely read and write? >> "These errors are good because if every account was identical to each other then we can see how it was just planned out by a group, but that's not what happened here." A Christian fictionalism that states in effect: "The more errors something contains, the more likely it is to be correct." >> "if they wanted people to believe there story they would not have said that a women discovered that Jesus' dead body was gone." Which they already knew, so they figured that it would increase the believability of their tale if they stood by that little detail... And their story was in such sorry shape already, what with the zombie and all, that they figured one more little thing couldn't hurt. >> "The bible is not a book of lies that were stirred up to make people confused. " ORLY? I suggest you actually read it then. Pay particular attention to books like Leviticus and Numbers, as well as the many accounts of factual impossibilities like burning bushes that don't burn, people rising from the dead, etc... >> "when Jesus, (the son of god) preached he would say "because of your faith, you are healed."" Right, because thanks to modern medicine, we know that forgiving sins cures diseases and conditions such as paralysis and leprosy. Good on you Jesus, for figuring that one out early! >> "Maybe god dose not want us to prove him with scientific evidence." Or maybe he doesn't exist... >> "my opponent has yet to disprove a creator; he is only providing THEORYS supporting evolution." My burden is not to disprove a creator - the burden is on my opponent to actually prove the one exists. As far as evolution goes, I have been humoring my opponent's assertions against it, simply because he has yet to put forth an argument that supports Intelligent Design, so there has been nothing for me to actually argue against. >> "The problem with it is that our fossil record does not show a nice tree with one common ancestor." Nor would it, given the fact that life likely developed in the oceans, where there aren't too many fossils. Furthermore, the planet is geologically active enough that we wouldn't be able to trace back to the first common ancestor because the evidence has likely been destroyed. Also, consider that the fossil record DOES trace back to many simpler ancestors that show they have developed into multiple present-day organisms. In other words, we can trace back pretty darn far, and that tracing shows evolution to be correct, but beyond that point, we just don't have access to the evidence. That's why science doesn't claim to be 100% correct about everything, and evolution is still a theory. But it's a whole lot better than the theological guesswork that is ID. >> "there is not going to be a point where we can prove that there is a god, but that doesn't mean there isn't one." So there is not going to be evidence, and this proves that there is a god?? Right. That standard "proves" anything you want it to. >> "In short the theory of intelligent design is that there is a creator who made our everything." And my opponent has yet to provide any evidence for any of that statement.' >> "The other side is the big bang theory where first there was nothing… and then it exploded. " As referenced above, this statement is incorrect (and a straw man), and evidences the lack of preparation and understanding of my opponent. ******************************************************************************* Readers, if there is one thing that is clear in this debate, it is that my opponent is simply not aware of this subject matter. He provided no evidence whatsoever for ID. He even failed to introduce the concept of irreducible complexity, a key principle of ID. The debate is clear - there wasn't actually a debate on this topic at all because PRO did nothing to further the resolution, and so it is: NEGATED.