Life is most likely intelligently designed

Thanks Pro. Burden of Proof Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro for this debate, and he needed to demonstrate that it is most likely that life was designed intelligently. He has taken one or two approaches in this debate, the first is by denying the contra-proposition, in the dichotimy, and second is by appealing to the fact that humans are computers. I argue that he has not fulfilled his Bop, or even come close to on either of these propositions, and that I have demonstrated that they are just plain false, and that we have excellent reason to accept that life arose non-intelligently (be it randomly, or whatever). II. Semantics "Random" The word random is frequently used as an euphemism for unordered, by chance, etc. Clearly this is the definition of random I was arguing against. The full definition from Merrimack-Webster is given below and the parts I objected to I have highlighted in asterisks. "1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or *pattern* b : made, done, or chosen at random * * 2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite *probability* of occurrence b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements " ran"dom"ly adverb " ran"dom"ness noun" Nowhere do I see non-consciously in this dichotimy, but in either case it does not matter, my arguments so far have demonstrated that Pro's assertion of the impossibility of "non-intelligently", be it defined as randomly or not, is just plain false, and it equivalent to saying a cliff collapsed randomly, where clearly erosion have made such an occurrence inevitable. Moreover Pro has given zero reasons apart from prima facie reasons why such a proposition is impossible. III. Humans are Computers I hold that Pro is just extending euphemisms to make it appear that humans are computers in the sense that they are clearly constructed. Pro is effectively asserting: "All 'computers' are intelligently designed" If Humans were intelligently designed, then I must ask when was I designed/constructed? Since to the best of my knowledge I emerged from a single cell in my mother's womb. Of course here Pro will argue that the original humans were intelligently designed, and we are reproductions, in which case I don't know how Pro can state his premise that "All computers are intelligently designed" with any confidence whatsoever. Since we know variation occurs between generations, and hence it is very conceivable that the brains of Humans could have evolved to develop such capabilities via. natural selection. It's entirely physically possible, and hardly implausible, especially given we have incrementally lesser intelligent species than ourselves (chimpanzees, cats, mice, worms) in existence, the fact that we are top of the bunch of increasingly intelligent species leads me to ask, at what point do species' become 'computers'? The answer is, never. Computers are clearly something man-made, and I can make the competing CAMESTRES syllogism with equivalent evidence: P1) All computers are man-made P2) All humans are not man-made C) Humans are not computers And I can press the exact same type of assertion into Pro, show me one example of a non-man made computer. It all comes down to semantics, which do not prove anything either way. Pro needs to provide evidence that humans are positively intelligently designed, he has not. IV. Pro's myopic view on thermodynamics "I was near sighted. I was born myopic, and I got glasses, right after that." - Kitty Carlisle I would like to encourage Pro to put some on and look at the bigger picture! Sure, life itself is of greater order than the same 'stuff' in a mush, that much is true, but there's a reason why it is of greater 'order' (and hence lower entropy) than if it were dead, and that is because it's part of a bigger process, of which the bigger process, or 'larger environment' is working towards a larger and larger entropy over time. Hot things radiate heat, loud things radiate sound, and bright things radiate light. All excellent examples of systems attempting to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. Life's role in the grand scheme of things is to facilitate that, and much like the turbine that spins in the river, or a power generator, it receives a large 'usable' energy incentive to do so! Now, let's take Pro's (disturbing) Frog experiment. First let me get this clear, I made the claimed that the conditions for the first adaptive autocatalytic systems were available anywhere, so this entire analogy is a big strawman. But moreover, Pro's analogy just goes to prove my point further. The frog when alive, facilitates a process of 'relieving thermodynamic stress'. It was eating, breathing, excreting, radiating, cell-replicating, and as such it was doing it's 'job' of relieving that stress remarkable well. Once the Frog died, it is no longer capable of performing that role anymore, and it has lost it's 'usable energy incentive'. Ergo, the higher-than-usual ordered Frog will tend towards a high entropy state. Note that I use 'ordered' with respect to life very loosely, as thermodynamics is more concerned about energy, and 'useful energy' than the superficial structure of stuff. Since if life truly had an extremely low entropy, then so would mountains, ice and caves, which would all become dust very rapidly. Clearly this is false. "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 reduce the overall entropy of the universe... then what conceivably could???" Pro, abiogenesis is only a net decrease if you maintain a myopic view on where the changes in entropy are occurring, looking at life as an isolated entity is just a bad way of doing it, since life is most definitely not in isolation, it sits on the Earth, which is a much larger system, in a soup of chemicals, as well as the energy received from the Sun. V. Abiogenesis Not that this argument isn't even needed to win the debate, as I have already shown the dichotimy to be absurd. First, to respond: "We do not have abiogenesis as an option on the table; Louis Pasteur disproved that centuries ago, and this dead horse is beaten again every-time abiogenesis fails in the lab." Louis Pasteur demonstrated that 'spontaneous generation' was astronomically unlikely. But spontaneous generation =/= abiogenesis. As abiogenesis is the move from chemical origins to very simply life origins. And I already showed in my first round just how simply the life origins could be, and conceivably well-within reach of conditions that could have occurred on Earth. Note that we have absolutely no reason to believe the conditions on Earth have remained uniform throughout Earths history, moreover existing life today is at such a level that any abiotic life that does somehow emerge today would inevitably be rapidly out-competed by existing life. Sterile conditions are needed and a large number of environments need to be tested, which in summary makes OOL research tedious and difficult. Moreover it is by no means a failure as Pro describes, as increasingly sophisticated systems have been shown to possibly emerge from several branches of abiogenesis, which is in line with what I have argued so far.[1] IV. Physical Possibility Pro makes a remarkable concession! "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." Fantastic, Pro argues for an intelligence that is beyond our natural laws and hence,our realms of scientific experience. This is something that is not shown to be possible with our existing natural laws, and as such we can give this entity an a priori physical possibility of zero. I don't need to demonstrate intelligent design to be false, Pro needs to demonstrate it is at least possible, and then show it's likely. He hasn't even gotten over the first hurdle yet, and in fact has set the hurdle so high it's inconceivable he could jump it. There are many reasons to apply a zero physical possibility (which is required for the argument to work). Not even clear is such an entity is logically/metaphysically possible Is beyond any scientific experience Similar contradictory claims can be made for virtually anything Note that I am not ruling out an epistemological possibility of the physical possibility of a transcendent ID. The statement that "for all I know it is possible that a transcendent being could possibly ID life" is one I would quickly make. But this initial epistemic possibility needs to be demonstrated to be very likely before it's physical possibility can be considered. Remember, we are comparing the possibility of life arising naturally (be it randomly. Or non randomly, non intelligently, or whatever) and the possibility of life arising intelligently. But we cannot do this if we do not have a positive possibility of life arising intelligently, and Pro has provided no way of finding out what this possibility roughly is. It is simply not enough to attack the possibility of life occurring naturally to demonstrate ID, it is logically unsound. V. Conclusion I stand where I started. The resolution is negated. Best of luck in voting! VI. References 1. http://tinyurl.com...