frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Do you think that the intelligent design theory is coming to an end?

Debate Information

No, most likely not.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • How can some GROGGY EXPLOSION make a human brain?
  • I don't think so.
  • agsragsr 881 Pts   -  
    Unless someone goes back in time to demonstrate what really happens, we should expect a similar level of controversy.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    Science still has very little insight, if any, on what the necessary and sufficient conditions for emergence of sapient life are. Opinions vary significantly, from "Pretty much any combination of atoms higher than H and He in any environment, including cold space, will eventually produce organic life", all the way to "Earth life outbreak is an incredibly unlikely anomaly that probably has not happened anywhere else", in all cases with very questionable arguments. This ambiguity makes it absolutely impossible to even remotely answer any questions with regards to what triggered emergence of Homo-Sapiens species on Earth, let alone what the status of sapient life elsewhere in the Universe is.

    Something that has be noted is that there has to be, at least, one non-recursive possibility for life to emerge. For example, if we assume that we used to be apes uplifted by aliens visiting our planet, say, one million years ago - then the question remains, "How did those aliens become sapient?" Going all the way back in time, and assuming that intelligent life did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang (which it may have, although the probability of it statistically is very low), we have to acknowledge that at some point intelligent life had to emerge chaotically. That does not mean that humans appeared chaotically, but that does mean that some intelligent species did appear chaotically - and that still begs a thorough research on how exactly such events can happen.

    Intelligent design in terms of "someone created our Universe", however, can be easily put to rest. It is not that it is impossible for it to be the case, but it is that the predictive power of such an assumption is exactly zero, hence it should have no place in modern theories. "We were created by a God", or "We are a part of a simulation", or "Our Universe is just one out of infinity of Universes, and all of them are randomly generated on some RNG machine" are interesting to consider from mathematical perspective, but practically these theories have no value - unless they include some further assumptions that could be tested in a real life experiment.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Science still has very little insight, if any, on what the necessary and sufficient conditions for emergence of sapient life are. Opinions vary significantly, from "Pretty much any combination of atoms higher than H and He in any environment, including cold space, will eventually produce organic life", all the way to "Earth life outbreak is an incredibly unlikely anomaly that probably has not happened anywhere else", in all cases with very questionable arguments. This ambiguity makes it absolutely impossible to even remotely answer any questions with regards to what triggered emergence of Homo-Sapiens species on Earth, let alone what the status of sapient life elsewhere in the Universe is.

    Something that has be noted is that there has to be, at least, one non-recursive possibility for life to emerge. For example, if we assume that we used to be apes uplifted by aliens visiting our planet, say, one million years ago - then the question remains, "How did those aliens become sapient?" Going all the way back in time, and assuming that intelligent life did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang (which it may have, although the probability of it statistically is very low), we have to acknowledge that at some point intelligent life had to emerge chaotically. That does not mean that humans appeared chaotically, but that does mean that some intelligent species did appear chaotically - and that still begs a thorough research on how exactly such events can happen.

    Intelligent design in terms of "someone created our Universe", however, can be easily put to rest. It is not that it is impossible for it to be the case, but it is that the predictive power of such an assumption is exactly zero, hence it should have no place in modern theories. "We were created by a God", or "We are a part of a simulation", or "Our Universe is just one out of infinity of Universes, and all of them are randomly generated on some RNG machine" are interesting to consider from mathematical perspective, but practically these theories have no value - unless they include some further assumptions that could be tested in a real life experiment.
    Seeing that at least 1/3 of the world now believes the earth is flat, and this is testable in real life experiment, I'd assume that ID theory is on a sharp incline, not "easily put to rest".
    Sharky
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -  
    AndyB1212 said:
    No, most likely not.
    It depends on what you mean by "coming to an end". If you mean no longer being believed in, then no, it is not coming to an end. If you mean losing rational, argumentative support that hasn't been refuted, then it died long ago.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    DrCereal said:
    AndyB1212 said:
    No, most likely not.
    It depends on what you mean by "coming to an end". If you mean no longer being believed in, then no, it is not coming to an end. If you mean losing rational, argumentative support that hasn't been refuted, then it died long ago.
    Just because you haven't seen the argumentive rational support that hasn't been refuted, doesn't mean there is none.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -  
    That is very true, but I was referring to the popular, "go-to" arguments that are generally used.

    Bis das, si cito das.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    DrCereal said:
    That is very true, but I was referring to the popular, "go-to" arguments that are generally used.

    For example, the flat earth? The Fibonacci Sequence? The Giant fossiles?
    Nathaniel_B
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Nathaniel_BNathaniel_B 182 Pts   -  
    It is not very credible. What proof is there that there is a god?
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    It is not very credible. What proof is there that there is a god?
    I just gave three good reasons, whether or not your opinion of credibility meets your standards is irrelevant. The earth is demonstrably flat and stationary with even the simplest of observations and experiments. It is covered by a firmament which is also evidenced by everyday observations. 
    Plaffelvohfen
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • TheocratTheocrat 69 Pts   -  
    Truth will never go away.

  • cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts   -  
    It is not very credible. What proof is there that there is a god?
    god simply kickstarted the universe what do you think is more plausible that everything came out of nothing in a big explosion and it had just the right balance to keep expanding but slowly enough that atoms don't get ripped apart then a chemical reaction created something that was just right for life to occur then a bunch of molecules started to replicate then joined together in just the right way to make things self aware then they got lucky enough to survive an ice age and a supervolcano eruption or that a god was involved
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts   -  
    Like many people, I've struggled with agnosticism my entire life. Different life events tend to pull you in one direction or the other and the cycle never stops. While I doubt that the existence or non-existence of God can or will ever be proven, in my opinion, there are things that are just too perfect, too improbable or too mind-boggling to occur in the absence of an omniscient force. For instance, salmon returning to the exact stream where they were hatched to spawn again or Purple Martins returning to the same houses we erect for them after migrating to South America. Birds and fish don't have GPS. Where did they get this innate navigational talent? What about the so-called savant who can't tie their shoe but who can play Mozart on the piano after one hearing? Or you can look at the mathematical perfection and simplicity of chemistry or physics to witness God-like design. Again, just my opinion, but it seems way more improbable that these types of things would work their way to this kind of perfect precision in some random, uncontrolled way than it would if a supreme being were somehow directing it all. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch