The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Do you think that the intelligent design theory is coming to an end? in News
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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 idiot 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.
Arguments
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 18%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 6%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: non-existence of God    kind of perfect precision   idiot savant   entire life  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra