@the_people's_champ I'm sorry I thought it would you let you keep going if i passed the mic @the_peoples_champ, i didnt realize its a hard cap. I didn't get to have closing statement, but all good. So from here's we've indicated a falsifiable statement. on irreducible complexity. If you don't mind I would like to have another debate specifically on this topic.
It's okay really. Let me know when you are ready to do Round II of this debate.
@the_peoples_champ Give me sometime. I need to review my evolutionary biology. It will be a good blast from the past. But we need to come to an agreement on what would be considered a reproducible complexity. (w.e the opposite of irreducible complexity). This way we can come up with a "test". Like if i can map out every step in evolution of the heart, would that be a sufficient test?
Pro, nice use of Popper's falsifiability theory.
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance did you really just vote against me in this debate??
@the_peoples_champ Still watching, haven't voted yet.
Pro's argument doesn't really work imo. Of course you can hold creationism up to falsifiability. I've had numerous debates with Terrance and Nelson and Sebastien where I present arguments that could be said to disprove the idea of God (they disagree of course). The reason that matters is, if God is disproven, Creationism is necessarily disproven. So yes, Creationism could potentially be proven false. Meanwhile, Terrance has excellent arguments pointing to the idea that intelligent design is a legitimate theory. In order for pro to win this, he would have to show there is literally no evidence, but Terrance actually has a lot of evidence, more so than the Pro presented, so Con easily wins just by showing up and having evidence.Also, @joedinner, @the_peoples_champ only said to stay away from me because I kicked his ass during our debate lol :D. You're welcome to debate me whenever you'd like, and I just might be nice to you (no promises though lol)
@debateme13 To be fair no one really proved or disproved anything (for the record God is not falsifiable in any way almost by definition). Because of this I don't understand all the cons; it should really all be draws. It wasn't really a debate as much as trying to find middle ground we could debate on. Trying to find what aspect could we test and discuss further. If you noticed the video was really just me listening and trying to figure that out. We settled on irreproducible complexity, which I believe is not only completely disprovable, but easily so. And that will be where the real debate begins, but now when I debunk that, I'm not just debunking creationism as a scientific theory, I'm debunking creationism period. As that is the test marker and parameters agreed upon. Basically this was just an introduction.
@joedinner As an introduction to the topic this is fine, but it's still a debate in and of itself, and according to the resolution as you worded it, you had an almost impossible task in front of you.In order for the Pro to defend this resolution, you would have had to show that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for creationism, and that it isn't even a scientific theory. You proved neither, while Terrance aptly proved that creationism has a lot of evidence behind it. It's an easy vote for the Con in this debate. I get that you were using this debate as a testing grounds, so in the follow up debate I'm sure you'll choose a better resolution and present some of your actual arguments, but for a voter watching this specific debate, 100% of them should vote Con.
@debateme13 woah thats a complete shift in the burden of proof fallacy, though I guess this could be due to the wording of the title, but still thats a complete fallacy. Using the classic black swan example. If every known swan is black, but you believe there's a white swan, the burden of proof is on you to find a white swan, not on me to collect every swan. Its literally impossible to prove that every swan is black without collecting every single swan on the planet. This is why burden of proof is important. If you state their is no evidence for something to burden of proof isn't on you to find evidence for no evidence. This just a ridiculous fallacy. There was no proof of a white swan. The only evidence presented was irreducible complexity, which is not only a factually incorrect, but additionally fallacious argument. Its not even technically an argument for creationism, but an argument against evolution. By the way This is going to be the subject of our next debate. Not to mention, I covered this subject briefly with the heart. How fish have a 2 chambered heart, reptilian 3 chambered heart, mammals 4 chambers. This is pretty strong evidence that even very complex structures can evolve from simple structures. But again, I'll cover this in the next debate in more detail. So I guess there was some confusion due to how the wording is, but it's literally impossible to disprove that there is no evidence for anything. Thats why correct burden of proof is so important when making scientific claims.But after this I do feel that there is kind of a scientific language barrier present, which I'll need to work on. Because from my point of view this debate went like this: scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. No evidence of anything falsifiable is presented. The closest evidence being irreducible complexity, which again is factually false and fallacious. Again this will be the next debate.Wasn't it you, who stated people shouldn't win debates when they're claims aren't factual?
@joedinner haha I was con on that rez actually :D. People should win if they present the best case for their side of the resolution. But the wording of a resolution matters. In the future when you do debates, I'd recommend phrasing it in a way that gives an equal burden to each side. According to this resolution, you gave yourself the burden to prove that literally 0 evidence exists for creationism, which Terrance easily disproved. Your arguments might be more convincing had your debate been framed in a different way :)
I'm going to ask you this @joedinner. Is the next 10 minute debate going to be you explaining what you found irreducible complexity, then I bring something else and you need a day to come back while you research that?I'm not saying this in a smart ass way. Seriously I have more than just irreducible complexity as evidence of intelligent design. That was just what I had time for in 10 minutes.
@sigfried right this was a definitely a learning experience as it was my first debate. Definitely learned the importance of properly wording the debate topics. I made a note to discuss the importance of utility of evidence. Specifically, scientific evidence is evidence which has utility towards disproving or proving a scientific theory. So without having a scientific theory, there cannot be scientific evidence. But I obviously did not explain this. I made a note (at the very top of my notes) to talk about and then for whatever reason it just got skipped over. I'm going to chalk up to a rookie error. Additionally, I had more to add; at the end of the debate I thought passing the mic would give him more time to finish his thought, but it just ended the debate. So I never had a chance at wrapping things up.But overall I pretty much agree with your assessment. This is basically what I posted earlier in the discussion with @debateme13. That neither of us really proved our argument or disproved the others. That this was more of an introduction, rather than a full on debate. But I do disagree with you here: I do think @the_peoples_champ made an attempt to prove falsifiability with irreducible design, which maybe I should have challenged in this video, but I thought that would a good topic for another day. I believe there's major problems with the idea of irreducible design. And this is what our next debate topic is going to be.
@joedinner I'll be honest I don't find the falsifiability point even remotely convincing, but Sigfried is right that Terrance mostly ignored it. I don't think Terrance was making Irreducible Complexity as a response to falsifiability, since it doesn't actually answer the falsifiability question. Irreducible Complexity is more of a proof pointing to the need for a designer than a standard for disproving creationism.But there are certainly two parts to your resolution. My vote was made because you have to uphold at least the main one, which you didn't, since I think you were more focused on the second half in parentheses, but if that was the case I don't know why you even included the first half lol, since it made your point impossible.
@joedinner Cool. My main issue with irreducible complexity is that it relies heavily on the limits of imagination. People could say, "Look at the eye, it's so complicated and has so many specialized components, clearly that could not have just evolved one step at a time!"But folks who are smarter than I and know biology better than I have demonstrated exactly how it could have developed from the simplest of light sensing cells to a full-on human eye. It takes a long time to think it through, and we could fail simply because we don't quite have the knowledge yet to construct how it is possible. Of course, the easy thing to do is to look at the tree of life since often earlier forms indeed have simpler versions of the same parts at work. Thus you can pretty much point and say, well this is how the human hand developed from the first fish to crawl out of the ocean, pretty much step by step. But of course, we don't have a lot of soft tissue going way back except for the species that have survived for vast periods of time and are alive today.Anyhow, I look forward to seeing how you handle it. :)
@debateme13 well correct, but it was the example he used as being falsifiable. So we've come to an agreement on set parameters for which one can not only disprove creationism as a scientific theory, but disprove it period. The issue with declaring falsifiability, you're now set up for being falsified. Essentially in our next debate, if I disprove irreducible complexity in any way, I disprove creationism period. By the way, I have so far been able to come up with 6 specific ways, I can disprove it. 6, if I come up with anymore, we'll probably need a longer debate.
@sigfried Yes this is going to be the real challenge. Is re-remembering some of that. There was a time, where I could fully explain the evolution of each organ system step by step through each phylum all the way from Archea domain. If i can relearn some of it, I should be pretty good. Though I think I'll focus on the two most quoted examples of irreducible complexity, the eye and flagellum.
@joedinner I don't understand how irreducible complexity can be used to disprove Creationism. I can see how it can be used to disprove evolution. But let's say, for the sake of argument, we had a compelling explanation for the evolutionary development of every living species. Nothing we can point to is irreducibly complex.A creation says, "Sure, well then the Creator must have made them that way." It may remove one of the supports that prove them true, but it doesn't actually falsify their claim, at least so far as I can see.You get the same thing in Old Earth apologetics. "The earth is not old." / "This reliable method of dating shows that it is." / "God could have made it so that it appears old even though it isn't." Logically, sure that's accurate. An all powerful god could make rocks that are in the middle of radioactive decay. Seems pretty far fetched, but it is in the realm of posssibility for an all powerful creator.
@sigfried so its important to note that I did not set up the parameters of the "experiment". It was his claim that irreducible complexity was a testable component which proves intelligent design. So by his logic and his parameters, debunking irreducible complexity disproves creationism. But you are correct. And that is actually what I believe. As an agnostic, I believe God is not disprovable, but is still a possibility. And when it comes to this subject, I believe in that their is a possibility that an intelligent designer created the mechanics/physics of the universe. That if there was a God, it would be more logical for him to have created the process of evolution than each and every organism. But this is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one.
@joedinner We have pretty much the same view of the subject I think.