The Instigator
Sagey
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

A Young Earth Creation Biologist Is As Out Of Place As An Atheist Theologian?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 46206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Sagey

Pro

For starters, there nothing in Biological Science that is not based on the laws of Evolution, just as there is nothing in Theology ("Studying The Mind Of God") for a person who considers that God does not exist:

Both would be working against their own personal beliefs and both would struggle to reconcile these.
I know of some trained and qualified as Theologians, who even worked in the field of religious preaching for many years before they became Atheists, almost overnight. and suddenly their Theology became nonsense and absurd to them.
Thus, they no longer practice as theology and some try to forget they even studied it.

Young Earth Creationists also try to point out Biologists who have become Young Earth Creationists, yet still try to assert themselves as Biologists, yet their own beliefs deny all the background and concepts behind their Biological training, thus they cease to be real Biologists, because they no longer consider the basics of their training, which is Evolution to be correct.

In both cases, they would have to be constantly in denial of their personal beliefs during work and after work be in denial of the basis of their employment.

Makes for a very confusing set of career choices.

Though if they were Young Earth Creationists prior to biological training, it is unlikely they would be able to comprehend their training and would fail their examinations.
The same for the Atheist, it is unlikely they would even consider undertaking an Theological training.

Though this situation has occurred, it is always after their training that they arrive at their individual belief in young earth creation or disbelief in God.

Though in the case of Atheist Theologians, they usually stop being Theologians and find another occupation or in some cases use their Theological background and knowledge to attack their previous practice, that they developed such disbelief in.

Similar to the case of may Young Earth Creation Biologists, who stop practicing their Evolution/Biology and spend the rest of their lives publishing nonsense that defies their own training in support of their unsubstantiated beliefs.
This is often because there is more money in promoting YEC than there is in working in Biology, but the result is similar.

They both end up in denial of the basis of their training.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://www.examiner.com...

http://humanknowledge.net...

http://open.salon.com...

ON YEC and Biology

http://www.conservapedia.com...


http://www.examiner.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...;
bluesteel

Con

== Burden of Proof ==

I assume that this debate will be a lesson in proper topic wording by the instigator.

The topic is "A Young Earth Creationist Biologist (YECB) is as out of place as an Atheist Theologian (AT)?" Pro must prove YECB is as out of place as AT.

One determines what Con must prove by placing a "not" in the resolution. Therefore, Con must prove that YECB is not as out of place as AT. Con could do this by proving that YECB is more out of place than AT or by proving that YECB is less out of place than AT.

Therefore, Pro has to quantify the "out of placeness" of both YECB and AT and show they are perfectly equal (kind of like flipping a coin and having it land on its side - neither heads nor tails). Con can win by showing that either one is more out of place than the other.

Represented as a mathematical equation, Pro drafted the topic to be: Y = A. If Y > A, then Y does not equal A. If Y < A, then Y does not equal A. This equation is yet another illustration that Con can disprove the resolution by arguing that either YECB or AT is more out of place.

== Argument ==

(1) YECB is more out of place than AT

To become a professional biologist, a person would need to go through at least four years of college as a Biology major. A person who is a Young Earth Creationist already believes that evolution is wrong before picking her major. In contrast, it is possible for a Theology student to graduate from religious school and become an Atheist after graduation (or during school). Therefore, a YECB is more out of place because she decides to major in a topic that she completely disagrees with, whereas an AT is less out of place because she chooses the Theology major before becoming an Atheist. The YECB chooses her contradictory major knowing the contradiction full well; the AT does not.

Studies have found that as people become more educated, they gain critical thinking skills that are likely to make them less religious. [1] Studies have generally found that the more dogmatic religious sects (e.g. Evangelicals) tend to be less educated than the less dogmatic denominations. [2] Education therefore generally decreases religious belief.

These studies demonstrate that a YECB is more out of place because it would be expected that her Biology courses would disavow her of her Young Earth Creationist beliefs. In contrast, a higher education in Theology might produce many Atheists both because it teaches critical thinking skills inherently (since it offers some classical higher education training) and because a familiarity with the Bible sometimes reveals the Bible's many contradictions to someone who had not yet realized that they were there.

Conclusion: a YECB is more out of place than an AT for two reasons - (1) the YECB chooses the anamolous major on purpose while the AT does not, and (2) the YECB bucks the trend that education decreases religious belief.

(2) AT is more out of place than YECB

An internet search reveals a much longer list of YECB's than AT's. [3] The reason that YECB's are likely more common is because evolution is not a cornerstone to the everyday work of some biologists because they specialize. For example, my Micobiology Professor in college did all of his research on the functioning of the neurons in the eyes of squids. It is not necessary to believe in evolution in order to document how an eye works. Likewise, it is not necessary to believe in evolution in order to do DNA sequencing. YECB's do not deny genetics, only evolution. Likewise, YECB's can do animal testing of drugs since this has to do with the body's reaction to certain chemical compounds and does not require a belief in evolution. In contrast, a Theologist's everyday work does require a belief in religious teachings. Therefore, the AT is more out of place. The YECB can avoid dealing with evolution by specializing in a sub-field that does not require a belief in evolution.

== Debate Theory ==

Advancing contradictory arguments is good because it offers a full test of the resolution and increases the educational value of the debate.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
[2] Sacerdote, Bruce; Glaeser, Edward L. "Education and Religion." Harvard Institute of Economic Research. p. 29.
[3] Compare YECB (http://www.examiner.com...) to AT (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Debate Round No. 1
Sagey

Pro

Nice Work Con! And thank you for taking on this Philosophically Unusual Debate:
BTW: Thanks for some great Source for reference [1].

I will accept Con's use of YECB for Young Earth Creation Biologist and AT for Atheist Theologian.

Though: Yes, you could probably be better off with taking the case as YECB is More Out Of Place than an AT.
As, out of the Millions of Biologists on the planet, that list in the Examiner, which btw is an unreliable source for any real knowledge, only lists a handfull of Biologists.
Many of those Biologists cannot support their Young Earth Creation belief in their papers and have them accepted, thus their difficulty between their faith and their work.

The List of Atheist Theologians provided by Con: http://en.wikipedia.org...
are not true Atheists, "Death Of God Atheists" are actually Deists.
They believe God existed, but either disappeared or died soon after or at the Big Bang.
Thomas Paine was a Deist who started much of the US modern Atheist movement.
They are close to Atheists, who disbelieve a God ever existed, but truly they are Deists, because they believe a God had existed sometime in the past.

Similarities:

[1] Neither can combine their belief and work: (YECB :=: AT) In that a YECB cannot get their belief accepted by their Peers and neither can the AT get their disbelief in God, accepted by their Theological Peers.

[2] Neither could accept much of their training:

[a] YECB would not be able to accept that which is accepted by their Peers:
  • Dinosaur genetics still remain in current creatures such as birds where Ostriches are direct descendants of Velociraptors and their vestigial arms are reasonably good evidence of this.
  • Abiogenesis (life forming from elementary molecules) is now believed to be supported by evidence and highly probable.
  • Simple tree rings demonstrate that some trees have lived for 7,000 to 9,000 years which defeats YEC beliefs.
  • Phenotype changes (external appearance/additions) are evidence of microevolution producing macroevolutionary changes.
  • If evolution were false, then immunization (polio, measles, TB, cervical cancer, etc..) could not work, because these rely on the foundations of evolutionary biology being true.

[b] AT Cound also, not accept much of Theological subjective views held by Peers:

  • The universe was created by a God so it will have something to worship it, or to satisfy it's Megalomania.
  • Natural events are the works of God and people being saved or killed are all part of this Omniscient being's will.
  • The skill of the pilot who saved all those people who survived the Hudson River ditching had nothing to do with it, and the survivor who thanked God for saving them was indeed right.
  • If millions of innocents are killed in a natural disaster, but a grandmother and a baby were saved, God is a savior.
  • Anselm's Objectively Irrational, Subjective Ontological Argument is Sound and highly Rational.
  • If you are a serial killer and repent to God, you can be saved a place in Heaven, but it you are a honest, caring, good person, but an Atheist, you are destined for Hell.
[3] Making an assumption that the YECB is Christian based, thus the Bible, in particular Genesis 1, is their entire script for reality and AT is a moderate Atheist, since he/she could not remain an AT if they were Anti-Theistic. Then neither would have any
chance of Peer acceptance if they published in line with their beliefs:

[a] YECB would get rejected if they published documents subscribing to:
  • The Earth is created as described in Genesis 1: Flat, Dual domes above it with water in the middle, Heaven is on the outside of the outer dome and all stars, Sun and Moon are glued to the inner dome, so if the dome is shaken, the stars will fall to Earth, just as in the Peter Wier, Jim Carey movie "The Truman Show".
  • Life is placed on the Earth out of natural sequence with plants introduced before there is even light for them to function, and grasses are introduced first, where in reality grasses are most likely the last plant group to form.
  • The many different hominid variations and Neanderthals all started from Adam and Eve and Eve came from a single rib, now that's an interesting Stem Cell trick. It does appear that Neanderthal genes exist in modern hominids, so we did propagate with them, some blame Neanderthal DNA for diabetes.
  • Insects have 4 and not 6 legs, as in Leviticus.
So as far as I can conclude They still come out rather equal in displacement.

Though Con did bring up one very interesting point: "Studies have found that as people become more educated, they gain critical thinking skills that are likely to make them less religious. [1] Studies have generally found that the more dogmatic religious sects (e.g. Evangelicals) tend to be less educated than the less dogmatic denominations. [2] Education therefore generally decreases religious belief."

As I stated in my introduction: It is EXTREMELY unlikely that highly educated students undertaking Biology would ever be a Creationist in the first place:
Most Creationist Biologists as in that list, became Creationists later in life, long after their studies had finished, in a position where their minds have wandered away from their original studies and goals.
I'm arriving at a point where I'm actually implying that Biologists adopt Creationism for one of two reasons.
1: They have lost their marbels and dementia has set in, so they no longer connect with reality.
2: They are not making enough money from their Biology, so they move to a more lucritave income in publishing pseudo-scientific non-Peer acceptable drivel to market to Creationists in the extremely prosperious US Creationist market.
Thus they YECB do find themselves in the same predicament as AT, for similar reasons.

The AT likewise, may not have lost their marbels, but they stay on as Theologians for the same monetary reasons.
In that a Theologian has to do very little practical work, they mostly just have to support their subjective drivel and publish books (apologetics) to maintain their standing. So being a Theologian is an easier lifestyle than having to find manual work and they are wrongly held up by society as being in high social standing, which in itself is Irrational.

So Both are living and gaining a living by deception.
So far it appears YECB is still equally out of place to AT.

Abiogenesis:

http://anotheratheist.tumblr.com...
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Truman Show trailer: A fun movie!

https://www.youtube.com...


On Ostriches and Velociraptors
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com.au...

http://www.chacha.com...
http://dinogoss.blogspot.com.au...

Oh, btw: they now know that velociraptors did actually have feathers, Jurassic Park was Wrong!
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://dinosaurs.about.com...


Randoms: Comparative views of the Universe from Catholic, Creationist to Atheist sources:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com...


http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.icr.org...



Concerning the differences in views or warfare of Theological and Scientific views ot the Universe:
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu...
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu...


http://www.tandfonline.com...

That's all I have time for:

Thanks again Con:

Over to you!??

:-D~
bluesteel

Con

== Burden of Proof ==

My opponent essentially concedes my analysis of the resolution, which makes it impossible for him to win. He fails to quantify the "out of place-ness" of YECB's and AT's. Without a quantification, he could never hope to show that they are *exactly* equal (which is about as easy to do as flipping a coin and having it land perfectly on its edge - neither heads nor tails).

== Responding to my opponent's previous Round ==

My opponent's wall of text boils down to arguing that: (1) there are relatively few YECB's, (2) both YECB's and AT's would be derided for publishing their true beliefs in their respective fields, and (3) that I am wrong to argue that YECB's started their faith early in life.

My responses:

(1) There are relatively few YECB's

This is true. But my cursory internet search revealed even fewer AT's. It seems easier to conceal one's lack of belief in evolution if one specializes in a field of biology not related to evolution than if one is an atheist trying to be a pastor or a religious scholar. My point stands that AT's would be more out of place if they *stayed* in their chosen profession. YECB's can more easily perform their jobs without believing in evolution. It doesn't take belief in evolution to sequence DNA, test a new vaccine on a bunch of mice (and see if they still die of the disease) or to test the neural response of the neurons in a squid eye.

(2) Both YECB's and AT's would be derided for publishing their true beliefs

Most of the YECB's listed on the website I cited above do *not* work in fields where they deal with teaching or studying evolution on a daily basis. For example, this guy works with lipids. [1] It would be stupid for a YECB to decide to publish *outside* his chosen field and simply rant about Creationism for 50 pages and submit his paper to Scientific American. YECB's can still get published in their respective fields though, even with a strict belief in Creationism, as long as they don't spout their Creationist beliefs in their academic work. People will still take their discoveries seriously, even though they openly profess on the internet to be Creationists. However, it is unlikely that a known Atheist would be taken seriously *ever* in a Theological position. Therefore, the AT is more out of place.

(3) YECB's start their faith early in life

It's true. Most of the profiles I linked do not explain when the person came to their faith, but I found a few that explain that they were raised with a strict belief in the Bible. [1] So YECB's are weirder in the sense that they go into the biological science knowing full well that they do not believe in evolution. AT's usually become atheists after their Theological studies. But this weirdness if anything proves my specialization argument. YECB's know they can specialize in a field that does not require evolution. So at the end of the day, I'm sticking with AT's being more out of place because there is really no way they can ever work in their chosen profession.

Since AT > YECB (more out of place), then AT does not equal YECB. Therefore, I win.

[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Sagey

Pro

Thanks Con:
Though Con rightly points out: There are Fewer ATs than YECBs.

That is those ATs that are known or Published.

The Big Difference between ATs and YECBs is that YECBs are too often published by such groups as Answers-In-Genesis in an attempt to give their YEC false Scientific credibility.
It really doesn't give YEC scientific Credibility at all, because the scientist they highlight, such as Dr Kramer in the source posted by Con, because that scientist cannot practice nor publish YEC concepts in his/her scientific papers, as mentioned in my previous response.

ATs on the other hand, do not want to have their names published.
ATs possibly exist in all levels of the religious hierarchy and some religion watchers have even questioned if Pope Francis (Frank) might possibly be an AT.

We cannot name these ATs pretending to be Theists, because they would lose their easy lifestyle and income, as also mentioned in my previous response.

This is something Con has not addressed, and it is a unresearchable possibility that would definitely even out the field and may even tip the scales the other way, which would also cause me to lose the debate, because my position is a finely balanced YECBs are Equally Out Of Place with ATs.

The high probability that ATs are working as functional Theologians and Priests/Ministers, equalizes the competition.

Here is a rare case: An Atheist Priest Confessing:

http://www.processedworld.com...

Though many Atheists priests eventually leave their churches, but one I knew personally, stayed on as a priest for several years after he lost his belief and became a disbeliever in God.
That was because he only had seven years until he could retire and get a reasonable handshake from his duties of telling others what he didn't believe himself. So he was a functioning AT for several years and not one of his church goers knew anything of it. I only knew because he was a family friend and I often ribbed him about his theology, until one day we were alone at the dinner table he stated that he will be retiring soon from the church and also from belief in God, which he had started doubting in some years earlier.

http://sarahtrachtenberg.com...


http://www.alternet.org...


This Blog may be indeed correct: Some Catholic Priests may be Atheists:

http://wisecatholic.blogspot.com.au...

Though I like this next story, which is a little off topic, but it is a nice personal tale, so who cares?

http://www.reddit.com...

BTW: For those ATs who finally decide to leave their positions as Priests and Ministers, there is a group that may be able to help you get settled into a decent, more realistic career path.
Namely The Clergy Project:

http://www.clergyproject.org...

Because I know there are likely many of you out there and trouble with being an Atheist in a religious preaching position, there are not many career paths open to you and there is also the estigma that you may feel when the people that depend on you are let down. This is one thing my late Priest friend was afraid of, the many friends he made working as a Theologian may suddenly turn against him if he openly admits his disbelief in God.
The Clergy Project has been set up for this very reason.
To make it easier for those ATs who need to break free.
My late friend may have jumped at the opportunity if the CP existed back then, though I think he just wanted to hang out for his retirement package and then just disappear, so his followers wouldn't need to know of his disbelief.

This is why there are likely many more functioning ATs than YECBs and thus making YECBs more out of place than ATs, which would also cause me to lose the debate.

I'm sitting on a knife edge position of Equal Disposition for both ATs and YECBs.

Con may be right, or I may be.

I'll leave that decision up to the Voters.
Also I'll add, that I didn't use the spell checker.
So all spelling mistakes or good spelling came out of my puny brain.

Thanks heaps Con:

Best of luck M8!

:-D~
bluesteel

Con

== Burden of proof ==

As instigator, my opponent bears the burden to (1) quantify the “out of placeness” of YECB’s and AT’s with *hard numbers,* and (2) show that these numbers are exactly equal. My opponent concedes that this is his burden to bear when he says:

“[M]y position is a finely balanced YECBs are Equally Out Of Place with ATs.”

My opponent’s BOP is impossible to meet, as exemplified by his previous round.

== Response to Round 3 ==

(1) My opponent argues that there *might* be equal numbers of AT’s and YECB’s because many AT’s do not publish their names.

However, this is sheer speculation and does not *prove* that their numbers are exactly equal. The probability that there are an *exactly* equal number of AT’s and YECB’s is quite low, especially given my argument that YECB’s can specialize in a non-evolution field but AT’s cannot specialize in a non-religious field of Theology. The chance that the total number of AT’s in the population is exactly equal to the total number of YECB’s is probably close to the probability of flipping a coin and having it land perfectly on its side - neither heads nor tails.

In addition, my opponent concedes that he cannot *quantify* the number of AT’s and YECB’s, and he concedes that this causes him to lose:

That the total number of YECB = total number of AT “is a unresearchable possibility that would definitely even out the field and may even tip the scales the other way, which would also cause me to lose the debate.”

So my opponent concedes that even if he is right that there are a number of unknown AT’s (my opponent speculates that even the pope may be a secret atheist), that this argument may mean there are more AT’s than YECB’s, so my opponent would lose in that case as well. My opponent loses even if his argument is correct.

(2) My opponent argues that atheist priests are afraid to leave their parishes

My opponent actually concedes that this argument actually causes him to lose the debate:

“This is why there are likely many more functioning ATs than YECBs and thus making YECBs more out of place than ATs, which would also cause me to lose the debate.”

== Conclusion ==

Vote Con because my opponent repeatedly concedes the debate in his last Round and agrees that he is completely unable to quantify the “out of placeness” of AT’s or YECB’s to the point where he can prove them to be exactly equal on this metric.

I carry my burden by showing a higher number of YECB’s who are have “come out” as Creationists, proving that they are less “out of place” because their Creationist views are more accepted in their field as long as they specialize in a sub-field where they do not research or teach evolution. My opponent’s approach of proving equal numbers of YECB’s and AT’s exist would not even prove the resolution because there could be equal numbers in existence, but one group could still be more “out of place” in their profession than the other. Since AT’s will always be more “out of place” than YECB’s because they cannot specialize in a sub-field that does not involve religion, Con wins.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I was walking a tightrope and it looks like BlueSteel shook it pretty well, oops I fell off! :-D-

Damn, I forgot to put out the safety net,

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh-----Thud!!!

:-D~~
Well at least the fall stretched my beard.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
It was an Ex-Theologian or should I call him and Atheist Theologian,
who gave me the following definitions.

Theologian: Porky Ponderer
Apologist: Porky Producer
Priest: Porky Pusher
Cardinal: Grand Porky Master
Pope: Supreme Porky Master
Indoctrination: Intracranial Porky Injection.
Christian: Porky Slave

Rather base, but I like them.
So I intend to use those definitions as much as possible because they are relevant.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though Satan: That was many years ago when my Theology training was still in my head.
I've studied many, many things since then, Electronics, Neurology, Psychology, Zoology, Horticulture, Philosophy, Engineering, Business Management, Nursing, CAD design, IT and Farm Management, not necessarily in order, so in that time I had not opened a Bible, so I've forgotten more about the Bible than most Christians ever learn.

Though I have Atheist ex theologian and anti-theist friends who give me references when I need them, so it's not what you know but who you know that counts.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Possibly true, because I've defeated many Theists in arguments because I knew the Bible far better than they did, and one of those was a Theologian (proper title: Porky Ponderer).

Though I reckon it would be boring, living a life with little else to do but research and ponder Porkies.
Some publish their own Porkies and become Apologists, because that is all Apologists do, Publish Porkies.

Religion appears to be one massive Porky Factory!

:-D~
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
@Sagey

I would say that atheist theologians aren't out of place at all. I'd even be willing to bet they are quite common. They don't partake in religious study because they worship God, of course, but because they want to understand the doctrines and beliefs of theists in order to properly argue against those doctrines and beliefs. Given your dislike for religion, it wouldn't surprise me if you've studied religions enough to be considered a theologian, for that very reason. Many times I've seen it asserted that most atheists know the bible better than most Christians (not sure how true that is though).
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL, Read that Dr Kramer's, drivel.

Scriptures helping his biochemistry, that was a laugh.
Michael Behe's Irreducible complexity, that was defeated decades ago.
Most of Kramer's nonsense is just that, regurgitated nonsense, defeated many times in the last decade.
Nothing even half interesting there, thought he might have a scientific angle that demonstrates Creation has a point.
He never even came close.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
noticed I smelt "marbles" wrong twice, that's because my right hand always lags behind my left when typing fast, which I had to do, I often spell people "poeple" and sometimes even "popele" because of this, but it's easier to spot as I do it so often, and I spend half my time typing in correcting such mistakes. Marble is something I very rarely type if ever until now.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Thanks YourAreSmarterThanI, but it looks as if I've got an equally intelligent adversary, somebody who doesn't make spelling mistakes because they type faster than they think, like I.

Guess I'll have to double my intelligence points to get on top of Con.

I'm going to steer clear of your font techniques.

Don't know why?
Guess I'm just too lazy to bother with fonts.
It takes time and energy to scroll back up to the font selection menu.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
I'll accept sagey.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I have noted here that the Spelling in D.o seems to obfuscate itself.
Though the n that got moved from "many", making it into "may" and appeared in front of an "a" and making it incorrectly into "an" which both passed the spell check is likely another drag and drop error from my touch pad, which fails to turn off.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
SageybluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, with "out-of-placeness" ill-defined, Pro can't meet the burden of proof that they are equally out of place. The semantics of that are not much fun. Still I learned something from the debate. I thought a theologian might be one who studies religion objectively rather than as a believer -- wrong, it's only for a believer. Since Buddhists do not believe in God, there are no Buddhist theologians. Being an atheist and a theologian at the same time is impossible. However, a YEC biologist is possible, because YEC accepts some of biology. So there were fun semantics at work
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SageybluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a tough debate to decide on, but Cons arguments were more convincing, while Pros contained more interesting tales. A such Con gets argument points. I am giving Pro conduct points, as I am of the opinion that Con was playing semantics games and was snarky. Regarding S&G and Sources, I am calling these a tie. S&G as not much to go with. Also Sources, I think both debaters could have used better sources.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
SageybluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: not much to say on this. Con took the wording of the resolution and just took a sniper to pro. Con mad it impossible to word the resolution while making his argument entertaining to read.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
SageybluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol, this debate topic was extremely difficult to defend from the start, but Pro hardly tried. Instead, Pro seemed to be defending a different resolution, that perhaps creationist biologists are demented and theologians are too. But he didn't argue that they were just as out of place. Con took advantage of this poor wording and I agree with him: "My opponent essentially concedes my analysis of the resolution" Very good conduct on both sides but it was disappointing to see so much effort wasted on a largely semantical debate. There was some touching on actual biology and theology but other than that, it was so, so dumb.