The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
nikidavis
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Creation (Pro) versus Evolution (Con)

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 2 votes the winner is...
nikidavis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 56759
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

1st round acceptance.

I believe that, as a Christian, you should believe that God is a Creator and, if you believe in the Bible, you also believe that God made each specie and animal OF THEIR OWN KIND (meaning ANIMALS DID NOT EVOLVE). I am the same age as my opponent so this shall be an interesting debate! Each will be defending their thoughts on the theory we believe in, whether Cre. or Evo. Give reasons why you believe that, etc.
nikidavis

Con

I accept. I look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you for accepting, Nikidavis! And good luck. Here's a video I recommend you watch.

P1. Randomness is everywhere in your theory. The idea that ALL THE SPECIES IN THE WORLD became what they are now from ONE GENE, ONE ATOM, the thought that the entire fine-tuned world came into existence by a few atoms and energy, and the name of "Big Bang" explains how ridiculous, preposterous and inconceivable your theory is. Even in a billion years, all those changes, mutations,

P2. Evolution cannot be observed. There's not any evidence which plainly gives way to Evolution, no proof that makes you go 'no doubt about it: Evolution happened.' There are no transitional fossils anywhere, and if the evolution process had occurred there should be millions of transitional fossils for EVERY SPECIE found floating around.

P3. Your theory isn't logical. Evolution says that our common ancestor is the ape family, but because we look alike it leads MORE to the possibility of a common Designer (Creator). We share 50% bound DNA with bananas, but that doesn't mean we're half banana!

P4. A lot of people say how Evolution has more evidence and is based MORE on science than Creationism. But how? Just because Creationism says...

-an infinite and all-powerful Being created the world
-most Creationist scientists base their science on the true (observable) facts in the Bible

...doesn't mean it's a fantasy/ancient fairytale. Don't listen to what mainstream media says, it's all bogus which tells you what the majority WANTS you to think. There is in fact TONS of evidence leading to a Creator God. And it makes more sense when you have the origin of all life figure out, unlike the theory of evolution.

I will give more proof of Creationism next round.

Beliefs of Evolution

Science, testable, measurable, observable and repeatable things that we know about the earth and the universe indicate that...

- There is absolutely no evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection proves change of species.

-That aliens created billions of species on earth is not credible. What then, created the aliens?

- Whales did not evolve from dogs.

- Human ears did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- Human lungs did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-There is absolutely no evolution evidence that life is an accident.

-Evolution does not explain life, consciousness, intelligence or thoughts.

-Because of this, modern Charles Darwin's theory of evolution evidence is not entirely credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- Nuclear decay of Radioactive isotopes has some serious flaws in the dating process.

- Uniform decay of radioisotopes has been disproved by Creation Science.

-The Big Bang is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-That electrons and protons came from nowhere is difficult to believe, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-Black holes are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-Time dilation is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-Einstein warping of space and space contraction are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- The existence of negative mirror universes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured

- That the creation of cells, DNA molecules and galaxies evolved by accident is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- That life began in a methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide atmosphere is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
-Your twin brother travelling at the speed of light and aging less is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured..

-That particles pop in and out of the universe at random is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- Stars travelling faster than the speed of light as a result of the Big Bang or any other reason is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-The distance between galaxies at the limits of the universe is the same as they are everywhere. Therefore, the universe may not be expanding

-Red shift of light due to velocity and not gas and dust in space is not credible.

-That the speed of light is a constant is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

-Quantum tunnelling is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- Spontaneous punctuated equilibrium is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- The theory of relativity is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- Antimatter as a result of black holes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

- Photons are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

SOURCES.

See these sites:

http://alwaysproventrue.com...
http://www.google.com...
http://truthmattersblog.com...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...
http://www.amazingfacts.org...
nikidavis

Con

"Randomness is everywhere in your theory. The idea that ALL THE SPECIES IN THE WORLD became what they are now from ONE GENE, ONE ATOM, the thought that the entire fine-tuned world came into existence by a few atoms and energy, and the name of "Big Bang" explains how ridiculous, preposterous and inconceivable your theory is. Even in a billion years, all those changes, mutations,"

You"re right; it is a crazy concept, but there are so many crazy concepts that have been tested again and again and are actually true.
Here is the reason why this work. Branching. [1]

Branching is a consequence of evolution.

[2]

So you need to know what causes evolution, and then what causes branching.

What causes evolution are mutation + natural selection. Mutations are just tiny changes in DNA during reproduction. Most mutations don't have any effect at all, some are harmful (and don't last long), but a small number are beneficial (they provide some small advantage in survival or reproduction). Natural selection is the idea that those individuals lucky enough to get some beneficial new mutation (no matter how tiny), will tend on average to leave more offspring ... and they in turn leave more offspring, and so on. And so the population changes over time.

Branching happens because populations of a species often get separated from each other. (A migration, a change in temperature, a river cutting through a valley, a lake drying into two lakes, etc. etc.) If this happens, and the two populations are not exchanging genes (DNA), then they will continue to change over time, but in different ways. They end up with more and more different mutations ... until the two populations are unable to reproduce together any more. [3]

At that point they are two species. Two separate branches on evolution. Where each branch can itself branch again, and again ... with many branches going extinct.

And this branching happens again, and again, and again. Which is why life is not just a bunch of separate species ... but we find a treelike structure to the arrangement of all the species.

Branching, branching, and branching. That's the key. [1]

"Evolution cannot be observed. There's not any evidence which plainly gives way to Evolution, no proof that makes you go 'no doubt about it: Evolution happened.' There are no transitional fossils anywhere, and if the evolution process had occurred there should be millions of transitional fossils for EVERY SPECIE found floating around."
(By the way, I do not believe that "no doubt about it: Evolution happened.")
Evolution implies that when the humans first began to walk the earth (estimated at around 5 million years ago) and the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of creatures less apelike and more modern, which is what the records show.[4] But one does not find humans fossils from the Jurassic period.[4]
Did you know that there have been a few transitional fossils found paleontologists? Yes they actually have; the most well-known one was the Archaeopteryx, which has feathers and a skeletal structure similar to birds with the features of dinosaurs. [5]

"P3. Your theory isn't logical. Evolution says that our common ancestor is the ape family, but because we look alike it leads MORE to the possibility of a common Designer (Creator). We share 50% bound DNA with bananas, but that doesn't mean we're half banana!"
Apes and humans are both in the Hominoidea family that is what we evolved from. [6] Bananas are not.
Also, just because humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins doesn"t mean we are over 90% percent ape. It just means that we have the same DNA as them. [7]
Also, the long list of things that science disproves, you forgot to add the entire earth coming from God.

[1] http://www.nyu.edu...
[2] https://images.search.yahoo.com...
[3] http://www.writework.com...
[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[5] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[7] http://phys.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
nikidavis

Con

Seriously?

I will post my arguments and rebuttals after he does his.
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

REBUTTALS:
Branching

Does mutation and natural selection happen now? In what way does it actually EFFECT the generations of animals? This is very unlikely, as it is isn't seen often therefore couldn't have been as effected as Evolutionists say it was.
My opponent: "...then they will continue to change over time, but in different ways." I ask you to answer this: what originally initiated this ability in natural selection to generate traits? If you say natural selection produced it by working on nature's emergent properties, this is circular--and a very weak explanation. [1] You say branching is the key to Evolution. But what started all this branching? When Earth came to be, where did the traits of that first, living cell come from, and how did it evolve to all the species of animals we have now?

"Observations" for Evolution

My opponent: "I do not believe that "no doubt about it: Evolution happened."' Well, if Evolution had happened, wouldn't there be enough evidence for you to say 'no doubt about it'? Judging by all the assumptions scientists make on 'what happened 16.9 million years ago,' there should be MORE evidence to support it.

"But one does not find humans fossils from the Jurassic period." This contradicts your saying the earliest ancestors of humans were about 100,000 years ago. Where's your proof that there even WAS a Jurassic period?

Your "few transitional fossils" are quite pathetic. The archaeopteryx fossil as been proven fully bird and does not prove anything useful to the Evolution Theory. In fact, it goes with Creationism as well. [2]

'Apes and humans are both in the Hominoidea family that is what we evolved from." This is circular reasoning, (double wammy), because you are claiming 'because we are related according to this family and we evolved, we evolved from apes in this related family.' [3]

CREATIONISM
To get onto evidence for Creationism which you asked for, I'm going to demonstrate first how humans have always been humans.

X-ray analysis of the semicircular canals of a number of apemen skulls showed that the Homo erectus canals were like those of modern humans, meaning they walked upright. But those of the A. africanus and A. robustus were like those of great apes. This shows they did not walk upright like humans, but were probably mainly tree-dwelling. "Homo habilis" turned out to be even less "bi-pedal" than the australopithecines. [4]

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of a Neandertal skeleton found that the sequence differed from modern humans in 22 to 36 places, while the differences among modern humans are from 1 to 24 places. Despite some statistically invalid claims that this makes the Neandertals a separate species, the differences are within the range of modern humans. Also, DNA is quickly broken down by water and oxygen, so under favorable conditions, DNA might last tens of thousands of years at the most. This raises serious questions about the 100,000-year "age" that some scientists have assigned to this skeleton. [4]
I conclude that there are many reasons humans have always been humans.

Young Earth
Here are 5 natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.

1. The galaxies wind themselves up too fast. The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity.

2. Too few supernova remnants. According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor. Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (" 165) years.1 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. Creationism explains rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

Ran out of characters. Sorry for no sources...!
nikidavis

Con

Here is exactly how one cell branched off to create more. Lets call this multicellularity.
Multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many centuries.[1]
Multicellularity could have been achieved numerous times based on the premise that selection acts on phenotypes and how well certain combinations of traits work.[2] In other words, even if cells adhere together using different mechanisms, or via different developmental pathways, if the results are cooperative aggregations of cells that function well and thus are able to survive better and, critically, produce more offspring than their unicellular counterparts, then these various evolutionary pathways could all be possible.[1]
Some examples of multicellularity are crayfish, duckweed, and eels.[3]
First of all, I am not claiming "because we are related according to this family and we evolved, we evolved from apes in this related family." We did not evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor.[4]

"Not enough mud on the sea floor."
Considering humans have only explored less than 5% of the oceanss. [5] I don"t consider this fact to be relevant.

"Mitochondrial DNA analysis of a Neandertal skeleton found that the sequence differed from modern humans in 22 to 36 places, while the differences among modern humans are from 1 to 24 places."

This partially helps my case as it proves how DNA has evolved and changed over time.
There are a lot of other great arguments but I feel as if I cannot respond because they don"t have sources.

Evolution:
That the fossil record in general suggests evolution is certainly an important piece of evidence, but it becomes even more telling when it is combined with other evidence for evolution. For example, the fossil record is consistent in the terms of biogeography" and if evolution is true, we would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography, the phylogenetic tree, and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics. In fact, some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent.
You would expect not just that the fossil record would show a succession of organisms as described above, but that the succession seen in the record would be compatible with that derived by looking at currently living creatures. For example, when examining the anatomy and biochemistry of living species, it appears that the general order of development for the major types of vertebrate animals was fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals. If current species developed as a result of common descent then the fossil record should show the same order of development. [5]
In fact, the fossil record does show the same order of development. In general, the fossil record is consistent with the developmental order suggested by looking at the characteristics of living species. As such it represents another independent piece of evidence for common descent, and a very significant one since the fossil record is a window to the past.
Metal accumulation in the ocean looks at the length of time certain metals have been present in the ocean. The time spans range from 100 years (aluminum) to 260,000,000 years (sodium).[6]
(the thing I said earlier about only exploring five percent of the oceans does not contradict this fact, these metal have been taken from the five percent we have explored.)

[1] http://www.eurekalert.org...
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://wiki.answers.com...
[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] http://atheism.about.com...
[6] http://www.ehow.com...
Debate Round No. 4
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

To rebuild my case for Creationism I will argue that the Bible is accurate. 100%. Some examples are right below, but I encourage you to dig deeper as I saw on your profile that you are "Christian" but you still believe animals and humans evolved (humans evolved from animals). For my opponent to rebut the verses I present he/she must tell why the verses and historical monuments, which prove them, are wrong. But if she would not like to rebut it then she must explain: if the verses in the Bible are correct, why couldn't we have been created (as the Bible demonstrates)? There is lots of proof foor a Designer such as the Christian God and I can't figure out why you said science can't prove at all how God created the Earth and us but are still Christian (or Catholic).

Accurate verses prove Creationism because if God said this and He was correct, there should be no reason He wasn't correct when the Bible said things like "made the creatures of their own kind." OF THEIR OWN KIND. That's a big one to wonder about because, even though some kinds of evolutionism says the Bible can be true (the events in it can be true) WHILE at the same time evolution could have happened too.

Genesis 1:1-31 (KJV) says: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. [1]

...And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

...And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

BIGGEST VERSE: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [1]

The Bible CLEARLY says that humans and animals were CREATED in their own kind. Is it possible to believe that God created us (Creationism) while believing that evolution happened too? Evidence states "no."

More verses proving the Bible true (accurate):

Isaiah 48:21 says, 'They did not thirst when he led them through the desert, he made water flow for them from a rock, he split the rock and water gushed out.' In modern-day Saudi Arabia we have found a split rock exactly as the Bible said it was. The base of the rock shows heavy water erosion, as if millions of gallons of water flowed from it--in the dessert! [2]

Exodus 15:27 says, 'Then they came to Elim, where there was 12 springs and 70 palm trees, and they were camped there near water.' Now, in the place they still call Elim (pronounced "Ee-leem"), there are exactly twelve springs and also a place of palm trees

Amos 9:14 says, 'I will bring back my exiled people, they will rebuild the ruined cities and rebuild them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine...' This is a fulfilled prophesy, as there are lots of Israeli vineyards which produce Israeli wines, despite the fact that Israel was a desolate wasteland for centuries!

Exodus 19:18 says, 'Mt. Sinai was covered with smoke, for the Lord had descended upon it with fire.' For centuries, archaeologists, not believing the Bible, searched for Mt. Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula. Well, the Bible doesn"t say Mt. Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. In Galatians 4:25, Paul writes of "Mt. Sinai in Arabia." When Explorer Ron Wyatt followed the Bible and looked for Mt. Sinai in Arabia, he found a mountain with the top still scorched with heat from the day of God descending on it with fire.

Isaiah 4:2 says, 'In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the FRUIT of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel.' Israel is known for it's plentiful crops in fruit. [2]
Do these examples not give the Bible some validity? Why should we doubt what the Bible says about God's Creation if so much other things in the Bible have been proven true, also? Israel is a great example of the Bible's truth [4].

Creationism is just a more scientific way of saying that God created us and we did not evolve. In it includes much evidence for 1) a young earth which is estimated to be about 10,000 - 6,000 years old, 2) evidence for the events in the Bible including a catastrophic, worldwide flood, and 3) for what the Christian savior, Jesus, did on earth. We get the dates of a young earth from the Christian Bible which holds timelines, etymologies, and names of people who lived ... long; from the first humans to as long as the bible was written [3]. My point is that the accuracy of the Bible is actually quite obvious. You can understand it if you just research; you will gain knowledge about the facts and probability of there being a supernatural God if you dig deeper.

Multicellularity may have occurred "multiple" times across many centuries. But is that enough for evolution to be proven? Same with the fossil record you tried to prove is towards evolution. "The fossil record does show the same order of development." I could give you so much evidence for Creationism that the fossil record shows, but am running out of time and will give you this site:
http://www.icr.org...
https://answers.yahoo.com...
http://www.icr.org...

You did not rebut my video either so I will want to see that, for brownie credit. Sorry for the forfeit but voters, please read both parts of each round and decide who won because I am truly not happy about my forfeit.

I thank nikidavis for a nice and challenging debate, hope she studies God's Word sometime soon! Vote Pro!

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
[2] http://alwaysproventrue.com...
[3] http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com...
nikidavis

Con

I love and respect the bible very much, but you are taking these things too literally.

The bible should be interrupted in our own way.

"Genesis 1:1-31 (KJV) says: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. [1]

...And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

...And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

This could have been over thousands of years, not at one very moment.

"Isaiah 48:21 says, 'They did not thirst when he led them through the desert, he made water flow for them from a rock, he split the rock and water gushed out.' In modern-day Saudi Arabia we have found a split rock exactly as the Bible said it was. The base of the rock shows heavy water erosion, as if millions of gallons of water flowed from it--in the dessert! [2]

Exodus 15:27 says, 'Then they came to Elim, where there was 12 springs and 70 palm trees, and they were camped there near water.' Now, in the place they still call Elim (pronounced "Ee-leem"), there are exactly twelve springs and also a place of palm trees"

The bible is something that was actually written in history,so I do not see the point in talking about this. We know it was actually written in that time frame at that period of time. Many things in the bible represent the real world, but NOT creationism.

"BIGGEST VERSE: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [1]"

Again, this should not be taken in a literal sense. (If you want to take it that way, then by all mean do. but do not tell others how to interpret the bible.)

Thank you, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Commenting just for remembering and mail stuff.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
JasperFrancisShickadancenikidavisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Con because Pro forfeited one round. S&G is a tie. There were some mistakes over there, but nothing horrible. Arguments for Con. Pro used too many fallacies. The videos posted had too many fallacies too and lies. I tried not to think about anything in the video as arguments for Pro but it just seems too dishonest that he used those videos. Specially the first one that I saw in the past. In general Pro have way better arguments. He was not able to meet his part of the BoP. Source to Con. This is always difficult for creationist because it looks like his better arguments happen to exist in really unscientific sites that also show fallacies and lies as facts. I anyone needs an explanation of my vote, just ask in the comments. I will com back here for a couple of days.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
JasperFrancisShickadancenikidavisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited by pro, also with slightly weaker arguments.