The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Evolution is false.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,824 times Debate No: 28490
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance
Magic8000

Con

I accept and I hope you're quick on replies.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

1.Glue
The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution.

2. Law of large numbers.

The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this

3. Flagellum

" The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2]

4. Mates

All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts.

5. Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction.

6. Chromosomes

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosome while apes have 24. Evos say there has to be a fusion. Yet go back before the apes we should have its ancestor with 25 pars and its ancestor with 26 so on and so on. Yet we don"t see this.

[1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006).
[2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
Magic8000

Con

1.Glue

I think it's worth noting that the originator of this argument(or at least what I found) is questionably a troll [1]

This is a strange argument because it talks about decay. Radioactive dating dates the universe as being very old. The typical reply is that the decay rates have changed, yet you would be throwing out your whole argument if you coincide to this. So if the decay rates are constant and this argument is valid, then what about the other decay rates of elements?

Glue covers a range of chemicals so what exactly is the short-lived molecule?

2. Law of large numbers

This is completely irrelevant to evolution, since the LOLN deals with probability and trials NOT biological functions.

" Definition of 'Law Of Large Numbers' In statistical terms, a rule that assumes that as the number of samples increases, the average of these samples is likely to reach the mean of the whole population. When relating this concept to finance, it suggests that as a company grows, its chances of sustaining a large percentage in growth diminish. This is because as a company continues to expand, it must grow more and more just to maintain a constant percentage of growth." [2]

3. Flagellum

How do you explain the self-assembly of the molecules that compose the flagella? Which doesn't do so in an irreducibly complex way. [3][4]

From source [3]
"How does the flagellum assemble? The bacterial flagellum may look like an outboard motor, but there is at least one profound difference: the flagellum assembles spontaneously, without the help of any conscious agent. The self-assembly of such a complex machine almost defies the imagination . As I showed with an earlier blog on the self-assembly of viruses (much simpler contraptions by comparison), all such phenomena seem astonishing and counterintuitive."

We do have models of flagella evolution [5]

Irreducible complexity makes a list of false assumptions about evolution
  1. It assumes evolution only furthers by the adding of parts and never by the removal of parts. Some species of bats, spiders and deep-water fish lack functioning eyes. Because it costs too much to grow eyes for little or no benefit.
  2. It assumes systems never change function. Ken Miller has taken Behe's mousetrap example to show that a missing trigger can be used as a tie clip, the spring can still be used as a key chain, and base can be used as a paperweight.
  3. It assumes parts that begin as helpful cannot eventually become required.


Systems in nature can easily become irreducible complex. Such as natural bridges. A natural bridge is irreducible complex; if any of its parts are removed the whole bridge would fail. However these do come to be by natural means, simply by softer rock being washed out from under harder rock. Biological systems are different, but this shows irreducible complex systems can be formed naturally.

4. Mates


Talk.Origins rebuts this claim [6].

  1. This objection falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly when one individual gives rise to an individual of another species. In fact, populations, not individuals, evolve, and most speciation occurs gradually. In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together (Otte and Endler 1989).

    It is also possible for speciation to occur without the geographical separation (sympatric speciation; see Diekmann and Doebeli 1999; Kondrashov and Kondrashov 1999; Otte and Endler 1989), but the process is still gradual.

  2. Sometimes new species can form suddenly, but this occurs with species that are asexual or hermaphroditic and do not need to find mates.

Creationwiki's comments in their rebuttal to the list of creationist claims says this

"Talk Origins is correct on this point."[7]

5. Thermodynamics

The earth isn't an isolated system because of the sun. So the argument is moot. Life isn't isolated. It takes energy to function and grow. How can the law prohibit evolution, but allow reproduction. Reproduction produces an ordered copy of an organism.

6. Chromosomes

We actually do see this. When we look at chromosomes most have been rearranged and fused over and over again. It's called synteny [8]


[1] http://youtube.com...
[2] http://www.investopedia.com...
[3] http://biologos.org...
[4] http://www.aip.org...
[5] Matzke, N. J., 2003. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. http://www.talkdesign.org...

[6] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[7] http://creationwiki.org...

[8] List of Syntenic gene sets

http://genomevolution.org...


Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. Glue

The molecule is Acrylate. We know by how glue wears out that it cannot be millions of years.

The decay rates were probably constant. The rates were determined by man who sins and is fallible so they cannot be said to be millions of years old.

2. Law of large numbers.

It's not just with trails. Its with everything. So your argument doesnt fly.

3. The Flagellum

Oh so how did the parts just come together magically. All origins assume the ion pump is fully evolved and functional. Your coming up with possible explanations to impossible events which is science fiction.

" It assumes evolution only furthers by the adding of parts and never by the removal of parts. Some species of bats, spiders and deep-water fish lack functioning eyes. Because it costs too much to grow eyes for little or no benefit."

The flagella is still functioning. No loss of information it works.

" It assumes systems never change function. Ken Miller has taken Behe's mousetrap example to show that a missing trigger can be used as a tie clip, the spring can still be used as a key chain, and base can be used as a paperweight."

It can't be used as a mouse trap. So the analogy fails. Were talkin about the mousetrap!

" It assumes parts that begin as helpful cannot eventually become required."

It cannot. If it's helpful it will always be helpful. It would be against evolution for it to become required since it would be dependant.

4. Mates

But the point is it cannot find anyone to mate with. How can it mate when the animal has no other animal.

5. Thermodynamics
You claim that the second law only applies to closed systems or isolated systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University (now Sanford) states:

" there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. " There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [1]

" How can the law prohibit evolution, but allow reproduction. Reproduction produces an ordered copy of an organism"

Microevolution is consistent with the second law. But macroevolution would need a decrease in entropy. Just about all the observed heritable variations show an increase in entropy.

6. Chromosomes

So why couldn't synteny happen in creatures of the same species?

1. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.
Magic8000

Con

1.Glue

The molecule is Acrylate. We know by how glue wears out that it cannot be millions of years.

Yeah glue itself, but that wasn't invented until recently.
Acrylate is made of "two carbon atoms double-bonded to each other, directly attached to the carbonyl carbon" [1]. How is it a problem?

The decay rates were probably constant. The rates were determined by man who sins and is fallible so they cannot be said to be millions of years old.

You pulled the trigger right on your foot. If the rates were determined by man who sins, then so was glue. So it cannot be said to have been to decay in 20,000 years.

2. Law of large numbers.

You have given no source. All definitions I found have to do with probability and statistics.

"The law of large numbers states that: “If the probability of a given outcome to an event is P and the event is repeated N times, then the larger N becomes, so the likelihood increases that the closer, in proportion, will be the occurrence of the given outcome to N*P.”[2]

"law of large numbers, in statistics, the theorem that, as the number of identically distributed, randomly generated variables increases, their sample mean (average) approaches their theoretical mean." [3]

What is the "mean" of biological life and why? I don't even think life has an "average". If somone's arm gets cut off, it doesn't revert to the "average" and grow back.

3. The Flagellum

Oh so how did the parts just come together magically.

Fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. The sources show how they evolve.

All origins assume the ion pump is fully evolved and functional.

The evolution of Ion Pumps are a different story. There's published papers of how they evolve [4][5]

Your coming up with possible explanations to impossible events which is science fiction.

How is it impossible? As I've shown IC is based off false assumptions and the parts are self assembling. So it's quite possible.

The flagella is still functioning. No loss of information it works.

Let me give another example. The Venus fly trap evolved from a plant that had a sticky substance which traps the bug. Then would slowly close. When the plant could close faster, it lost the sticky substance because it didn't need it.

It can't be used as a mouse trap. So the analogy fails. Were talkin about the mousetrap!

The analogy was just to show that systems can change. As to form an IC system it doesn't have to do with only the addition of parts.

It cannot. If it's helpful it will always be helpful. It would be against evolution for it to become required since it would be dependant.

It wouldn't be against evolution. It can be beneficial to become required. Lungs are required to live, but this doesn't contradict evolution

4. Mates

You clearly didn't read my reply.

5. Thermodynamics

John Ross is quote mined.

"Allow me to suggest that you never accept quotes from creationist literature.

The COMPLETE quote from Dr. John Ross now of Stanford is:

"SIR: I am referring to the article entitled 'Physical Chemistry,' C&EN, June 2, page 20. Toward the end of the article is stated: 'Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves.' Please be advised that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. I recognize that it is very difficult to write an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors. However, there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

The bold represents the creationist quote mine. Note that Dr. Ross is simply stating that the systems described in the article DO FOLLOW THE 2nd LAW BY REQUIRING A CONTINUAL SUPPLY OF ENERGY FROM OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM. The same can be said of the earth's bioshere. The continual input of energy from the sun allows seeds to grow into plants, fetuses to grow into babies and babies to grow into adults without violating the second law. This continual input of energy also allows evolution to occur. Any decrease in entropy experienced in the bioshere is more than offset by the increase in entropy in the sun" [6]

Microevolution is consistent with the second law. But macroevolution would need a decrease in entropy. Just about all the observed heritable variations show an increase in entropy.

How? Macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolutions.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be stated in several ways:

......

  • Every isolated system becomes more disordered with time. This is NOT a statement of the Second Law, but a metaphor; see Prof. Lambert's site on the Second Law.
  • The entropy of an isolated system remains constant or increases. This is a verbal statement of the most precise, mathematical form of the law. Unfortunately, entropy is something for which it is difficult to give a precise verbal description. See Prof. Lambert's more mathematically detailed site on the Second Law.

Remember, "entropy always increases" only applies to isolated systems. The Earth, and the surface ecosystems of the Earth in particular, are not isolated systems! Individual parts of a system, even an isolated one, can decrease their own entropy at the expense of a larger increase somewhere else within the system. " [7]

6. Chromosomes

It does. They're linked to other creatures too [8]. It seems Pro is attacking my argument instead of defending his own. Since he claimed we don't see this at all. Now he's claiming it could've happened in the same species to fit the creationist view.


[1] http://pslc.ws...
[2] http://www.probabilitytheory.info...
[3] http://www.britannica.com...
[4] http://www.jstor.org...
[5] http://www.eric.ed.gov...
[6] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...
[7] http://www.bluffton.edu...
[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

I'll be short on this one since it's the last round.

Looking back at the glue argument, it looks like magic got me to hang myself. This is just a silly little trick he's going to the voters. Don't let him fool you. We can know the life of the molecule because it exists today. Not because it supposedly existed 9000 billion years ago. Conduct goes to me for cons trick.

The mean of life would be the first life because it would've been there for a long time.

Flagellum evolution is nothing but guesses by scientists.

Con claims i quote mine ross, however how do we know he didn't quote mine Ross?

The second law applies to the whole universe, since its a closed system.

I urge everyone to vote me.
Magic8000

Con

Thanks. I really thought you were going wait forever to post an argument and forfeit.

We can know the life of the molecule because it exists today. Not because it supposedly existed 9000 billion years ago. Conduct goes to me for cons trick.

If you say it would decay in 20,000 years, you'd be relying on the decay rates that cannot be measured in a lifetime.

The mean of life would be the first life because it would've been there for a long time.

If a leaf is on a tree for a long time, when it falls off it wont over time attach back on the tree. An average isn't something that's been there for a long time.

av·er·age

/ˈav(ə)rij/
Noun

"The result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean." [1]

This isn't something that's been there for a long time.

Flagellum evolution is nothing but guesses by scientists.

I've shown this to be not the case. As IC relies on a false view of evolution.

Con claims i quote mine Ross, however how do we know he didn't quote mine Ross?

Simply because all other sources say the 2LOT applies to isolated systems and we know the track record of creationists quote mining [2].

It is obvious this is a letter to the editor. The article Ross was writing about "Physical Chemistry" was sort of a news article about the latest in equipment and techniques used in the field of physical chemistry. It talked about the areas of Lasers, Theory and modeling, Surfaces, and Biological Applications. It was in biological applications that the author of that article made the statement that Ross was responding to. The error that Ross was correctly pointing out was that by requiring a continual supply of energy, the systems do follow the second law. The reason Ross responded is probably because he had written many papers about far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics and is an expert in that field. Ross agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law, because it receives a continuous input of energy by the sun. That is why there are no known violations. So why does Wallace keep saying there is? Does he know something Ross, a "Harvard Scientist" (although he is now at Stanford as of this writing) doesn't know? [3]

The second law applies to the whole universe, since its a closed system.

"The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228)." [4][5]


[1] http://lmgtfy.com...
[2] http://rationalwiki.org...
[3] http://web.archive.org...
[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[5] Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
LOL AA, you're insane or a really funny troll.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Anti-atheist wrote:
: This is shameful everyone is voting for magic8000 because he's an atheist evolutionist and hes
: winning by bias. ... I killed magic in this debate. He lost in reality.

I'd vote for you if you made better arguments than your opponent. Most of your arguments, I couldn't even guess what you were trying to say. If you'd like to pick one of your arguments, and have me teach you how to articulate it, we can open a thread in the forums to do that.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
EVOLUTION 11:10--Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times. Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species. Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction. When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products :)

CHECKMATE 10:3--The heliocentric model of the universe, which is now universally accepted and included in all science taught in schools and colleges, was not always acknowledged by scholars. The history of Copernicanism, as this cosmological theory is called, is a case study in the evolution of human thinking and the difficulty encountered in challenging well established traditions. Suckling from the holy binky for nutrition, is unfortunatley, a well established tradition, however, we are seeing an increase in those letting go of the tit and being good because they want to, Not because an admittingly jealous sky daddy masochist demands it :)

The preceeding true scripture is brought to you by our faithful sponsors, CHECK and MATE :)
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
This is shameful everyone is voting for magic8000 because he's an atheist evolutionist and hes winning by bias. I bet muted voted for him because

A. he was paid off
b. He's in cohoots with magic.
c. He just wants to be a troll

I killed magic in this debate. He lost in reality. The views of deluted atheists arent the true view of reality. I won if you just read into it
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Sweet..The pope Got 'em....pope decries slaughter of 'defenseless' Syrians, that'll teach 'em.

Now lets throw in a few prayers, we all know how well prayers work. With the power of prayer and the power of decries made by the pope, all we need is the power of grayskull, and we got this syrian problem licked, and terrorists tremble when they think of the pope not playing around, he will decry your a&& and they know it now :)

Lets Not give up Prayer!

So now you understand, that with the power of prayer, and the power of the popes wishes, all we really need is the power of grayskull to complete the trilogy, and we can create world peace :)
Posted by Kreemy 4 years ago
Kreemy
Another concept to take into account would be the fact that life is based on the acquiring of information; the polar opposite of entropy, and could even be given the title "anti-entropy". All life is based on the processing and gathering of information, input and output. Life does not adhere to entropy, as it is the complex working of systems.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
I weep for humanity. This debate, or rather one particular side of it, is a very effective argument against any sort of democratic system.
Posted by hosslay 4 years ago
hosslay
If you belive in god or not you have to accept the fact that there is something behind it. I just cant understand why anyone would gamble there soul on a huntch or theory like evolution even when there is not the evidence to support it.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Is that good?
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Lol dude, I'm using someone else's internet and don't have time for DDO. I do have internet for the next 2 or 3 days (over at someone's house for the holidays). If you absolutely must debate me make it 4 rounds, don't post too long of arguments and make sure we can finish it in like 2 days.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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: Con successfully refuted Pro's claim that evolution is false, and adequately defended his arguments. Clear win to Con. The theory of evolution has many evidences to support it, but it cannot be said that it doesn't have any flaws in it. It can, however, rightly be said that the theory of evolution is more probable than not.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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: GLUE: This cigarette would burn for six minutes, but it is half gone already, so the universe must be three minutes old. LARGE NUMBERS: Pro never explained what he's talking about, or what it has to do with evolution. FLAGELLUM: Pro offers a quote, but adds no thoughts of his own. The quote is part of an ongoing debate. Pro gives no evidence that his side is winning the debate. MATES: Pro shows stunning ignorance of his topic. Why would he debate something he knows nothing about? 2LOT: ditto. CHROMOSOMES: Pro is unclear to the extent that I can't even tell what his point is. UPSHOT: None of Pro's arguments are persuasive in the least.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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: see other voters for a good rfd. I need not waste my time doing that. LoT applies only to some physical biological theories, not including evolution.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's decision to quote mine compels me to cede one point for sources to Con, as well as a point for conduct....As for the debate, it should be clear that, despite the absence of exposition or further delineation, Con was able to adequately refute Pro, who provided only a presentation of his assumptions of the progression of evolutionary change (intelligent design is partly predicated on the view that evolutionary progression preserves, and sets as a sanction, an inviolable form, the function of a system despite modifications induced throughout the ages), failed to justify his application of the law of large numbers to biological systems or to affirm how evolution violates the second law, and so forth. Pro's case was erected on a fallacious foundation, and Con, while reserved in his refutation, noted how transparent his opponent's case was--in lieu of scrutiny.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly supplied a satisfactory answer to all of Pro's arguments. His sources were also much more numerous, and he therefore gets points for sources.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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: I fail to see why instigators are so hasty to take on the "evolution is false" debates. Most of us look at those, see they're not challenged, and realize that this is the absolute easiest way to gain another win. Pro failed to consider any refutations provided by Con, actively provided misinformation, and lost conduct for desperately charging trickery by con. It's discouraging that this is still considered a debatable subject in my opinion.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol. Pretty clear that this doesn't need an rfd.
Vote Placed by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up many arguments that have already been refuted to support his new arguments that were easily refuted. Pro might as well have asked why dogs don't give birth to chickens.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
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: CON clearly misquoted and cherry picked his reference. Arguments: PRO fails in every way conceivable to make a valid argument from chemistry. Acrylate is the ion of acrylic acid, made from propene in the reaction CH2=CHCH3 + 1.5 O2 → CH2=CHCO2H + H2O. Even if Acrylate decayed, we can and do make more all the time. CON rightly pointed out that no member of acrylate is necessarily unstable in nature. CON then rebutted all of PRO's arguments squarely. Sources: CON provided many sources for all of his claims, and PRO merely misquoted one researcher.