The Instigator
TheShenny
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
thenewkidd
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

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 5 votes the winner is...
thenewkidd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,352 times Debate No: 58247
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (111)
Votes (5)

 

TheShenny

Pro

I will be arguing that Evolution is correct over Creationism.

Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory stating, in essence, that the strong survive and the weak die out. Over long periods of time (thousands to millions of years) organisms inside of a population that are more adapted to their environment and are more capable of surviving and reproducing will do so more than their less-adapted counterpart. Over time this produces a change in a population, and in some cases the production of a new species or subspecies. The classic example of this is Darwin's finches. Darwin visited the Galapagos islands while travelling around the world, and found several types of finches on nearby islands. Each island had slightly different ecological conditions, which in turn caused the finches on that island to differ from those on nearby islands.
thenewkidd

Con

First,
Just because something is accepted and supported by the general public doesn't mean it is actually correct, else we forget about Galileo saying that the earth revolved around the sun and put to death because the general public supported the theory that the sun revolved around the earth.

Second,
Just because the evidence of evolution exists does not disprove the existence of a creator or a god.

While both are theories, both also have some element of "Faith" required to fill in the blanks of what neither can prove.
Unless you have definitive proof of that we derived from monkeys/apes. You just believe that we did and you have faith that there is a "missing link" that exists out there we just haven't found it.

My definition of evolution is adapting to the environment around a given species. But a cow doesn't become a dog no matter how many years pass. There is no evidence of one species becoming another species. A finch was still a finch which proves the finch evolved depending on its environment, but a finch was not in transition of becoming a cat.

All in all.
Just like creationists have faith in the "missing elements" of what they believe you do not have a species that is "in between" species.
Debate Round No. 1
TheShenny

Pro

"Just because something is accepted and supported by the general public doesn't mean it is actually correct."

I don't think I ever said Evolution is commonly accepted, I only said it was "well supported".

"Just because the evidence of evolution exists does not disprove the existence of a creator or a god."

Ok so let's see the argument for a creator/god.

And the proof that we came from monkeys/apes is there. Humans and chimps share 96% of their genetic material. Phenotypically this is pretty obvious, as chimps and humans share a general "body shape". Both stand on two legs, have two arms, and have opposable thumbs. There are records of bones found from ancestors of humans, very clearly charting the growth from chimpanzee to modern day human. Google it and you can find it. It's quite convincing. Modern technologies like carbon dating have dated these bones chronologically, showing quite clearly how a small, geographically isolated group of chimpanzees evolved into humans over time.

"Faith that there is a missing link"

There is no missing link it's all in front of us.

"A cow doesn't become a dog no matter how many years pass"
Theoretically yes, they could. An environment changing gradually enough could, over millions of years, create a dog subspecies out of a group of cows. Evolution is more complex than going from point A (cow) to point B (dog). There are outside factors involved such as the environment, natural disasters, predators, diseases, competing species, etc.

" the finch evolved depending on its environment"
You just stated my argument. The environment changed the species over long periods of time.

"The finch was not in transition of becoming a cat"
Again, evolution is more complex than point A to point B. You cannot look at the beginning and end because you don't know the end! We are still evolving we are not the end! Maybe that finch in a billion years (assuming the Earth still exists) will become a cat, it all depends on the environmental factors that push that finch to change.

"Just like creationists have faith in the "missing elements" of what they believe you do not have a species that is "in between" species."

All species are in between species. Everything is constantly changing. History shows us that. Example: American Indians. When "white man" came to N. America they brought with them a host of new diseases. This killed off a large portion of the American Indian population over time, as they were not adapted to European diseases. Now in the United States a small portion of the population is directly descended from the American Indians and have a resistance to these diseases, just like every other European American. That's evolution right there! Those with the attributes to survive within an environment survive while those without die out.

Finally.
You seem to believe that the environment pushes a species to adapt and evolve. This is true. This is evolution. If they continue adapting to continually changing environmental pressures (which doesn't always happen) then you get new species! That is how a cow becomes a dog, not over decades or centuries, but over millions of years from changing environmental pressures.
thenewkidd

Con

Ok, I understand that monkeys or apes share similarities, however did you know Pigs are a log closer related to humans that apes are?
http://www.abc.net.au...

Pigs share 98% of our DNA. Does that mean we look were pigs at one point?

So just because something is similar doesn't actually provide proof.

Yes, I understand the existence of evolution over time can change a how a species survives but can you provide definitive proof that shows that a cow has become a dog and the steps between or are you just using faith as in believing in something not seen but you believe to be true?

So again, you are saying "theoretically yes" they could. but there is no actual proof.

So what I am saying, just because there is evidence of evolution and that evolution does exist does not disprove the existence of a god or creator. Further more even if we came from apes, that doesn't mean God didn't create "Adam and Eve" and then later on down the line.

As far as the finch evolving. Do we have evidence that that finch will be some completely different species because they lived on a different side of the island, and also how do we know that that finch was a species all on it's own and was created that way? do you have proof other than a "hunch" that god didn't create a Pin-tailed Nonpareil/Parrot Finch from the get go and then decided to create a Blue-faced Parrot Finch? Or are you using "faith" that over time one became the other?

As far as adapting to disease, that is what people do, and that is how the immune system works. But just because Native Americans adapted to disease does not mean eventually we will cross species and becomes something other than human.

I am not discounting the existence of evolution, As I completely agree and believe that evolution exists. I'm discounting the existence of one species becoming a completely different species.

How long has the Human Population been around? and given that amount of time, what new species has evolved from homo sapiens?

The idea that we derived from an ameba would deny the existence of ameba today.
As evolution is continuous, does that mean the animal that we came from is extinct?
Where is the animal that shares 99% of human DNA? Where is the animal that is directly in between Apes and Human?

Lets provide a time line.
Ameba are asexual and can reproduce without a partner... so those keep reproducing and slowing become (over millions and billions of years) something other than ameba. While this change is occurring, the original ameba is still reproducing meaning the ameba never went away and still exists today..

So now we fast forward and have all these different species but the problem with this theory is the holes in the prior species that are supposed to exist today.
If we derived from an ameba to human there should be a time line from 1% to 100% human and we do not have this. as I stated earlier. What species exists to day that is 99% human?

To take it a step further why does the existence of evolution mean that there isn't a master creator in existence?
Debate Round No. 2
TheShenny

Pro

"How long has the Human Population been around? and given that amount of time, what new species has evolved from homo sapiens?"

New species haven't evolved into new species because there is no environmental need to. Humans have built things to adapt to the environment for us so we don't have to. Instead of developing tough hides and fur to withstand the cold we build houses. That is what sets us apart from animals. In fact, humans have been evolving even faster over the past 10,000 years than ever before, 100 times faster (1). The only thing is that these evolutions aren't in the right direction to produce a new species. A species as defined in biology is a group of organisms with similar traits that can interbreed and produce FERTILE offspring. We haven't evolved enough to meet either criterion, simply because there is no need to. If the world floods everything else will learn to swim while we'll just build houses on stilts.

"can you provide definitive proof that shows that a cow has become a dog and the steps between"

The reason there is no possible way to satisfy people with this stance that evolution exists is because no matter how many "plot points" (species) I give you to show the change from a cow to a dog all you're going to say is "oh, well there were just a million species living in that area so that's why it looks like they evolved". It's a pretty simple concept; A bunch of small change makes a few big changes. Over time those big changes pile up and you have something different. I think the best example for you is vestigial organs. Vestigial organs are useless organs that were once used by an organism but now are not. They don't hinder the organism's ability to live or reproduce, and so they continue within the gene pool of that species. An example of this would be the tail bone in humans (2). The tail bone (coccyx as I'll refer to it) is extremely similar to that of other species, even those of species that DO have tails. In early embryonic stages humans, rabbits, chickens, and fish all are similar looking. They all have a general hook shape with a very distinct tail (3). Why else would they all look the same unless they all had a common ancestor who's embryos had a hook shape?

"just because there is evidence of evolution and that evolution does exist does not disprove the existence of a god or creator."

So evolution exists! You just said it! I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong I've never actually read the Bible myself, somewhere it says that God created the Earth in 7 (I think?) days and that's how it is today. Nothing changed. Well, as you say, evolution exists so how could nothing have changed? Suddenly there's an error in the Bible! But this is easy to overlook. So now I see two choices... a) Have faith (belief that is not based in proof [dictionary.com]) that an all-powerful being (God/creator) made the entire universe and everything in it in 7 days and now has decided to let people get to the terrible point where we are today (that's a separate debate) or b) Not believe in a god, look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that we are here simply by chance (again another debate) and that evolution not only makes sense, but has the evidence to back it up (it's all around us). I apologize for bringing in other subjects outside of evolution but I mention them simply for the sake of context.

"Do we have evidence that that finch will be some completely different species because they lived on a different side of the island"

They're actually not different species. Their body and beak size varies by island but they are of the same species. Finches can fly. The Galapagos islands aren't terribly far apart. If each finch hadn't adapted to their specific island, then why aren't the Galapagos islands covered with each type of finch? Or better yet, a single type of finch? Because each type of finch in each island is adapted to survive in that environment.

"But just because Native Americans adapted to disease does not mean eventually we will cross species and becomes something other than human."

Exactly! We may stay humans forever (until we die out). Actually, we probably will stay fairly similar. We'll be able to build structures to protect us and gadgets to do things for us instead of having to change ourselves. Obviously we are still changing as our lifestyle is not exactly "natural" (sitting for long periods of time, drinking milk past 5 years old) but there is no evolutionary need for humans to change drastically enough to create a new species.

"As far as adapting to disease, that is what people do, and that is how the immune system works"

That's not how the immune system works...I assume you're under the impression that the immune system can adapt quickly to new diseases. Yes, when the exposure to this new disease is low enough, as is the case with vaccines, your immune system can do so. Vaccines introduce an incredibly small amount of a disease to the immune system so it can have "practice" fighting off the disease. It's like putting a drop of water in a bucket. A hundred Europeans coming over and ransacking your village and then raping you is not a drop of water in a bucket. It's a torrential downpour. Those that had random gene mutations to protect against some of these diseases survived, while those who didn't died out.

"I'm discounting the existence of one species becoming a completely different species."

Again, a bunch of small changes become big changes which becomes a new species. No matter what I say to show how everything came from a common ancestor and no matter how many examples I give your answer will always be "God created it that way. Not evolution"

"As evolution is continuous, does that mean the animal that we came from is extinct?"

No! Imagine a species is like a pie (this is a metaphor I know that a pie can't become a human). Each slice of the species represents a subspecies. Let's say one of the subspecies becomes isolated, maybe their island breaks away or something. Now they're under different environmental pressures (the oven is hotter now where the slice of pie is), so that slice changes but the rest of the pie stays the same or changes at a constant rate that is DIFFERENT from that of the slice.

"Where is the animal that shares 99% of human DNA? Where is the animal that is directly in between Apes and Human?"
There are probably humans that share 99% of human DNA with a "standard" human. There's no animal at the 99% mark because if there were it would just evolve into a human, unless there was some benefit to being at 99%, but there apparently is not which is why that 99% spot goes unfilled.

"Ameba are asexual and can reproduce without a partner... so those keep reproducing and slowing become (over millions and billions of years) something other than ameba. While this change is occurring, the original ameba is still reproducing meaning the ameba never went away and still exists today.."

Ok...

"If we derived from an ameba to human there should be a time line from 1% to 100% human and we do not have this. as I stated earlier. What species exists to day that is 99% human?"

The timeline starts with sexually producing organisms. Then it goes to mammals. Then to bipedal mammals (sounds familiar). Then us. It's like following a trail of bread crumbs, each bread crumb representing a trait that is present in humans. By the time you get to the end of the trail you have a handful of crumbs and a human.

To take it a step further why does the existence of evolution mean that there isn't a master creator in existence?

It's not the existence of evolution it's the ideas that go along with it (see above).

(1) http://mentalfloss.com...

(2) http://www.healthline.com...

(3) http://ncse.com...
thenewkidd

Con

That seems pretty convenient to say to help fill in the holes of what you actually believe to support your side of the argument.
So are you saying Evolution is no longer a thing because nature no longer requires it?
Mother nature now says "there is enough species out there that we do not need to make a new subspecies or new species?"

Again, You are using Adaptation vs Evolution between species to help support your argument.
Anyone worth their grain of salt that is at least a little bit educated can clearly see that adaptation is certainly a thing. Humans and animals will always "evolve" to help them survive their environments. But that isn't to say just because we are changing to survive doesn't mean we are changing to become another species.

As far as vestigial organs are concerned, yes, we do not know why we have those organs and evolution could be a theory why we don't need those organs any more but those organs do not tell us that we were at one point a different species at one point. You are just using faith to fill in that part of the missing data.

I showed that pigs are actually (genetically) closer related to humans than apes are. We certainly do not look like pigs and other than that our DNA says we should. We are actually quite different for being so closely related.
I do not know of any bipedal pigs (or pig-ish) looking species running around.

Also for argument sake, let us say you did find an animal that is very similar between each other so you find several plot points between species how one animal has become another species entirely over time. Who is to say God didn't create those animals? Just because evolution exists or (adaptation) doesn't disprove the existence of god.
Just as you cannot provide fossil evidence of a time line between 1% human to 100% Human... or the (trail of bread crumbs as you put it), I cannot provide definitive evidence of a God.

And to satisfy the sub argument that I knew was going to be brought up I would just like to say about Genesis and the Bible.
What God sees as "Days" might as well be translated to "periods of time"... a day to God might not be the famous 1000 years, or even 10000 years, it certainly isn't 24 hours as some people today feel it means. So if we go through Genesis with that in mind.... It makes perfect sense.
So for the sake of definitions, Create does not mean "poof, it's there", when you make a cake there are ingredients. Put in the wrong things well, you don't really get a cake do you?
1) God created the heavens and the earth, the sky, a big ball hard rock. Light and Dark (It does not say the cosmos or universe) We are only talking about one planet here or maybe the sun too. So he likely created the Sun for "Light" and since the earth is round there would be naturally a light and dark depending on where the earth is facing the sun. The bible refers this to a day. but we actually do not know how long that day actually was in our "space time". Just because we understand 1 day to mean 24 hours doesn't mean that is how long that took God to create this part of the earth. it most certainly could have taken a million years, or even a billion to get to this point. 1 day just means "period of time", Which could take into account carbon dating. (I could go on about this subject for days, but for the sake of brevity, Let's move on, but in the comments section I will comment further about this if you would like to read more.)
2) The earth needed water. Which makes sense. If the end result is to have life on this planet, life cannot survive without water.
3) Then there needs be dry ground so now there is a place (or home) for not only land animals but marine life as well.
4) Now we are creating not only a visible sky, there is a solar system being created here. the Moon, Stars, Seasons, plant life. This makes the 5th day possible to support carbon based life forms.
5) This is the period of time where the animals were created. We couldn't have the animals the first day nor even the third day because no plant life for oxygen and even in water there needs be oxygen else marine life would still die.
finally 6) People.
So the bible supports your theory that it could have taken millions and billions of years for human life to appear on the earth as we do not know the exact time despite what the bible says to get from point A) to point B) as you say.
7th day he rested.

So that being said, again, Me admitting that evolution exists does not mean I believe that we were once apes. It's me admitting that adaptation is a thing and will always be a thing.

And back to the finch thing. I don't know the mind set of the finch and why it might not be found on another island, but that alone does not disprove my theory that God could have just created each type of finch to live on each island and maybe they are not migratory birds so they stick to the island that they know. Just because you do not find different finch or a mix of different finch does not mean God didn't make it that way. (I know, sounds like a creationist's cop out)

But let us go back to why humans will likely never change.
What you are saying? That natures design is to reach humanity and then never to evolve (aka change species) again because there is no need?
That seems weird but also convenient. It is sort of a scientific cop out. Since we cannot actually support our argument that things are still "changing species" we will say it no longer is happening today. That isn't to say adaptation isn't a thing, because it certainly is.

All in all you pointed out what I was trying to say.
God created it that way, but one thing is a bit different. God could be behind your evolution.
A lot of Evolutionists believe it has to be one or the other. They believe because one exists the other cannot.

You see this is the debate and the argument.
I have followed many a "bread crumbs" and I am just not reading the evidence the same way you are. I completely agree the existence of adaptation to ones environment. This is why we have hypothesis, theory, law..
There is a reason why it is called the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution like gravity.

So that being said, Yes, I could say "god made that animal from the get go" but that isn't to say "God created X to potentially become X subspecies".

That being said, I have yet to see fossil evidence showing the "bread crumbs" from point a to point b.
If evolution happened there should be definitive evidence available and right now after scrubbing google to the bone, it's all "possibilities" but nothing that is definitive.
Starting today and working your way backwards going step by step how the human race came to be.
But not only is each step important but each step should be alive today. If we came from apes, why are there still apes?

You cannot have both, if we came from apes and there are still apes that means all steps in between ape to human should still exist today. Or we came from apes and apes died off as to evolve into humans because the weak were weeded out to make room for the stronger human (which we know isn't the case).

This is why I think of evolution as a religion just like any thing else. You take a piece of something run with it as you THINK it's proof that supports your belief system and someone else doesn't believe it and can explain why it is the way it is by different means.

This is why there are so many different "theories" as to how the universe got started... Big Bang being one of the most popular.

So why aren't pigs bipedal since they are closer related to humans than apes are?
Debate Round No. 3
TheShenny

Pro

I skimmed through your response I only have a little time.

It seems the main argument of your response is that I am unable to provide a series of animals that when placed chronologically show the evolution from one species to another. According to you "Who is to say God didn't create those animals? " It looks like we answered that issue.

About the 1% to 100% thing.

I hope you understand that humans are not completely knowledgeable. in 2002 (2002 or 2001) we managed to decode the entire human genome. That project went on for 10 years. For a single species. The entire genetics-related world worked for 10 years to decode the genome of a single species. Do you understand how long it would take to decode the genomes of enough species to provide a line from 1% to 100%. Many domesticated animals have had their genomes decoded, yes, but we do not come from domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are also significantly different from their wild counterparts. Again, even if I DO provide 1% to 100% you will just say " Who is to say God didn't create those animals? " which is why these debates are ultimately fruitless, as the creationist side will always respond with something along the lines of "Ok evolution exists but only because God made it." Which brings me to the second part, which you ask multiple times; how evolution disproves the existence of a God/creator.

Answer: It doesn't. I think a lot of hardcore creationists believe the Earth in 6,000 years old (something backed up by the Creationist museum). I don't think you're one of those people so I won't go into that. Evolution is an idea, an algorithm of sorts that determines how species change over time. It does not go into how the Universe started, that is the domain of theories such as the Big Bang. I suppose it boils down to this. I have faith that humans will continue to learn and will determine the beginning of the universe eventually, whether it be the Big Bang or not, while you have faith in an all-powerful being that supposedly created everything.
thenewkidd

Con

I just wanted to say that it was a pleasure bouncing ideas off of you and having a very nice debate about a subject I hold dear to my heart.
You are very logical in your answers and as I do not claim to have all the answers myself, I do not discount the idea of evolution being a possibility of how we have some species. At the same time though, With events in my life that I cannot explain. I also believe we have a supreme creator at the head of this "big explosion".

As for the Hardcore creationists that believe the Earth is only 6000 years old (well lets be generous and say 10K)
they obviously believe in magic too because they likely believe something can be created from nothing (which is impossible.. literally)... Molecules are always involved in creating... then there are atoms and so forth...

So when I think of Creationism.. I think of a God that follows the same rules as a Scientist would, organizing something that already exists to make something new (like a baker making a Cake for example... there is no "poof", here's a cake... There were ingredients involved).

All in all.
As I posted in the comments and since I feel it's relevant to the debate.
Let's say we came from an ameba. Where did that ameba come from?
Logically if it was created by an explosion (sorry big bang is the only theory I am familiar with.)
We should technically scientifically create a living thing from non living elements, but we cannot.
You can blow something up a billion times and still not make a living organism.
Not going to happen. No matter the ignition source.. being from the cosmos or from a match.

The likely hood that something blew up and "accidentally" landed in the galaxy formation we have today is extremely unlikely.
But then people would rather believe in a big bang (one extremely unlikely event) over the possibility of a God that masterminded this whole operation. (another extremely unlikely event).
There isn't even evidence that supports the Big Bang as it hasn't even been reproduced to even call it a theory.. at best it is a hypothesis.

So, whether you put your eggs into the basket of "Explosion created life and went from there" to "God created evolution" to "God is Magic" or anything in between. I hope we can leave this debate a little bit edified and maybe we both learned something new about each other's perspective.
Debate Round No. 4
111 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
thenewkidd
Soon I can vote too..... maybe I should just do a lame debate for requirement's sake.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Congrats thenewkidd, a debate notch on your belt buckle. :-D~
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
thenewkidd
@GarretKadeDupre

Just to clarify... I never said 1 day = 1000 years...

I pointed out some Creationism nuts try and use the bible and say 1 day = 1000 years, but no where in the bible does a specific amount of time ever be actually specified.

@ Sagey
As for Science vs Anti Science....
I suppose it is only unmeasurable at this time of our lives because we do not know how to measure it. But yeah If God created evolution, God would not have to guide it.. he created it to do what it needed to do and can pretty much laissez-faire :)
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Evolutionary Creationism?
That is an Oxymoron.
One is Scientific and the other is Anti-Scientific.
So it is like stating You believe in Scientific Anti-Science.

Old Earth Creationists believe God started the process of Evolution, but does not have any control over Evolution, which is more scientific as God leaves Evolution alone to work by it's own rules (scientific).

But to assume that God guides Evolution destroys the predictability of the Theory Of Evolution and thus makes Evolution unscientific. There is no evidence of any guidance to Evolution, in fact there is a lot of evidence that Evolution is completely unguided, except artificial evolution which is guided by humans, such as producing Cabbages, Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts all from Wild Mustard, and the development of all the breeds of dogs from the Wolf.
The Evolution from Dinosaurs to Birds (Proven as True) demonstrates no guidance and a few mistakes along the way.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes, it was Pro's misconceptions of Evolution that caused me to vote for Con.
It pays to do a bit of homework or research before starting a debate.
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
Pro lost me when he actually said that we come from apes and monkeys.
Common ancestor, they are not our predecessors, they are our cousins!!!
Posted by SovereignEntity 2 years ago
SovereignEntity
I have a bit of a dilemma here. I personally believe in Evolutionary Creationism and as such can not exactly vote on this. I do believe you are both correct and there is no argument here. Good day.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro missed out on showing that Creationism is not and never will be a Scientific Theory.
If Pro had worded the Title; " Evolution is the Superior Scientific Theory to Creationism".
There would be nothing Con position could argue as the Title would be Fact.

But since it left the 'Scientific' out, then as a general Theory, or Idea, it allowed room for the Con position to win.

Here is Ken Ham exposed as a Delusional Liar for his Faith, or actually to sell more of his rubbish for Money.
Yes, Ken Ham is all about his bankroll. Hamster has no intention of telling anybody the actual Truth.
His ministry of absolutely stupid Lies is to line his pockets.
Hopefully the NCSE will convince all states to fully adopt the New Generation Science Standards and Ken Ham's Museum of dumb lies, may be told to shut its doors and demolish itself for good.
It will likely happen in the next decade if the US, Kentucky and Texas (Creation Evidence Museum) states have any Rational government.
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
thenewkidd
If you are going to vote based on fallacies you need to be consistent with your voting and vote against Pro's fallacies as well.
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
thenewkidd
The debate was "Evolution was a superior theory to Creationism"
I proved Evolution was no more superior than Creationism.

Clearly favoritism as there were many "fallacies" on the Pro side to as many people "Pro Evolution" do not think we came from apes but evolved along side apes.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
TheShennythenewkiddTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was going to give the win to Con because Pro had the burden of proving speciation is a real thing and he failed, but a critical part of Con's case relied on a semantical argument over the word "day" which he translated to "1000 years" to save his position. lolwut win denied
Vote Placed by Enji 2 years ago
Enji
TheShennythenewkiddTied
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: Pro focussed on similarity and adaptation as evidences for evolution. Con points out that adaptation is consistent with separate creation. Con argues that similarity can be explained by separate creation, and claims that there is no evidence for species becoming new species. Pro never convincingly provides a counterargument to this, hence Con's arguments are more convincing.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
TheShennythenewkiddTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: It was Thesheeny argument to loose and unfortunately he did. You got caught up in to verbiage and trying to prove something you didn't have to.
Vote Placed by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
TheShennythenewkiddTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly showed that both evolutionism and creationism required faith and can be considered a belief in magic. This means that evolution is no superior theory, just BARELY proving Pro wrong. It would have been a tie had Pro said "Which theory is superior: evolution (pro) or creationism (con)?
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
TheShennythenewkiddTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: A Great, Well balanced debate from both sides, both sides presented fallacies in their knowledge, I blame their education system for those, such as Pro stated we came from apes, when we did not, apes evolved alongside humans and Con is right about pigs, because it is the prime reason we can replace human heart valves with those from pigs as there is less rejection, their tissue being closer to our own. Con's fallacies came in the form of one species changing to another directly, which is not really how evolution works, Pro did not rebut this properly, no cows cannot evolve into dogs regardless of the environment. A species must evolve from a phenotype with similar starting properties, a carnivore is unlikely to evolve from a herbivore. The genetic changes in the digestive system is too great. Hominids evolved from insectivores into omnivores, which is a rational evolution. I'm actually undecided, as Pro did not really sustain BOP, arguments were no better than Con's.