The Instigator
djwood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Free_Th1nker
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Free_Th1nker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 735 times Debate No: 59385
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

djwood

Pro

It today's secular society, especially in schools, it is taught that evolution is "scientific", therefore correct, while believe in a superior being, such as God, is "religious", therefore incorrect and improper to teach in schools. In this debate, I will prove that there is just as much evidence for a superior being/God as there is for evolution.
Free_Th1nker

Con

Happily accepting this one.

First, please provide me all the sources you have that prove any part of evolution is faith-based.

In turn, I will broadly argue the following:

Nothing about evolution is faith based. Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory "rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence." (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...)

The important word there is "modified." All the evidence gathered supports evolution; no evidence gathered rejects evolution. However, evolution can be modifed because we do not know all the facts, who the common ancestors are, and how significant of a role things like natural selection and random mutation play in the evolutionary process. Hence, it can be modifed and supported, but not rejected. It is absolutely proven by normal standards of science, the same you would apply to the theory of gravity, for example. We can see with fossil records and DNA sequencing that evolution occurs, and there is no doubt we all share a common ancestor based on these findings.
Debate Round No. 1
djwood

Pro

Alright, based on the comments, it looks like I have an uphill battle here.
First of all, I would like to point out that what I am arguing for in this debate is intelligent design - no specific religion.
I also would like to say that I do not disagree with evolution being stated as a theory - in fact, I agree with parts of it, such as Natural Selection being stated as fact; it is when people state evolution as a whole is fact and is more proven than religion because it is scientifically based that I have a problem. So, to start things off, here is a list of evidence that does not support evolution.

Evidence that does not support evolution
  • Genetic Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity - Many scientists have questioned the ability of genetic mutations to create entirely new species. Leading Biologist Lynn Margulis once stated "New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." [1/75] Other scientists who have questioned this include Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook [2/76], philosopher Jerry Fodor [3/77], and National Academy of Science member Phil Skell [4/78].
  • Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity - Darwin himself, who was not aware of our current knowledge of cell and organ complexity, admitted that if "any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [5/80]If you aren't aware of how complex just cells (not even organs) are, check out the wikipedia article on them.

Biologist Franklin Harold wrote in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations" [6/82]

  • The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils - The fossil record's overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, where possible candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception, not the rule. For example, in the Cambrian Explosion, nearly all the major body structures of animals appeared in a geological instant without any apparent evolutionary precursors. Palaeontologist David Raup wrote that "we are now 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."[7/83] Furthermore, palaeontologists have observed a fish explosion, a plant explosion, a bird explosion, and a mammal explosion. Does this not sound the like creation account in Genesis?
  • Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life - Biologists hoped that using DNA they would be able to create a "tree"/diagram of species tracing back to a common ancestor. However, the more information we get, the more convoluted the tree becomes. Carl Woese, father of evolutionary molecular systematics, said that "Phylogenic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its roots to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." [8/88]
  • The Chemical Origin of Life Remains an Unsolved Mystery - Leading evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci said "we really don't have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means" [9/92] Scientists may one day create life in a lab, but they will have done so using intelligent design. The theory that life could have originated via blind natural chemical processes and sheer dumb luck remains unexplained.

So there you have it, 5 solid pieces of evidence that do not support evolution. In the next round I will address any issues you have with this and describe how one can come to the conclusion of intelligent design using the scientific method.

Sources:
[1] L. Margulis quoted in D. Madden, "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006).
[2] http://www.discovery.org...
[3] http://www.lrb.co.uk...
[4] http://www.discovery.org...
[5] Darwin's The Origin of Species - available at http://www.literature.org...
[6] The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, pg. 205 by F. M. Harold
[7] "Conflicts between Darwin and Palaeontology" by D. Raup; Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50
[8] "The Universal Ancestor," C. Woese; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol 95
[9] "Where Do We Come From?" M. Pigliucci in Darwin, Design and Public Education, p. 196
Free_Th1nker

Con

"I am arguing for in this debate is intelligent design."

Rebutting this:

What is intelligent about the fact that most estimates say 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct? (http://www.pbs.org...) This is just one site supporting the 99% extinction, there are many, many more. That seems wasteful rather than intelligent.

Furthermore, the recurrent laryngeal nerve contradicts the pseudo-scientific theory, if you can even call it that, of intelligent design. In giraffes, this nerve takes a 15 foot (4.6 m) detour rather than going straight from the brain to the larynx. This detour is less dramatic in other mammals, but is still not the most intelligent way of designing any mammal (Mammal Anatomy: An Illustrated Guide. Marshall Cavendish Corporation. 2010.) Richard Dawkins has an excellent video regarding the nerve (https://www.youtube.com...).

Finally, vestigiality: genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained through evolution (Bernard Delahousse; Martin Meganck (2009). Engineering in Context. Academica. p. 270.) I dare say this speaks for itself. If you need further explanation on why this opposes intelligent design, I'd be happy to discuss it, but it's simple grade school biology.
---------
Moving on.

"Genetic Mutations tend to cause harm and do not build complexity."

I do not disagree that genetic mutations cannot be harmful. However, they certainly can build complexity. Look no further than at yourself. Of the great apes, we are the only ones with 46 (23 pairs) chromosomes rather than 48 (24 pairs). This is because of a genetic mutation in chromosome 2; a fusion of two primate chromosomes (http://www.evolutionpages.com...). Here is an excellent video describing this mutation: https://www.youtube.com...;

"Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity"

Genetic mutation is random. Natural selection is not. Natural selection may act on genetic mutation, but this does not make it random.

I cannot state it better than this: "The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment." (http://www.pbs.org...)
Natural selection states that individuals in a population that are best fit to survive these conditions based on their inherited traits will be most likely to survive. There is nothing random about it.

"The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils"

Firstly, I do not know what Genesis says about evolution. I do not care what Genesis says about evolution because the Bible is fiction. The virgin birth sounds a lot like parthenogenesis (a process which, ironically, many religious persons have never heard of), but this does not mean that it actually happened or could actually happen in human beings. I find it fascinating that people think they can use the Bible in scientific arugments, but they cannot prove the actual existence of the historical Jesus Christ. But I digress.

There is no such thing as an intermediate fossil. You only call it intermediate in relation to the origin of life and the present. Scarcity of fossils does not support or disprove evolution. Once again, we fall back on the term "modified." If we found more fossils, they would modify, and almost certainly support, our view of the evolutionary process. That being said, it is incredibly, incredibly difficult for a fossil to form. If you're waiting for all the fossils to be discovered, you're simply out of luck, because it is never going to happen in our lifetime and it probably will never happen. That being said, we have discovered many fossils that support human evolution. There is a whole exhibit at the Smithsonian supporting evolution in humans (http://humanorigins.si.edu...).

"Biologists have failed to construct Darwin's tree of life"

Correct. We do not know what the original common ancestor is. We may never know. This does not mean it takes faith to believe in evolution or that we should favor other possibilities.

However, we can look at what we know now about the DNA of different species. According to Richard Dawkins, former Oxford professor and perhaps the most influential evolutionary biologist of our time, if we compare the genes of any pair of animals or plants they form a perfect family tree (https://m.clippercard.com...).

"However, the more information we get, the more convoluted the tree becomes."

Once again, this modifies the theory, and still leaves nothing to faith.

"The Chemical Origin of Life Remains an Unsolved Mystery"

This does not disprove evolution, nor leave anything up to faith. We have concrete evidence to show the evolution is a process that occurs in our world and it is logical to conclude that it would have started with the original life form. Saying that it did not start with the original life would be to say the evolution began randomly at some point in time, which clearly is not the case, otherwise we would not see the complexity of life we do today. It would still be a bunch of whatever the original life form was. At some point, that original life form would have undergone some process of natural selection or genetic mutation, which we have already determined are part of the evolution process.

"Scientists may one day create life in a lab, but they will have done so using intelligent design"

Sort of, but not really. Your intelligent design depends on an unprovable creator; their intelligent design would be based on scientific evidence that we have gathered from examining the evolutionary process over time.

Hardly five solid pieces of evidence that do not support evolution. Observing more natural selection and more genetic mutations, finding more fossils, constructing a more complete family tree, and finding the original life form would simply modify our understanding of evolution.

"In the next round I will address any issues you have with this and describe how one can come to the conclusion of intelligent design using the scientific method."

You cannot use the scientific method to come to the conlusion of intelligent design. The scientific method requires testing your hypothesis. You cannot test for intelligent design.

Furthermore, intelligent design undermines the beauty of nature and the complexity of life. If you really appreciate the world around you, take the time to study the evidence rather than making empty-headed claims that our beautiful world could only have come about with a designer.

It takes no faith to acknowledge and accept evolution. Those who accept evolution understand it is only a theory because it can be modified, but the fact of the matter is our complexity of life comes from a combination of different factors, including natural selection and random mutation. How much these impact the evolutionary process, we cannot say, but the fact still remains that the complexity of life as we know it can be observed and explained using evolution.

Please provide me some information on how intelligent design is not faith based; or how it can be tested; how evolution can actually be disproven rather than modified; or what aspects of evolution require faith, which is believing in something without evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
djwood

Pro

99% Species Extinction/Vestigiality
First, intelligent design does not necessarily mean perfect design. Maybe the design was perfect at the start, but the creature evolved over time (I do support the validity of natural selection, I only oppose evolution when it comes to genetic mutation causing the creation entirely new species). I don't really see this as a direct argument to intelligent design - it is to broad and there is too much information we do not know.
Also, we don't know everything about every creature on Earth. The human appendix is a very good example of this. In The Decent of Man, Darwin argues that the appendix serves no purpose, and therefore is proof of evolution. However, it was later discovered that the appendix actually serves important functions in the human body (see source for details).
(http://www.evolutionnews.org...)

Genetic Mutations/Unguided processes...
I would first like to point out that the source you cited for the ape example states that the chromosome fusion is a hypothesis, but the it goes on to give a list of evidence that supports the hypothesis, but nothing against it. So why is it not theory or law then? See http://blog.drwile.com... for some evidence that does not support the hypothesis. Either way, though, it doesn't change my argument. I won't deny that sometimes mutations can be good. However, when you take it to the next level and say that somehow, there were enough random genetic mutations to go from a single simple organism all the way up to an extremely complex human being cannot be proven by science and that is where evolutionists must take a leap in faith - faith that someday, somehow science will prove it just as believers in intelligent design have faith that their God will some day prove His existance to the world.

The Fossil Record
The validity of the Bible has nothing to do with my argument. The Bible states in Genesis that God created each different category (plants, animals, humans, fish, etc...) on different "days" (the length of a "day" is up for debate). The fact that scientists have found these separate "explosions" seems to line up perfectly with this account. The validity of the Bible does not change what is says, or what the evidence says, therefore in this case, it can be used as a valid scientific argument.
Looking at the Smithsonian website you cited, the exhibit does not appear to be in support of human evolution from another species. It is simply showing human fossils from different times that have a wide variety of structures, and yet, the basic structure remains the same. I do think it is possible that humans have adapted to differing conditions over time, but I don't see any evidence that humans evolved from apes.

Darwin's Tree
Similarities between species is not proof for evolution. An intelligent designer would have, in fact, most likely used similar components of design in different places. Do humans, as designers of machinary, always use completely unique parts? We reuse components and ideas all over the place, and an intelligent designer would have been likely to do so as well. As far as making a perfect tree, all Dawkins is doing is cherrypicking parts of the evidence and using it to prove his claims. Maybe it does create a nice tree when you are only looking at the genes of a few species, but what happens when you try to connect everything together? Structures overlap across species and contradictions abound. Modify the theory all you want, but the evidence simply lines up better with the theory of intelligent design than it does with the theory of evolution.

"Intelligent design depends on an unprovable creator" - true, but evolution depends on unproven science, and on data that does not yet exist. You yourself admit this when you say that the theory of evolution has to be modified as new data becomes available. You are making the assumption that all of this new information will support evolution, which cannot be proven.

Intelligent Design Using the Scientific Method
  • Observations: Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce specified complexity (aka CSI) (complex=unlikely, specified=matches an independent pattern). Stephen C. Mayer - "Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source, from a mind or personal agent." To sum it up, observations in the real world show that CSI originates from intelligent sources.
  • Hypothesis: If a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. This is logical, since we are basing the hypothesis off of real-world observations.
  • Experiment: Scientists perform tests on natural objects to determine if they have CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC), which exists in systems composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to fail. This is tested by simply reverse-engineering the structure and testing whether or not it needs all of its parts to function.
  • Conclusion: Irreducibly complex systems would be unlikely to evolve because there is no way the structure could function without all of the parts in place. Evolution depends on the slow process of parts evolving one piece at a time as natural selection weeds out bad parts and good parts remain. You may argue that the structure could have evolved as a whole, however, the chances of that occuring for one structure are astronomically slim, so for thousands, if not millions of these structures to have evolved on their own would be nearly impossible.

"Furthermore, intelligent design undermines the beauty of nature and the complexity of life. If you really appreciate the world around you, take the time to study the evidence rather than making empty-headed claims that our beautiful world could only have come about with a designer."

I beg to differ, intelligent design certainly does NOT undermine the beauty of nature and complexity of life (what brings you to that conclusion?!?), and at the very least supports it more than evolution. As I have shown above, my claims are scientific, not empty-headed, and are supported by many leading scientists throughout the world.

Final Statement

First of all, I would like to congratulate my opponent on an exellent debate. He brought up many things I had never thought about before and challenged my beliefs, which is good. However, his arguments were not enough to refute the my claim that evolution requires as much faith as intelligent design. I showed this by first defending my 5 areas where the theory of evolution falters, then showing how one can come to the conclusion of intelligent design through the scientific method. You cannot disprove any claims of the invalidity of evolution by simply stating that it can be modified to fit the evidence later, because by doing so you are saying that you have faith that science will come through and prove your theory correct.

Free_Th1nker

Con

"First, intelligent design does not necessarily mean perfect design. Maybe the design was perfect at the start, but the creature evolved over time."

Right, but typically a 0.1% success rate is not deemed intelligent. You would not call a student who gets 0.1% of answers right in a particular area an intelligent student in that area. Obviously the design was not perfect at the start if 99.9% of the original design is now extinct.

The human appendix used to serve very important functions (the digesting of grass if I'm not mistaken). However, we know that humans can live healthy lives without their appendix, making its functions less than important. The appendix certainly isn't a bad thing to have in your digestive system, but it's really not too necessary. Some examples of useless vestigial structures in our bodies alone include the third eyelid, wisdom teeth, and our tailbone.

"I only oppose evolution when it comes to genetic mutation causing the creation entirely new species."

The link you've provided is for a Christian blog, I hardly consider that a reliable source on the topic of science. Anyone who posts an article titled "Prophecy Fulfilled – Evidence that Supports the Bible" should probably not be taken seriously.

That being said, we have already seen genetic mutation contribute in creating a new species. However, evolution does not rely on genetic mutation or any other singular factor to create every new species. Rather, its a combination of several factors that contribute to the evolutionary process, which is why the theory of evolution can be modified to begin with. In fact, it is genetic variation that plays a larger role in creating new species. Genetic variation depends on mating patterns, migration, genetic drift, and distribution of individuals within a population among other things (http://www.nature.com...).

You seem to be missing the point that evolution and emergence of new species is the result of a number of different factors.

Chromosome 2 is not a scientific law because scientific laws require usually require some sort of mathematically equation to predict outcomes based on different scenarios. The article I provided was from 2003, which is likely why Chromosome 2 fusion was considered a hypothesis. Either way, the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis. However, using the criteria above regarding scientific theory, we could easily argue that the theory/hypothesis of chromosome 2 could be modified based on the fact that we do not know what caused the fusion. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that chromosome 2 is not a fusion of two chromosomes.

"Looking at the Smithsonian website you cited, the exhibit does not appear to be in support of human evolution from another species."

I did not say evolution from another species. I said evolution of humans. The title of the page I linked is reads "Human Evolution Evidence."

"but I don't see any evidence that humans evolved from apes."

We did not evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor. Overwhelming evidence for this can be found when you compare human and chimpanzee genomes.

"Similarities between species is not proof for evolution. An intelligent designer would have, in fact, most likely used similar components of design in different places."

No, but it's overwhleming evidence. I'm amazed that you think you know what an intelligent designer would have done.

"As far as making a perfect tree, all Dawkins is doing is cherrypicking parts of the evidence and using it to prove his claims."

He is actually using DNA sequencing and comparing genomes. This is not cherrypicking.

"evolution depends on unproven science, and on data that does not yet exist."

This is the difference between evolution and ID. ID depends on an unprovable creator. Evolution depends on science that can be proven. Just because it has not happened yet does not mean it won't occur. People used to think the sun revolved around the earth. The "unproven" science of the earth revolving around the sun has since been proven.

"You yourself admit this when you say that the theory of evolution has to be modified as new data becomes available."

Correct, that's why it is called the theory of evolution.

"You are making the assumption that all of this new information will support evolution, which cannot be proven."

I don't make this assumption. I say the new information would modify the theory of evolution, which would either further support the theory itself or would result in making evolution less valid. However, considering that all the evidence supports evolution, I am more than confident any future data will support evolution.

"Intelligent Design Using the Scientific Method"

I believe the term CSI was popularized from the book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology.

Before I rebuke your argument, let me just post a coupple reviews of this book:

"Jason Rosenhouse, a mathematics professor at James Madison University claim Dembski's book contributes nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design since Dembski's assertions ride on Behe's claim, and that claim is false." (The Design Detectives)

"When Dembski says that information cannot be generated naturally, he seems to be voicing yet another muddled version of the common creationist assertion that the second law forbids the generation of order by natural processes. Like his predecessors, he ignores the caveat "closed system" in the formal statement of the second law." (Stenger, Victor (December 2000). "The Emperor's New Designer Clothes". Skeptical Inquirer)

Anyway, the whoe idea of CSI really does not make any sense. You say "complex=unlikely." However, nothing about evolution is unlikely. Genetic mutation is random; natural selection is predictable. Of course a successful model of life and survival would appear intelligent, but you're ignoring the 99.9% of species that are long since extinct. If successful, survivng species are a sign of intelligence, unsuccessful, extinct species should be considered a sign of unintelligence. Your observation is invalid; making your scientific method invalid.

If intelligent design were true, it would undermine the beauty of nature because nature would not be natural. It would all be designed by some creator. All the imagination and wonder and curiosity surrounding life and how it got to where it is today would be lost.

"As I have shown above, my claims are scientific, not empty-headed, and are supported by many leading scientists throughout the world."

Your claims are not scientific. They are less empty-headed than creation, but require the same degree of denial. Your claims are not supported by any reputable evolutionary biologists.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It requires no faith. Faith is believing in some based on nothing. There are no claims the make evolution invalid.

I know that science will provide the world with information that can be used to modify the theory of evolution. It will always remain a theory because the influence of the different factors that contribute to evolution will always vary from species to species.

Finally, to everyone: Thanks for following the debate. I encourage you to do your own research, but to realize that evolution, the process by which different living organisms have developed and diversified from their ancestors is a fact. Please do not teach your children or other people's children pseduo-scientific nonsense like creation and intelligent design. They deserve to know what the scientific explanation is for the complexity of the world we live in.

Be rational, think logically, and use your head for more than a hatrack.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Last year two non-related scientific studies were released that do shed some light on this. The first, which was published in the prominent scientific journal "Icarus" stated that terrestrial DNA is in fact "intelligently designed." http://www.sciencedirect.com...

If this is in fact proven to be true it would explain the Cambrian Explosion which Darwin himself saw as a stumbling block to this theory of natural selection, and it would also have a profound negative effect on the entire theory of evolution. If true it leaves us with only two possible choices: Either our DNA was programmed by an intelligent alien species from within our universe, or that it was the result of a supernatural intelligence from beyond our universe.

The second, which was the result of research over three years in 20 different nations, found that human beings are PREdisposed to believe in God and in an afterlife. http://www.ox.ac.uk... Belief in God is as natural to humans as breathing is. Both history and anthropology prove that humans have sought God from the very beginning of our species. As a result there can be no question about it being part of our DNA from the beginning.

When this study is coupled with the first it certainly seems to be saying that of the two possible choices.... alien programming or supernatural programming, the most likely would be supernatural, for why would an alien species program us to believe in God if they themselves did not?
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
I See creationists don't actually know what an intermediate fossil is. And Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
I think CON put it best: scientific theories are constantly tested and subject to change, but faith is not.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Let me guess, because it's a theory, you think you have to have "faith" in it, so it's Just like the theory of gravity then?
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
"It today's secular society, especially in schools, it is taught that evolution is "scientific", therefore correct, while believe in a superior being, such as God, is "religious", therefore incorrect and improper to teach in schools."

First, this is not a "secular society"; about a third of society believes in literal creation and about 80% are Christians. Moreover, about 40% of Americans have said they will never vote for an atheist, and that morality is dependent on having faith.

Also, schools do not teach that faith is "wrong." They teach science, not superstition. Evolution is rooted in science and thus is taught in science class. That isn't hard to grasp, is it?
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
This resolution is basically auto-lose for Pro. There is no evidence for God, and a whole lot of evidence for evolution. Moreover, he hasn't even told us which God he's talking about.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Occams razor
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
v Same!
Posted by prefdave 2 years ago
prefdave
lol! so want to join this debate, but I want to be on the pro side!!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by patrick967 2 years ago
patrick967
djwoodFree_Th1nkerTied
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's arguments showed a lack of understanding on evolution (usual for theists who claim this) and Con's arguments showed it even more. Con thoroughly understood evolution and used it to his advantage, effectively leaving the BoP unfilled by Pro.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
djwoodFree_Th1nkerTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to address the question of the amount of faith required either for evolution or intelligent design. Pro attempted to argue against evolution, but Con successfully showed each argument put forward by Pro was simply the result of Pro's lack of understanding of the topic (for example, abiogenesis and evolution are separate topics, how the fossil record works, the fact that mutuations can add information, and natural selection being non-random to name a few points raised by Con).
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
djwoodFree_Th1nkerTied
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: All arguments made by Pro were thoroughly addressed and refuted by Con. However, even if all of Pros arguments had been valid Pro completely and utterly failed to show that "It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God." Pro did not show how much "faith" it takes to believe in evolution compared to how much "faith" it takes to believe in God. Pro failed to address, much less support, their proposition.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
djwoodFree_Th1nkerTied
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's arguments displayed a distressing lack of knowledge about the subject he was debating and sources posted were not always from an informed unbiased source. Pro's arguments were clearly thwarted by Con.