The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
16 Points

Progressive Creationism vs Darwinian Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,713 times Debate No: 31690
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)




Progressive Creationism: a combination between Intelligent design theory and the old creation model discarded in the mid 20 century that is much more aligned with science via evolutionary theory. So to everyone out there don't assume that this will be the same arguments presented by mainstream creationists.

Darwinian Evolution: a philosophical extension to the scientific theory of evolution. It is the idea that evolution is an unguided process or a only natural process where there is no ultimate form of life that is the "target" of all this reproduction, mutation, and selection.

In the debate, I will be showing how progressive creationist theory has more explanatory and predictive power over Darwinian evolution while my opponent argues for the other side.

It really is that simple

Since it will be just for 4 rounds and I will need to prove the designer exist first while staying scientific along the way, I will start now.


The Intelligent Designer has been discovered: Divine Intelligence


My research topic is here to prove and reveal the designer as being divine through inductive method means and provide a viable (progressive) creation model of life. Results show that humanity is specially created.


Many Intelligent design theorists insist that it is not required or important to prove the identity of the postulated designer who is supposed to be responsible for all the design in the universe. What my research demonstrates is who and what the designer is and can do, which enables a proper application of the hypothesis. In addition, the creation model of life, which has been discarded for good reasons in the past, can now potentially and adequately explain the origin and process of life from new found observations that could end the creation-evolution controversy. What I intend to show is that they can coexist with some exceptions along the way of course.

Materials and Methods

See predictions


The Beginning

Borde, Guth, Vilenken developed a theorem that proves inflationary models must contain singularities [1]. At this point, called the initial singularity, gravity, space-time curvature, density etc. becomes infinite. In a place where the curvature in space-time is infinite or near infinite the laws of physics break down and do not apply, which means the aforementioned first law of thermodynamics would not hold inside a singularity and matter may be created or destroyed.

They also authored the BGV theorem which proves that any universe that is on average in a state of cosmic expansion greater than 0 throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space time boundary [2]. This theorem does not assume Einstein"s equations and holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe.

In fact, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" with another version of space-time that follow different laws of nature, their theorem would still require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. This is because the BGV theorem carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began.

One more observation seems to compound the idea, that there must have been a beginning, would be the second law of thermodynamics. A universe that exists infinitively in the future will come to equilibrium (heat death). Therefore, if a universe was also past eternal, then it should have already been in a state of equilibrium.

The Finely-Tuned Universe

The fundamental laws and constants of nature fall under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values ,within an infinite set, in which the right value was chosen every time. The slightest change in these values would prevent any kind of life from evolving or existing. Moreover, these perfectly fine-tuned laws and constants came into being right after the big bang, error free and without change throughout this process.[3]

Let me explain what I mean by "fine-tuned for life". I am talking about fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life of any kind requires under the general definition of scientists presently use [4]. In other words, If the constants were even altered just a little, You would not get chemistry or matter much less planets and stars that can serve as places where life might evolve (In science, the meaning of the term "life" is not fully established or defined)[5].

How do we know the values are fine-tuned? We know through math that most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if these values were smaller or larger. This means we don't need to know what values don't produce life, just the relevant values of the constants that do produce a life permitting universe. [6]


According to philosophy, there cannot be an infinite amount of time because Time is by definition a series of "moments". The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. Thus, if time was eternal in the past, we would have never have arrived at this point, which means there has to be an absolute first cause.

This has been evident when scientists try to map and implement the idea of infinite "sets" upon the real world. It has "lead to severe calculational problems in the mathematical modeling of ensembles of universes or universe domains, blocking any meaningful application of probability calculus" every single time [7]. Nevertheless, science has empirical evidence cementing the idea that the universe itself had a beginning starting with the Big Bang singularity.

However, "this was not just any old bang from a simple beginning, but a great expansion of exquisitely arranged magnitude containing galaxies, planets, stars and all other heavenly bodies" [8]. The other important aspect of this extraordinary order following the big bang was the creation of our habitable planet Earth. So the question before us is this, if there is even a cause at all, what force is ultimately responsible for all the known phenomena and complexity within the universe?

If a great order arose from an expansion, then it should be understood that the intervention of an intelligence was involved in every moment of this expansion.

In the next round, I will provide characterizations and measurements of this cause.

[3] John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" p. 288
[4] Paul Davies, "How bio-friendly is the universe?" International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115
[6] Mark Isaak (ed.) (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
[8] Paul Davies, "Super force" , 1984 p. 84


I accepted my opponents challenge for this debate because I have not previously debated the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God. The arguments comprise the Anthropic Cosmology Principle, Pro's ref 3, published in the late 80's. Wikipedia has an article summarizing the Anthropic Principle. [1.] I look forward to the debate.

Divine intervention, i.e., magic, is not an explanation

Pro's burden is to prove "progressive creationist theory has more explanatory and predictive power over Darwinian evolution." Creationism in all forms uses magic as an alternative to explanation. That cannot be an explanation, because an explanation clarifies something that is not immediately comprehensible by relating it to things that are comprehensible. Statements are comprehensible if a person can relate them to his previous experience and knowledge. However, magic is not understood by any mortal, so it is not an explanation.

The magician Houdini would have an audience member go into a booth on stage and write a word on slate. The slate was then bound in boards so as to be concealed. The audience member would then return to the stage, Houdini would ask him to concentrate on the word, and Houdini would guess the word. Opening the slate revealed that Houdini had guessed correctly. What is the explanation of the feat?

One possible explanation is that Houdini used magic to see the slate. Magic is a violation of the laws of nature performed at the will of the magician. Putting aside whether that is the correct explanation, in fact it is not an explanation at all. It says that we have no explanation in terms of the laws of nature comprehensible to us, so we call it "magic" or "a miracle" and leave it unexplained. All the supposed explanatory power of creationism is simply declaring that something will be called a miracle and left unexplained. There is no problem with having unexplained events, the error is claiming that they are explained.

The only real explanations in science call upon repeatable natural laws.

Houdini put a sign in the booth saying, "If you want this trick to work, writes this word on the slate: _________" That worked reliably with audiences circa 1900. That explanation actually clarifies. Is magic a more powerful explanation?

The domain of intelligent design shrinks as science expands

In the time of the Romans, all manner of events were attributed to the will of gods. Every misfortune was attributed to a god being displeased, and every bit of good fortune to a god being pleased. Science provided explanations that displaced the divine ones. Astronomer Neil Tyson provides a lecture on the many-centuries history of intelligent design. [2.] Historically, scientists would explain a certain amount and then leave the rest to the inexplicable workings of God. The great Isaac Newton mathematically explained the motion of the earth and moon around the sun, but he couldn't solve the equations for more than three bodies. He then attributed the workings to God. Two centuries later, Laplace solved the math problem, but Laplace then attributed other unsolved problems to inscrutable divine will.

By the late 1980's so much had be explained by science that cosmology was the main part left for a magical "explanation."

Alternatives to fine tuning by God

The claim is that the universe is designed specifically for humans. If it's designed just for us, why is so little of the universe suitable for human life? Even supposing that there are other habitable planets, 99.99999+% is thoroughly hostile to human life. Nearly all the universe is vacuum, radiation, stellar heat, or near-absolute-zero cold. All we have for sure is a tiny film of survivable space around one planet, and a one-and-half-mile diameter asteroid that went by last week could have wiped out all the life had it collided.

Pro pointed out that "life" is undefined, yet he asserted that the universe is fine-tuned for life. We have found a niche for life in a certain carbon-oxygen-water realm, but no one knows what other sets of parameters might lead to life. If the design of the universe were completely unsuited to human life, it might be perfectly suited to some other life form. Author Douglas Adams argued ". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in and the hole I find myself in fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' [3.]

The universe was not made to suit us, rather we were made by evolution to suit the universe.

Scientists count about 25 physical parameters that define the working of the universe. We don't know how many of them are actually independent. “However, because the standard model is not mathematically self-consistent under certain conditions (e.g., at very high energies, at which both quantum mechanics and general relativity are relevant), physicists believe that it is underlaid by some other theory, such as a grand unified theory, string theory, or loop quantum gravity. In some candidate theories, the actual number of independent physical constants may be as small as one.” [4.]

In fact, not all of the 25 are critically important. Some, like the strength of the strong force, are critical, but others can be varied considerably without much upsetting the design. [4. op cit]

To compute the odds of a universe being suitable for life, we have to know how many universes there are. Multiverse theory is that there many hundreds of millions of universes, with only the one we are in visible to us. If the chance of a universe being capable of evolving life is very small, then most of the other universes are lifeless. We only get to see the lucky winner. [In the 2010 book The Grand Design, “Hawking and Mlodinow argue that modern string theory (in particular, the "M-theory" of Edward Witten) leads to a huge ensemble of universes (the multiverse), so that we should not be surprised that our particular universe is life-friendly -- however fantastic the odds, there are so many universes in this ensemble that one life-friendly universe (ours) is bound to appear somewhere ...” [5.]

There are many versions of multiverse theory, and none have been proven true. They are consistent with all present observational data, so they might be true. Pro has the burden to prove all the theories false, and that no new theory will emerge that provides a scientific explanation. He must prove all scientific alternatives untrue, so the purely magical God-theory. We can suppose that if God exists, He might have chosen to create the universe using a method subject to scientific explanation. Pro must show that God did not choose to do that.

The Beginning

Pro cites the paper by Borde [Pro's ref. 1] as showing that a universe following inflationary models must contain singularities and must have a finite past. Pro errs in supposing that the multiverse must follow an inflationary model.

Time began with the Big Bang in our universe, but the extent of time in the multiverse is unknown. Pro claims that philosophers have shown that infinite past time is impossible. However, in the 19th century arguments by Cantor based upon set theory claimed that time might be infinite. [6.]

If it is logically impossible for time to extend to the infinite past, then God must also be subject to that logical restriction. That leads to a requirement for God to have been created. The reason that God cannot create a rock too big for Him to lift is that omnipotence does not extend to logical impossibilities.


We don't have a proven scientific theory of the origins of the universe. What Pro offers is not an explanation, and be cannot prove an explanation impossible.

Debate Round No. 1



Unfortunately, in order for my opponent and I to adequately respond to each other's arguments and not bore the audience, I need the extra room.

So I will refer everyone to my last debate in round 3 where I define God's divine attributes (eternal, omnipresent, immaterial,
personal, omnipotent and omniscience) into existence.

In Summary

From my research, we can define the cause in this manner. A Divine intelligence in the form of an absolute mind is the potential cause for all the known phenomena and complexity within the universe. Now, we can probably also infer that this mind created and sustains the universe along with the earth for our existence, but the question now becomes "why". What are the actual intentions of this designer and what is the overall purpose of life?

If there is a reason for human existence, then this absolute mind perhaps intended to have a relationship with its offspring the same way human minds usually have offspring themselves for
personal relations rather than through unintended biological purposes [11].

In other words, "this agency seeks to interact with human nervous systems in such a way as to orchestrate the necessary neural activity that coincides with emotional attachment to itself" according to RobDelestun, a cognitive scientist I asked in this field of science.

Religious Belief

Unlike, all the other gods (like Zeus, Apollo etc.) that have died out in dust-bins of time, the belief of a monotheistic God described by my theory and the Abrahamic religions has endured throughout time within culture and society despite scientific inquiry being at an all time high.

According to development psychologists, there is an apparent reason for this. We are naturally disposed, from an early age, to see purpose and meaning in everything, including the natural world. This tendency has been referred to as "implicit-theism", since it is the inclination to see purpose throughout our world [12]. This naturally disposes us to believe in a purpose-driven force in the universe: gods or a God.

Therefore, based on these observations, we are either dealing with: a responsive theistic God that
maintains reality as well as a personal relationship with humanity or a deistic God that only sustains and reveals itself within the laws of the universe.

This brought me to Andrew Newberg’s ongoing study in neuroscience that I stumbled upon. When researchers studied Judeo-Christian sects who were speaking in tongues by brain scanning them, there were decreased levels of activity in the frontal lobes while there was increased activity in
the emotional centers of the brain [13]. Frontal lobes are an area in the brain that is responsible for self-control or will. This was significant because when they studied other religious practices, previous studies showed frontal lobes to be highly active suggesting that the participants created these experiences under their own power. In conclusion, this being seems to be actively involved in human affairs as well.

As Andrew Newberg says, "These findings could be interpreted as the subject's sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume it's being taken over by another part of the brain. But we couldn't see, in this imaging study, where this took place."


As human beings, we generally view ourselves as mind-body composites. However, what if all of reality itself is maintained by a greater consciousness that Max Planck himself referred to as
“the matrix of all matter”. This absolute mind would not have extension in the spacial and temporal constraints within the universe but occupy an independent "realm" of existence distinct from that of the physical while the material world would largely rely and depend upon this mind to operate
accordingly. The interaction between this mind and the universe would be similar to the human mind’s interaction with the brain where it manifests in the physical world through the body.

Moreover, what if all of humanity was specially created for some greater purpose, and we possess an additional 6th sense (spirit) among our other five senses (mind-body) that enables us to connect with this being in a special way, which helps us understand this ultimate purpose of life. This ultimate meaning of life would be to either accept a personal relationship with this designer or reject this purpose and find our own meaning in life. I will call this the God hypothesis.


Design Inference

Recent experimental results seem to suggest that life could only be guided by an intelligence [14]. However, there are many scientists that have pointed out alleged flaws within this design inference. For example, they claim that the placement of the optic nerve in the human eye is flawed because it would result in a small blind spot in our visual field. If these were truly flaws in design then this would certainly challenge the theory that an all-powerful omniscient designer or divine
intelligence was and still is at work in biology as well. ID theorists provide two explanations for this: the appearance of morphological and biochemical suboptimal design and the design decay

1. The appearance of suboptimal design (morphological)

As Michael Denton explains, "the difference in the placement of the optic nerve in the human eye in comparison with cephalopod eyes is because of the need for the greater supply of oxygen for high-acuity vision in warm-blooded animals". According to Denton, "Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system".

2. The appearance of suboptimal design (biochemical)

We already know that useful mutations are responsible for survival/reproduction and adaptations within a species resulting in variations of different species we see today.

However, vast majority of the neutral mutations, also called non-coding regions of the cell, were claimed by scientists to be “Junk” DNA left over from the evolutionary process for years. Now, we know from the human genome project that large amounts of this so-called “Junk” DNA was reveal by a group named ENCODE that most if not all of the non-coding regions of the DNA are required and play a vital role for the proper functioning of the DNA [15].

3. Design decay argument

Most ID theorists view harmful mutations as inevidentable consequences of design decay from the second law of thermodynamics. As Stephen Meyer explains, “part of the program of design research was to distinguish the evidence of aboriginal design from the evidence of subsequent decay in biological systems”. According to design theorists, “diseases arose as the result of the degradation of well-functioning original designs, not from actions that can be directly attributed to a designer.

In summary, ID theorists have pointed out several other examples in nature that what appeared at first to be left over design flaws have, with greater understanding, turned out not to be flaws at all or just a decay of aboriginal design. Thus, these supposed flaws were apparently only flaws in our understanding, and we should try to look at the organism as a whole even if it may exhibit some features that may be perplexing. The only presumption I would continue to use from the evolutionary framework is the idea that evolution is a bottom-up process.

In the next round, I will go over the creation model of the diversity of life.








Pro starts by linking a reading assignment, saying he needs more room than site limit of 8000 characters allows. Attempting to break the character limit is a conduct violation under site rules. Arguments must be made entirely within the debate. I will not read Pro's linked arguments, and they cannot be counted as a response. Pro says the external arguments define God's attributes. Defining magical attributes would not, in any case, answer my objections that an appeal to magic is not an explanation.

Pro is not debating. He is giving a statement of belief while largely ignoring my arguments. Pro claimed explanatory power from creationism; I rebutted that magical creation is not an explanation, He made no response. He said fine tuning necessarily implies a God. I responded that if there were an intent to design for human benefit, the universe would not be so overwhelmingly hostile to human life. Moreover, I gave several possible natural explanations to apparent fine tuning. It may be that life is fine tuned for a niche in the universe, rather than the other way around. It may be that there is an underlying theory that links all the physical parameters. It may be that there are billions of parallel universe having all the combinations of parameters, with only the one we are in visible to us. Pro must prove that only a creationist theory is viable, so he must prove all the natural alternatives are impossible.

Pro claimed that time cannot be infinite. I pointed out that multiverse theory does not call upon an expanding universe, so infinite time is not disallowed by inflation theory.

In addition, it's a mistake to assume that cosmology is determined by our ordinary experience of time. Hawking has proposed that time has two dimensions. While the Big Bang is a singularity in real time, continuity is maintained in the other dimension of time, called imaginary time. “If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time.” [7.] For present purposes, it suffices to say that time may not be infinite, but also not have a beginning.

Pro has not responded to my previous arguments.

Suboptimal design

Pro points out an objection to intelligent design that I did not make, then tries to answer it with only two examples.

The objection is that an omniscient designer would not have made as many design errors as are apparent in humans. Humans share use of the esophagus for feeding and breathing, and that leads to people choking to death when food blocks air intake. In the U.K., there were 16,000 hospitalizations in a recent year due to choking accidents. [8.] In the U.S. there are about 3,000 accidental deaths from choking yearly, and perhaps ten times as many hospitalizations. The solution is evident. Dolphins, for example, are mammals with separate feeding and breathing openings.

Another good example is the incidence of back problems. The human spine evolved before walking upright, and it's designed to lock when horizontal rather than vertical. Scientist Bruce Latimer notes, “Over the course of a lifetime, with the stresses and loads of daily activities, we're apt to develop problems such as a herniated disk. Even walking, with the process of moving our arms and legs to carry an upright back, results in a constant twisting and torquing of the spine, Latimer said. No other animal has to deal with a mechanical system in this way.” [9.] Another scientist points out, “Likewise, the human foot's structure has evolved in a way that also causes problems. There are 26 bones in the foot, and as a whole it's not designed to shield us from pain. In fact, there's ancient evidence of ankle sprains, osteoarthritis and fractured ankles, back to the origins of upright walking,” [9, op cit] Chronic pain from wisdom teeth is another example cited in the article.

Hemorrhoids and hernias are two only consequences of evolution failing to keep up with the needs of the human species. “symptomatic hemorrhoids affect at least 50% of the US population at some time during their lives” [10.] It's a clear design shortcoming.

Pro notes that non-coding DNA was once erroneously called “junk DNA,” although the term was and is much more commonly used by the lay press than by scientists. “Non-coding” means that the DNA does not produce proteins. With respect to evolution, it doesn't matter what, if any, functions non-coding DNA has, the important thing is that non-coding sequences are used to trace the lineage of species in evolution. Non-coding DNA reveals that whales, cows, and hippos have a common evolutionary ancestor not shared by mice, horses, and kangaroos. [11.]

Virtually no scientists believe that in humans all non-coding DNA has a function, although more functionality may be discovered. Non-coding DNA is the part that varies from individual to individual and is used for DNA identification.

Pro gives two examples of apparent design defects that turned out to have some function. I'm sure there are others. It is a hasty and unwarranted generalization to suppose that all design flaws will be found to be optimal. Pro can start by giving the advantages of choking, back pain, haemorrhoids, foot pain, chronic wisdom teeth pain, hernia, and so forth.

Evolution does not require that species be perfectly designed for their environment. It only requires that they have have a design good enough to survive in the environment.

Design Decay

Pro cites a creationist who claims that design defects like susceptibility to disease are not part of the original design, but rather the result of decay due to mutations. No peer reviewed scientific literature is cited to support the theory.

Various species have different susceptibility to mutations. Horseshoe crabs are highly immune to mutation and have changed very little in 400 million years. [12.] They live in a “microbial soup,” yet survive without an immune system, and they can survive such indignities as having 30% of the blood drained out of them. [13.] Humans, by contrast, have evolved significantly by mutation in the last million years, and have had significant evolutionary changes even in the last ten thousand.

If mutation are harmful deterioration, then God has perfected the design of horseshoe crabs to a much greater degree than humans. Should we therefore conclude that horseshoe crabs are God's favored creatures? No, intelligent design fails to predict what has happened. Rapid mutation has aided human evolution by evolving intelligence as a survival attribute. Horseshoe crabs are well-adapted to their ecological niche, so resistance to mutation is a survival advantage. For humans who must adapt to different environments, it is a disadvantage.

Susceptibility to disease is hardly the only design defect of humans. Do creationists suppose that humans once had separate passages for breathing and eating, and that mutations spoiled the design by merging them? Or that the design of the spine once favored an upright stance, and has recently deteriorated? No, such theories are contrary to the fossil and DNA evidence.

Debate Round No. 2


Creation Model

Since the designer represents a Judeo-Christian God or at least one among the Abrahamic religions, we can use the creation model within the bible to maybe describe the diversity of life more accurately:

Genesis 1:26-27 states, "Let us make (asah) man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God, he created (bara) him; male and female he created (bara) them."
The two creation verbs are in Hebrew. One verb (asah) means to fashion using a substance already in existence. The other verb (bara) means to bring something into existence that never existed before. [16]

This creation model suggest that the map of life would look more like multiple trees of life where there are separate origins of life events having multiple primeval soups for each major species including humans of which they emerged from.

Based on the previously discussed design inferences, scientist should view the evolutionary process as how the designer intervened periodically over the course of 6 consecutive days, with each day representing a thousand year period, to cause “systemic macro mutations”, which produced a rapid rate of solitary new information within each creation event. Then, assume God continuously acts upon these“meaningful” mutations to help each species adapt in response to changing conditions or environments. When species go extinct, he replaces them with new species within each of the 5 major animal species (fish, birds, rodents, carnivores, herbivores) [17].

Common Design

This creation model of the diversity of life would explain the results of the long term study done on isolated groups of prairie chickens showing how they do not go on and evolve into new species. Only after human intervention was enacted did these animals end up recovering as a species [17]. The startling results of this study shows that divine intervention for the maintenance of all animal species is required until they evolve into new species before they become extinct. By limiting the ability for change, it limits the expression of mutated genes that would have harmful effects on the organism that possesses the gene. The study reflects what we see in the fossil record where species remain unchanged until their extinct.

Moreover, the creation model would explain why humans share a common ancestry, which I refer to as “common design”, between the animal kingdom with biochemical and morphological similarities with other primates. Conversely, at the same time, the model considers the uniqueness of human beings’ capabilities compared to primates and the rest of the animal kingdom (free-will, self-awareness, intention states, spiritual connection to God etc.). The difference between “common design” and “common ancestry” is the way in which each species evolved. In other words, Common design requires an ID/creationist framework while common ancestry does not.

Thus, speciation (or macroevolution) can potentially still occur as long as it’s within each of the five major species where speciation would not overlap between them, which also reflects the current makeup of the fossil record quite nicely. Nevertheless, the creation model also suggests that all men are descended from one man Noah, while women come from up to 4 different blood lines. Since this is not established within the scientific community yet, further investigation is required to confirm this.


Tested: If the “from Noah to man” descent hypothesis is true, then “males would have a lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA which is passed on exclusively through women”.The null hypothesis is that all life including humans evolved from a universal ancestor. Read the results here:

Working hypothesis: If the Common Design hypothesis is true, then there should be more examples of hidden functions from
the rest of the non-coding regions of the DNA and “alleged” bad morphological designs or just more examples of decay from originally good designs.


My hypothesis, as a whole, is based on an assumption that substance-dualism is valid and true. This means if someone were able to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action "alone" by finding a region in the brain that causes mental events of intentionality, will, emotions and so on, there is no question this would falsify my theory completely.

A famous scientist named Wilder Penfield conducted studies that attempted to demonstrate this but was unable to find through electrical stimulation a place in the cerebral cortex responsible for these mental properties. He concluded that substance dualism was most likely true as a result [18]. Now, these studies are outdated and neuroscience is relatively new, so scientists may be able to falsify dualism through these experiments in the future.

Who or what designed the designer?

Since my theory indicates that this cause is an eternal life force that created and sustains the universe along with life, this particular designer must exist necessarily of its own existence while every other being is contingent upon this necessary being to exist. God would be the independent necessary being and the universe, along with everything in it, would depend on this being for its existence. Therefore, the question at this point is meaningless and obtuse. It would be impossible for God not to exist if reality were to exist, so we can simply say that God had no beginning and depends upon nothing just like scientists once believed so of the universe.

In addition, the Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every "cause" must have an explanation for it. Instead, it states that for every "effect" there must be a cause for it and even if the scientific law did require this, the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe. Thus, since there is no scientific reason that would require us to answer the question what designed
the designer, we can apply Occam's razor in this situation.


From comparing the predictions of the alternative hypothesis to those of the null hypothesis [19], the experiment results show more evidence supporting the common design view that all man descended from Noah and, thus, we can reject the null hypothesis.

Thus, all of reality and human beings were specially created, in a certain way, by an absolute mind or first cause to either form and sustain a personal relationship with him or freely reject this offer. The results also show that we possess an additional sixth sense,
amongst the other five senses, that was instilled within us by this being in order to reveal certain truths about his character and his purpose for humanity. They call this “Special revelation”, this is why the genesis account matches 99% to potentially 100% of the scientific data, and why we were able to provide some confirmation of a story in the bible that no one else could have known about but the creator himself.

In the next round, I will respond to CON's objections and show how the Progressive creation model has more explanatory and predictive power compared to the Darwinian evolutionary model.

[16] Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (New International Version) (Chattanooga, TH: AMG
Publishers, 1996).




Science provides explanations

In the previous round Pro cited the growth of monotheistic religion as evidence that science is not displacing religious explanations. In fact, religion is only growing in the undeveloped world, where science has not significantly influenced culture. In the developed world other than the U.S., atheism comprises about 40% to 60% of the population. In the U.S., atheism and "no religion" has about doubled since 1990 to the present 33%. [14.] Pro is correct that monotheistic religion is at an all time high in terms of numbers, but that's only because the undeveloped part of the world has grown so fast.

Our debate is not about whether God exists. If God exists, He could have chosen to work either within the bounds of comprehensible science. Pro must prove that no scientific explanation is possible so that divine magic is required.

Innate religion?

If humans have an innate religious sense, that does not imply the God created the universe outside of the bounds of comprehensible science. In fact, a innate religious sense does not make religion true. It only means that having some such belief has an evolutionary survival advantage.

I think that humans have an innate tribal instinct and an innate need to form theories and seek explanations. Both traits are clear survival advantages for a species that survives by superior intelligence. Religion serves the tribal instinct by promoting bonding with other believers, and it serves the need to have theories of why things happen. It started with "Why did the volcano erupt?" or "why does it rain or not rain?" and proceeds to "How was the universe created?" Gods performing miracles provide answers, but not explanations. Different religions provide wildly diverse answers to the questions posed, so religion is not driven by a common God. Modern political ideologies serve the same underlying needs in a non-religious way, and also with a great variety of beliefs. So, no, there are innate needs innate in human, but religion is only one way they are satisfied.

Again, facts are not determined by the level of popular belief. About a quarter of Americans believe in astrology, in reincarnation, and in witches. [15.] In each area many more remain unconvinced on the issues, so the complete non-believers are likely a minority. It doesn't determine the truth of the matters.

Pro's progressive creationism

Pro says, "scientist should view the evolutionary process as how the designer intervened periodically over the course of 6 consecutive days, with each day representing a thousand year period, ... When species go extinct, he replaces them with new species within each of the 5 major animal species (fish, birds, rodents, carnivores, herbivores)."

Pro's only scientific reference is a paper on a small population of prairie chickens. The authors of the prairie chicken article where clear that it only applies to prairie chickens, where a population of a thousand chicken declined due to lack of genetic diversity. Human introduced diversity from a larger population and restored growth of the population. Lack of genetic diversity does not equate to deterioration due to mutations; it could be due to inbreeding of genetic disease already in the population. Inbreeding is not a significant hazard for human populations [16.] despite common belief in the danger. Beyond that, we know that species differ dramatically in susceptibility to mutation, with previously cited horseshoe crabs being nearing unchanged for 450 million years. If humans were subject to deterioration due to mutations the human population would not have grown for 100,000 years or more. The generalization from prairie chickens is unwarranted.

The time line of evolution covers 3.6 billion years, with complex life forms evolving in the last one billion years. [17.] There is no scientific support for 6000 years.

Extinction and new species

Pro argues that as some species go extinct, new species are created by God in the five categories he named. Since fish, birds, and rodents are each comprised of carnivores and herbivores (his last two categories), I assume he means types of mammals other than rodents. If Pro's claim is true then species not in Pro's five categories would have only the oldest varieties, since those having gone extinct would have replaced by ones in the preferred categories.

There are currently about 900,000 identified species of insects [18.], yet only 900 species are unchanged from about 400 million years ago. [19.] Contrary to Pro's claim, insects have evolved. "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation with selective pressures exerted by environment, with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. It appears that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches." [20.]

All the categories Pro proposes as replacement species are in the animal phylum of chordates. Yet of the 1.1 million known species, only 75,000 are chordate. [21.].Pro's theory is that the universe is designed for humans, yet insects have a greater biomass than all of the chordates combined. The single most successful species in terms of biomass is shrimp-like Arctic krill. [22.] Squid also exceed the biomass of humans. [23.]. Neither krill nor squid are fish.

Creationist prediction

Pro gives an example of creationist prediction, and points to a creationist web site as the source. The prediction cited is a minor point involving male chromosome mutation rates. A theory of divine intervention can be in agreement with absolutely anything observed, because whatever it is can be "explained" as divine will. This class of argument is called "the God of the gaps." [24.] When volcanic eruptions could not be explained by natural causes, gods were called upon to fill the gap in knowledge. Weather, earthquakes, and plagues were similarly attributed to divine action. As science has closed gaps, creationists are down to claiming variations in mutation rates as a product of divine will. This asks us to suppose that a God with omnipotence and omniscience could not get the plan worked out using natural law alone, and must continually intervene to make corrections. The creationist theory is consistent with neither science nor an able God.

Pro predicts that all humanity can be traced to four lines of women. Science has already determined that the origins are from one woman ancestor, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. [25.]

The God exemption from cause

Pro did not provide his definition of God or his case for God being necessary. He referenced his argument in a different debate. Under that debate plan, I can provide my refutation in a linked debate as well --one I did recently. I won't do that because arguments must be presented directly in the current debate within the character limits prescribed.

Suffice to say that Pro demands an act of faith in accepting the existence of God according to his concept in order to grant the exemption that allows the existence of his God. Once one grants God as an exemption to first cause, then it is simpler to accept the universe itself as occurring without cause. God is infinitely more complex that a few simple natural laws, so explaining the complexity poses a far more substantial obstacle.

Debate Round No. 3



I don"t like to repeat myself but since CON is leaving me with no choice, I will go over it again.

CON says I provided a magical explanation where there is no explanation or demonstration as to how things came to be when I use a creation model. The old creation model in the past may have not derived any type of "how" from the causal agent but the progressive creation model I presented does, which means CON is simply attacking a strawman.

"If it is logically impossible for time to extend to the infinite past, then God must also be subject to that logical restriction...."

CON is confusing a noun versus a verb. Qualities like immaterial, omnipresent, eternal are separate but primary attributes that are based on what this cause "is" while the attribute of Omnipotent or intelligence is a secondary attribute that deals with what this cause can do (actions or abilities).

Fining tuning constants

Again, when I said "fine-tuned for life", I was not speaking only of carbon based life forms but life of any kind. Many scientists do not believe we are the only kind of life out there which is why the definition is defined but not fully established in science. In other words, its more philosophical than scientific. Lastly, I only referenced the fine-tuning constants as a basis for further investigation and hypothesis formation. This leads me into something else CON said about the so-called multiverse "theory" .

Its very simple. If there's not evidence for even one other overlapping universe, how can CON base his argument on something that is not there in the first place? The fact is , NO, we don't know whether the fine-tuning constants could come from a random see of colliding universes.

Besides, its unfalsifiable and an unfalsifiable hypothesis not based on empirical observation or experience has no place in science, which automatically disqualifies this as an explanation.
Therefore, I am not required ,as CON claims, to provide an argument against this explanation anymore than I would with the tooth fairy.

The Beginning

Again, The BGV theorem does not assume Einstein"s equations regarding time and thus holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe.

Also, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" or "meta-verse" with another version of space-time that follow different laws of nature, their theorem would still require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. This is because the BGV theorem carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began. So CON you are WRONG, it does apply to the multiverse ,space-time, and everything we understand to be part of the universe.

Design inference

The Common problem with CON"s objections on design inference is that he is assuming and imposing his Darwinian model on me.

The progressive creation model claims that each species are Commonly designed on separate occasions, which means we are not animals but are specially created in God"s image as human beings. Humans are designed for the purpose of having a personal relationship with him but animals are merely designed to adapt according to their own environment. Also, Animals do not have the same mental capacity which is why they are designed to serve humans as well and be ruled over them like computer intelligence. Like computer intelligence, animals may be designed to be physically superior than humans but because they lack free-will and other special attributes, animals are not considered superior.

In addition, CON is confusing suboptimal designs with design flaws, which are viewed as unintended. Like the evolutionary perspective, the progressive creation model does not assert that designs are suppose to be perfect but just intentional where there is a function. Pain is actually a good thing in avoiding further or permanent damage to the body. This also makes CON"s arguments futile. However, even if we end up never finding out the function or purpose for every alleged flaw CON points out, it would not prove that his Darwinian evolutionary model is true or that my model is false as he claims.

Therefore, these examples he points are simply "Darwin of the gaps" arguments or argument from personal incredulity. For instance, CON"s human esophagus example are one of the many same exact examples mentioned over and over again by Darwinists as being alleged design flaws or suboptimal and have been refuted every single time by ID theorists (human appendix, human eye, panda"s thumb, etc). Just read this for an analysis :

Design Decay

harmful mutations that lead to disease sick animals has actually prevented overpopulation by providing easy prey for predators. Nevertheless, this may not apply to sentient beings, so part of the design research is to find out whether this is design decay or flaw. This is why its called a prediction. We don't know yet.

Science provides explanations

CON is wrong here, I was not referring to any kind of monotheistic religion; instead, I was emphasizing the sustaining (not increasing) popularity of the Judeo-Christian God throughout time specifically as a basis for further investigation because correlation does not prove causation. As CON even mentioned, as well as I, that people could very well be creating these religious/spiritual experiences as well as the Judeo-Christian God into existence under their own power and thus would explain from a evolutionary perspective why this particular religion continues to sustain popularity. Andrew Newberg's study I mentioned is there to show why this is not necessarily the case for Christianity.

Pro's progressive creationism

In regards to The prairie chicken study, It did not simply claim that a lack of genetic diversity was the problem. Instead, It was combination between lack of diversity and the increase expression of harmful mutations because sexual reproduction and recombination function to weaken beneficial and harmful mutations both. However, since beneficial mutations are usually not expressed, natural selection cannot select and evolution cannot proceed. There is another study like it as well:

In addition, I did not only provide the prairie study. I also provided the studies showing how God created each major species from a systemic macro-mutations production of only additional information:

lastly, my creation model does not claim that the evolution of life came about within 6,000 years nor does it attempt to explain the evolution of life from the dinosaur period and before. It only attempts to address the five major species along with humans.


Progressive creation model

I don"t think I need to go over which model has more explanatory power again, So I will go over all the times where scientists have and were using my model to successfully predict and confirm a phenomena or observation:

1.The beginning of the universe from the big bang theory by Georges Lema"tre
2. simple to complex from intelligence in biology
3.Origin of life by Louis pasture
4. so-called Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells in his book "the myth of junk DNA"
5.From Noah to man hypothesis by creationists (Apparently CON agrees with this)

Darwinian evolutionary model (failed predictions)

1.eternal universe from steady state theory
2.simple to complex through only random mutations and natural selection
3.the common descent tree of life fossil record
4.panda"s thumb, junk DNA, psuedogenes, etc
5. from ape to man evolution

One final note: I did not fully go over the attributes of this cause (God) because as CON said himself," Our debate is not about whether God exists". I agree with him and that's why I did not want to waste time and space.




This debate is not about whether or not God exists, because one possibility is that God exists but acts entirely through natural law. I leave open the possibility that God acts through laws of nature to create to create our universe and through repeatable laws of nature to evolve life in tiny niches within the universe. Pro's position is that God not only exists, but acted outside of consistent natural law to create the universe and to intervene when natural evolution didn't work to produce his desired result. I argue that if God exists, he could manage to operate entirely through nature. Pro argues that he either couldn't operate according to self-realizing mechanism, but rather intervened repeatedly to carry out the goals.

Pro has the burden to prove that alternative natural explanations are not possible, so that God must have used magic from time to time to help matters along. The God of the Gaps theory is one that accepts all of science that is established, but calls upon God to answer the questions that science has not resolved. I presented several theories of how the universe might have been created consistent with the known data about the universe. That they are plausible to expert cosmologists means that Pro's claims that there must have been a magical cause is disproved.

Pro says that multiverse must have a finite beginning because it is expanding. My response was that no one has claimed, let alone proven, that the multiverse is expanding. Pro only restated his claim without evidence of a requirement that the multiverse is expanding. I quoted cosmologist Stephen Hawking that his theory provided an unbounded but finite universe. Finite means it's not expanding.

Pro finally argued that multiverse and other theories are untestable. We don't know that. Various theories have been advanced on how to test them, including ways to detect remnants of past universes, methods for penetrating into parallel universes, and even methods for creating new universes in the laboratory. Pro raised his testability argument in the last round –a new argument-- without supporting evidence, so it suffices that I deny the claim. However, let's suppose that there is no way to test the scientific alternatives. If so, that means the problem remains an unsolved problem of science. It does not mean that we are then obliged to accept a magical solution.

The Pro argument starts by assuming that humans are special in the universe and then derives from that the notion that the universe was built especially for us. That's like Adams' intelligent puddle believing the ground was build to conform to his shape. In the proper perspective, the universe is extremely hostile and we happen to have a suitable tiny niche. Pro then argued that the universe is designed for life other than carbon, but there is no evidence that the universe is any less hostile to other life forms.

In R4, Pro's first argument is about giving a “how” to the causal agent as distinct from earlier creationism. My best guess is that he claims to have described what God did when intervening and helping evolution. That doesn't answer my objection that it is magical and not in accord with the laws of nature. If it is entirely within the laws of nature, it isn't a creationist theory at all.

I challenged why if everything must have a finite past, that God must have a finite past as well. He says it has something to do with the difference between a noun and verb, but doesn't say what word is claimed to be confused. Whatever escape that is allowed for a dvine being could be applied to a much simpler theory that does not postulate a being of infinite complexity and power.

There is no way to test a God of the Gaps theory. God is said to “explain” that which science has not explained. Science keeps closing gaps, but until everything is explained there will always be gaps for God to fill in with magical intervention.

Progressive Evolution Predictions

Pro predicted all of evolution occurred in six one thousand year periods. I referenced an article giving the time line of evolution over a period of 3.6 billion years.

Pro predicted that the genetic ancestry of humans will be traced back not to one woman, but rather to four. Due to the way mitochondrial DNA from the woman is passed down, this can be tested and has been. Mankind is traced back to one woman.

Pro claimed that species gone extinct are replaced with five types of animals with back bones. The evolution of insects proves that wrong.

Pro claims mutations destroy species. His referenced article on prairie chickens applies to nothing but prairie chickens, and Pro did not argue otherwise. Since the larger prairie chicken population thrives despite mutations, the problem plaguing the small population must be, as I argued, inbreeding rather than mutations. The authors attribution to “lack of genetic diversity” confirms that.

Pro told us that species would all perish by cumulative mutations if God did not intervene. I cited horseshoe crabs, which are all but immune to mutation. Are horseshoe crabs therefore preferred creature of God? We also know that ants, termites, squid, and krill have a larger biomass on than humans. Perhaps those are Gods favorites.

Pro cites a paper called “The Intelligent Design of Evolution.” It has nothing to do with human evolution, but rather has to do with chemical engineers synthesizing a catalyst for a specific function. They design a molecule that will selectively mutate to do the job rather than creating a profusion of molecules and sorting through them. "Intelligent design" was a play on words, referring to the chemical engineers who designed the molecule.

Pro cites a creationist article on why breathing and eating through a single esophagus is a good design, giving me a reading assignment rather than his argument. The creationist article says a two tube arrangement would fail because congestion could not be cleared. Dolphins have the two-tube arrangement, for whom it works quite well, so the objections are invalid. The creationist article also says the human neck would have to be an inch wider, as if that's not possible. If we had wider necks, we would have evolved to love them.

Critiques of Darwinian Evoilution

Pro says that Darwinian evolution predicted an eternal universe, but it only treats only how species evolved. He's says complex organisms have been disproved as having evolved from simple organisms through mutation and random selection, but the evidence from fossils and DNA show that's what happened. Darwin thought evolution was always slow, but even his contemporaries disputed the rate, and the the evidence is that sometimes a dramatic environmental change will spark quicker evolution. The common decent of life, which Pro says is disproved, is clear in the fossil record and dramatically confirmed by DNA sequencing.

Pro never argued anything about “panda's thumb” or “pseudogenes” so his claims are baseless. The theory of evolution never said anything about whether junk DNA should exist or not, so that more utility has been found by scientists in non-coding DNA has no bearing on our debate. Non-coding DNA, independent of its function, provides unique genetic markers that trace the precursors of modern species and proves common decent. Contrary to Pro, the theory of evolution never claimed that man descended from apes. The theory is that there is a common ancestor.

Pro gave no references that Darwinian evolution predicts what he says it does. Darwinian theory never said man decended from apes.

The Debate

Pro gave me reading assignments for God's exemption from being caused, and another for the paper on intelligent design that he misunderstood. I think arguments outside of the debate are a conduct violation.

I think he lost sources by failing to source many of his claims and for using sources that did not support his arguments.

I think he lost arguments by his prediction being proved wrong, and failure to meet the burden of proof.

Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
not a fair debate when one side is based on science and the other side is based on superstitious nonsense. Just do a web search for "superstitious nonsense creationism" see for your self. The internet where religion comes to die.
Posted by Skepsikyma 3 years ago
Sorry, I'm pretty busy on a personal level right now and probably won't have the time to give a debate like this enough effort to do it justice.
Posted by kenballer 3 years ago
well obviously the point is that in one sense you disagree that the God of classical theism exists, but then in another sense you are now saying he does exist.

I think you are confusing the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative, with "theory" in the realm of science

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Do you agree with this regarding the God hypothesis? If you don't, then we have a debate. Unless you are just making excuses as to why you don't want to do it.

It's your call
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
"The God of Classical Theism Exists [Con]"

Yes, that's my position. What's your point?
Posted by kenballer 3 years ago
But you would disagree by your own admission

"The God of Classical Theism Exists [Con]"
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
"I am arguing that the God Hypothesis should be a scientific theory."

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable".

Yeah... that sounds good enough. Let's see then:

God is alleged to intervene in the physical world, at least in principle, in ways that are detectable by science. So yeah.... I guess I agree then. I'm not sure where that gets you, but that also means that I wouldn't disagree. And thus I must politely decline.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
Part I

I had Philosophy 101 in College at the age of 19 in 1968. The professor, Dr. Smith was great. We debated Existence of God, Heaven, Hell, Free Will, etc. I was the only Atheist in the class and that gave me an advantage, which the Professor acknowledged. He said that I had most likely thought about the subject very hard to reach my conclusion that there was no God.
He was right, in high school, I had Physics, Chemistry, Sociology, and had already study Sigmund Freud, and B. F. Skinner and was a behaviorist; and I was in the honors classes where you got to sit around and discuss many concepts in small groups with the smart kids. I had converted to Catholicism when I was 16 and had one-to-one catechism with Father John of Saint Mary of Czestochowa Church. I debated with him about many things we studied and doubted that they were true; he told me I had to have faith. Even though I was baptized as a Catholic at 16, I pretty much had already decided I was an atheist.
Professor Smith set the debate rules and stated that the Bible could not be used as proof for any arguments because nothing in the Bible could be proven. He did not tell us what he believed; but, said he would tell us after the debates.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
Part II

We studied all the great philosophers who had written on the subject of Existence of God and debated their arguments pro or con: St Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, R. C. Copleston, William Paley, G. H. Joyce, Clarence Darrow, David Hume, John Hick, Ernest Nagel, Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston.
-------- ------------------------------------------------------
After hours of debate for a couple of weeks, I won the debate because the religious folks had no real foundation for their beliefs; just what they were brainwashed into believing about the Bible. Maybe Cultural Imprinting is better phraseology.
---------------- -------
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
Part III

At the end of this debate, the Professor revealed his belief. He called it the flip of the coin theory, and said it was 50/50. He then told the sad story about his best friend who had done 4 tours in Vietnam, who was home on leave at Christmas (1965) and was killed in a car accident on an icy road. He said it made no sense if there was a just God; but, just in case he would believe, it was heads he wins and tales he loses. I told him that way hypocritical and that if there were a God, he would know that his reasons for believing were unsound. He said he knew, but heads he wins, tales he loses.
The bottom line in the final analysis was that the belief in God has to be based on faith because there is no other proof. Likewise, proving God does not exist and that the Big Bank theory is correct is problematic. It is based mainly on conjecture and some evidence that the solar system may still be expanding, which in my opinion is proof enough; but, it also requires faith in science.
Professor Smith"s final word of advice was that debating politics or religion was pointless.
---------- -------
That is why I will not debate this subject; and, for other reasons I have mentioned before. Debating at this site is not moderated by anyone; the number of voters is too small; and voter bias is too prevalent.
It is pointless.
Posted by unitedandy 3 years ago
A 5 round debate about what could be a semantics issue? Ehrr, nope. As for not looking to do a lot of work, I was trying to negotiate a bigger workload (a shared BoP), so that's kind of puzzling, but fair enough. Again, I'm not sure what's wrong with a normal God debate, but I can't accept it as is. I'd rather be a bit more active than just responding to 2 arguments for five rounds.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
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: Conduct to con, pro tried to circumvent the character limit, arguments for con as well, as pro completely drops the magic arguments, and Con uses them effectively to expose Pro's weakspots as an analogy. Finally, sources to Con, as Con uses empirical evidence, and Pro uses only sources that require an assumed biblical belief. Oh and the velkinen sources as con points out was cherry picked without questoin and openly admits we have no one single theory of evolution, good debate fella's!
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Kenballer tried to dodge character limits. Thus, conduct obviously goes to Con. Pro did not meet his burden of proof, and all the predictions ID apparently makes were refuted sufficiently.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro did a great job defending his side with good arguments and sources.Con did not do as well in countering those arguments and was attacking with "magic" comments which hurt him on conduct. Pro wins