The Instigator
JonMilne
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
medic0506
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
JonMilne
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,950 times Debate No: 32709
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (6)

 

JonMilne

Pro

I have already done a post like this in the forums, but frankly I believe this is something that Medic, as someone who has been particularly prone of recent to being anti-evolution in his stance, should address.

First, here's some definitions:

Evolution - the change in allele frequencies over time, or in other words the changes in traits species inherit throughout generations. (3)

Common Descent - the scientific theory that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor that lived 4 billion years ago, and is explored in greater detail in this source (4)

Anti-Evolutionists - people who oppose the validity of the Theory of Evolution. May also be, but not necessarily, an advocate of Creationism or Intelligent Design

Crippled - held back

Undermine - make less credible

Entire Case - the notion that the ToE is a hoax or part of a conspiracy by scientists.

I'm gonna be pretty lax and say that we can start debating immediately, assuming Medic decides to take on this debate. As Con, Medic will need to be clearly and coherently answer the questions, as well as the cross-examination of his previous answers in order to prove that there is actually substance to his anti-evolution position, and my responsibility in this debate is to prove that the questions being provided are indeed something that proves the subject title of this debate. We should also both strive for good spelling and grammar, and naturally I ask that we steer clear of trolling and ad hominem attacks.

So without further ado, here are the questions:

1) Have you not heard of the Lenski Affair? (1) The experiments that Lenski's team conducted in as well as their results proved evolution beyond a doubt and proved to be quite embarrassing for the Creationism supporting Anti-Evolution Conservapedia when Lenski took them to task for being ignorant on science. This was well over 4 years ago. So why even despite what Lenski demonstratively found are you still claiming evolution is false?

2) Speaking of Lenski, why don't you also address this little quote from him in his letter to Conservapedia and especially consider it in light of the elements of the Theory of Evolution you disagree with:

"From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God"s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn"t that view insulting to God?"

3) What precisely do scientists who support the validity of the Theory of Evolution (or the elements Medic disagrees with) have to gain from protecting a false theory? What possible intrinsic benefit could there be for them? Surely it's the case, considering evidence of previous people who've challenged the scientific consensus on certain topics and have won (2), that it would be considerably more profitable to actually try and find something that may disprove evolution, which is why scientists do anyway when they constantly do new experiments related to evolution that they try to falsify?

4) Finally, don't you think it's the case that IF, hypothetically, the Theory of Evolution was a "hoax" as Medic among others describes it, that we'd know by now? If there's an argument against evolution (or at least the components of evolution that Medic disagrees with) that's super-duper convincing - as in GENUINELY convincing, as in free of arguments from authority, traditional beliefs, personal intuition, confirmation bias, fear/intimidation, wishful thinking, or a combination of some or all of the above - wouldn't EVERY scientist and layman know about it? Wouldn't this argument have spread rapidly, become a super-hot meme, and be all over the front pages of newspapers and websites that deal with science matters? I mean, if we managed to all know about the first ever "Simon's Cat" video within two weeks of it getting released, then don't you think that the Truly Awesomely Brilliant Definitive Argument Against Evolution would spread even faster and wider than some silly cartoon cat show? Evolution is a BIG deal in the field of biology, and even if Medic doesn't agree with all of the entirety of the Theory of Evolution, even he must admit the importance Evolution and many of its components have in the field of biology, so if we actually found something that disproved the stuff Medic disagrees with, it WOULD be HUGE news.

I look forward to my opponent's participation in this debate.

Sources:

(1) http://rationalwiki.org...
(2) http://www.expelledexposed.com...
(3) http://rationalwiki.org...
(4) http://rationalwiki.org...
medic0506

Con

Introduction

I thank Pro for the challenge and look forward to answering the questions posed. I believe that I will be able to demonstrate that I am not crippled, in any way, by these questions or other related ones. It is part of Pro's burden, per the resolution, to show that I am somehow crippled by such questions. This is an interesting challenge and I look forward to our discussion.

To clarify for the readers, I declined Pro's intitial challenge due to the fact that I do not dispute the entire Theory of Evolution. As is clear in the forums, I and most creationists, only dispute the Theory of Common Descent. When evolution is used to argue for common descent, is when the disagreement begins, so it is assumed that creationists dispute the entire concept of evolution, but that is not true. Regardless, I declined the original to allow Pro to make any necessary changes to his arguments, in light of that clarification. Now, on to Pro's questions.

1a. Yes, I've heard of the Lenski Affair. It's obvious to any thinking person that Schlaffley didn't bother reading Lenski's paper before issuing critiques, thus obviously negligent from the start. I don't see how this is any more embarassing to creationists, as a whole, than frauds like Haeckel's embryos [1], or Nebraska [2] and Piltdown Man [3], are to evolutionists, as a whole.

1b. After my clarification, I'm surprised that this question was left in since it doesn't apply to anything that I actually contest. I've never challenged Lenski's findings so unless Pro wants to clarify, and has something specific in mind to discuss, this question doesn't apply to me.

2. Lenski is way off base here. Our view in no way implies that God has limitations. It is not about what God CAN do, the question is about what He DID do. The Bible tells us ten times in Genesis 1 alone [4], that God created life forms to bring forth after their kind. It's as if He knew that this would someday be a point of contention, so He made it clear as to what He DID do. It also says that God made man in His image [4], and breathed into him the breath of life. Unless God evolved through the same lineage as man is alledged to have done, it is clear that the Theory of Common Descent, and the Bible, are at odds.

3. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, when it comes to scientists, but I do believe that there is a huge bias against allowing any hint of theological thinking to penetrate the barriers of science, even when examining origins. Regardless, I don't think that scientists are actually protecting a theory that they know to be false. I'm sure they actually believe it to be true. However, the truth does not depend on how many people believe it, and a majority belief in a theory does not make it true.

I think that how a scientist answers the question, "What is science?", plays a big role in answering Pro's question. If one believes that science is a search for truth and knowledge, he is more likely to realize the limitations of science, and be willing to consider the possibility of the metaphysical. If one believes that science is an attempt to explain the natural world, using the natural world, then he will obviously stick to, what he believes to be, valid natural processes to explain everything. The latter is sometimes hampered by this view, as in the case of origins, because he forced to accept and defend the possiblity of logical absurdities, simply because it is the only "natural" possibility.

Bottom line is that there are convincing arguments for and against both sides. How one chooses to interpret the evidence will be determined by their worldview, sometimes vice versa. The reasons why one would choose to interpret the evidence in a particular way, are many and varied. I can only speculate as to an individual's choices.

4. Pro asks several questions in 4 but I think I can answer them all without separating them, in my response. I think there is evidence that clearly refutes common descent, as do some scientists, but there is no unanimous acceptance of that evidence within the scientific community, as a whole. In addition, there is tremendous bias against the concept of "creation science", so even though they are doing the same kind of work that scientists in their field are doing, by virtue of them being creationists, their work is ignored simply because it conflicts with majority view. Even here on DDO, I've seen voters refuse to even consider a source valid if it is a creationist, automatically giving the source points to whoever opposes the creationist. That is unfortunate, unfair, and small-minded, but it goes a long way in answering Pro's question. If people are unwilling to even look at the creationist's evidence, then how will they ever know if such evidence exists, or is valid??

As for Simon's Cat, until seeing it mentioned by Pro in his question, I had never even heard of it. I've done a lot of research on the creation/evolution debate, over the past year or so, and have learned a lot about both sides. I guess a person's areas of interest, and how they spend their time are factors in what information they will be exposed to.

The knock-out kind of evidence that Pro seems to be looking for, that would suddenly change everyone's mind, in one fell swoop is impossible, but it would also work in reverse if common descent was found to be true. That evidence is comparative analysis between organisms that are known to be unrelated by ancestry, but in the evolutionist's mind, such a creature does not exist. Many of us believe that is exactly what scientists are doing right now, and have been doing in the past. However, due to the evolutionary assumption that all organisms are related by ancestry, it is not possible to convince them that the results that they are getting is what would be seen in unrelated organisms. The impossibility of falsification through comparative analysis, and the refusal to consider other conflicting evidence makes such a convincing falsification nearly impossible.

I believe that I have adequately answered Pro's questions and I look forward to the next round.

1. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
3. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
4. http://www.biblegateway.com...;

Debate Round No. 1
JonMilne

Pro

I thank Con for accepting the challenge, but however straight off the bat he makes an error that the debate is just about what he thinks. Something I say in my initial Question 4 that perhaps Con missed were the words "Medic among others" and indeed the title of the debate uses the plural "Anti-Evolutionists". So this leads me into my Question 1 cross-examination, and my sources are in the comments:

Lenski

I would like to first point out the difference between the Lenski affair and the incidents revolving the frauds that were once tied to evolutionary theory. The difference is very much in the fact that scientists actually worked out those things were hoaxes and very quickly dismissed them. In contrast, Schlafly and his allies still haven't gotten with the times and are still denying the evidence. Con may potentially try and distance himself from someone like Schlafly, but if anything I've seen from the internet debates I've been in is anything to go by, Schlafly's views are hardly unique in the ignorance they project.

Secondly, one thing I did notice Con mention in the forums was to essentially hand-wave the Lenski affair by saying that the "potential" already existed for the bacteria to do what they did. Well... sure, but then again us humans could "potentially" live even if they drink poison, but in a whole lot of cases they die. To apply that analogy to what happened in the Lenski experiments, it would be like if us humans not only gained the ability to drink poison and survive, but to actually drink poison and LIVE off it. Considering that the "ancestors" in the bacterial strain didn't have the ability to do what their "descendants" later on in the bacterial strain did, I'd say this is pretty good evidence of observable Common Descent, wouldn't you agree?

Thirdly, Con is extremely unwise to use Genesis 1 as the basis of his objections to what Lenski said, considering that Genesis 1 is contradicted almost immediately by Genesis 2 (1). If Con truly wants to accept the literal truth of what the Bible says, then both Genesis 1 and 2 should be consistent in what they say, and yet we find vastly different accounts in the two chapters. Furthermore, Con does not understand that when we have a conflict between two opposing theories, then you can't simply just hold on to the theory you already believe in just because you admire the figure depicted in the theory you like. Looking at just the creation myth, we find numerous scientific errors that seriously casts doubt about it (2), among them the notions in Genesis 1 that "light and darkness" were created before the things that actually give off light, like the sun and stars, and also that plants came before the sun and the moon being described as a "light". By contrast, the evidence we've gathered for common descent is unbelievably strong (3) and nothing beyond objections about how it contrasts with ancient holy books has been provided as any kind of serious attempt to refute it.

Bias

Con laments the "bias" against theological thinking as well as the tendency to not give supernatural claims any real credibility. The thing is, Con only presents one side of the story. Yes, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in most cases, but the difference between popularity among laymen and among scientists is that the latter consensus simply claims to be the best current understanding we have, and it's built on a strong structure of logic and definitive evidence - in contrast to prejudice and dogma like what we may see from any common pulpit. We agree with scientific theories (like CD) not because authority figures (like Dawkins et al) agree with it, but because such claims get constantly subject to reviewing and criticism by scientific peers. It's already been highlighted to Con via my Expelled Exposed link that if you actually present a theory with solid evidence then you can eventually overturn the scientific consensus.

Also, Con misunderstands the purpose of science, or indeed the history of it. With regards to the latter, history shows the principle advantage of science in that it will actually eliminate bias no matter how biased the testers are. in the early days of science and the scientific method, most scientists did in fact believe in supernatural related topics. Indeed, many early scientific experiments were attempts to prove that those things were existent and what their true natures were so that all the arguments about them could be settled once and for all. It was only after decades of these experiments failing to produce anything that the community of science began to gradually and very reluctantly move away from such ideas. If we look at history, we can find countless occasions where natural explanations replaced supernatural ones in science (4). Another classic example are websites like the Sceptical Inquirer (5) and the Committee for Sceptical Inquiry, where creationist claims constantly feature. Time and time again we see the same thing - the claims are subjected to the scientific method, and when they are consistently proven to be wrong the creationists complain even though they agreed beforehand that the testing method was fair and valid.

So ultimately, using natural explanations is the only reliable recourse in science because that knowledge is the only kind that can actually be applied, where as supernatural explanations are tempered by a preconditioned religious beliefs, have not been proven to be objectively true, and ultimately are not useful, especially when it can't even tell us the "Who" part of what's supposed to drive Creationism (Con claims the Christian God, but what evidence does he have to dismiss the Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Scientologist or Ancient Greek or Roman versions of Creationism?)

Why hasn't Evolution been exposed yet?

Con's first paragraph in response to my Question 4 was largely irrelevant, as nowhere did I actually mention creationism in my Question 4, only the "evolution being exposed as wrong" part, for even if that happened it still wouldn't validate creationism. Furthermore, Con claims that common descent has been clearly refuted, but that was the point of my Q4: where is this evidence, and why isn't it all over the news as massive headlines (again, because common descent is a big deal in scientific theory circles) as opposed to just websites that presuppose Biblical Inerrancy. Con asserts without evidence that there is a bias against creation science, but again, going back to my Q3, what the hell would be the motivation? This is something Con still has not addressed. Creationist websites get discounted because they actively rely on Biblical Inerrancy to prove their arguments, and the problems with the Bible are well documented in many areas including science (6) and internal contradictions (7). With this in mind, is it more reasonable to trust the scientific method which is constantly self-correcting, or the supernatural explanations which refuse to accept anything else and base their ideas off of ancient holy books?

Con keeps on asserting that CD hasn't been found to be true (it has) and that we can't get evidence that would provide a KO for common descent, but actually there are things that would falsify CD (8). Con keeps claiming there are organisms unrelated in ancestry and that scientists blindly "assume" their findings, but Con provides no evidence of this and as per the above there's plenty reason to discount other hypotheses like Creationism due to their known unreliability. Con ultimately fails to answer this Question 4, as he's unable to demonstrate just why - if Common Descent really is as wrong as he claims it is - it is the case that we still haven't seen anything within scientific developments and reporting of science to demonstrate this. As the Expelled Exposed link from the last round clearly showed, if a scientific theory is bogus, it WILL get found out, but this hasn't happened to CD.
medic0506

Con

Thanks to Pro. Pro states that I made an error, but I would ask that he clarify as I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to.

Lenski

I would suggest that Pro take a look at how long those hoaxes were taught before they were realized. In the case of Piltdown Man, it was taught for 40 years before the truth came out, that is anything but a "quick removal" [5]. Although Haeckel's fraud was discovered in 1873, his drawings and false claims still appear in textbooks 140 years after the fraud was discovered [6]. Secondly, it's not surprising that a layman on a web site would not handle a situation well, however we do have a right to expect that information that is being taught to our kids has been researched, and verified as accurate, before it appears in the textbooks and classrooms. That is the difference between Schlaffley's error, and the scientific hoaxes. Kids and the public were not taught blatantly false material, and taxpayer dollars did not go to putting Schlaffley's opinions in the classroom. The public has a right to expect more from the scientific community than we do from some guy on a web site. Pro seems to be bothered by the "ignorance" from Lenski's critic, but he seems unconcerned about the blatant lies and fraud perpetrated by those on his side of the fence. What's worse, blatant fraud or ignorance??

In my forum comments about Lenski's experiment, I was talking about the "genetic potentiality" for an attribute, not just potential in the normal use of the word. If an attribute of an organism is controlled by its genome, then there must be a genetic reason behind the existence of that attribute. In other words, the organism must have the "genetic potential" to display the attribute. Lenski himself admits that is true, saying that, "Proteins do not appear out of the blue" [7]. In Lenski's experiment, it appears that a mutation restructured the sequences of amino acids or proteins into a combination that allowed for another mutation which gave the microbes a new attribute, the ability to use a new food source, thus showing an example of potentiating mutations.[8]

I find it perfectly plausible that a mutation of the existing genome can produce the potentiality for a new attribute, thus there is no reason for me to doubt that Lenski acheived exactly what his reports claimed. His findings are also consistent with my claim that the genetic potentiality for the attribute existed within the genome of that organism. Pro accuses me of "hand-waiving", and applies an analogy of humans drinking poison. However, I'm not using any kind of excuse to cover anything up, I'm using good sound well-known scientifically supported reasoning to agree that Lenski's findings are perfectly reasonable.

I disagree with Pro that Lenski's experiment is proof of common descent. It is proof of an organism's ability to adapt to its environment, if the genetic potentiality exists for a beneficial attribute. This is not evidence to support the claim that a microbe can evolve into a more complex type of organism. If Pro has any further questions about this I will be happy to address them.

Pro claims there is a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 gives the creation account, in a broad sense, speaking of the universe and the earth, in general terms. Genesis 2 is a more specific re-telling, focusing specifically on the Garden of Eden. There is no contradiction.[9]

God said, "Let there be light". That means that there was some light source that existed prior to creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Plants needed only to survive overnight, as they were created on the 3rd day, and the sun on the 4th [10]. If Pro is claiming this as a scientific contradiction, then I ask that he provide the scientific evidence that proves that there was no temporary light source, as the Bible says. Doubt or disbelief does not equate to a contradiction of scientific evidence.

Pro presents a wiki page and claims that evidence for common descent is unbelievably strong. I agree with the "unbelievable" part, as I have yet to see evidence that supports the claim that all life descended from a microbe. I do not have room to debate all the claims made on a wiki page, so if Pro would like to make a specific argument from a credible scientific source, I would be happy to address it.

My objections to CD do not come from an "ancient holy book", though I certainly believe that book. My objections are scientifically based. In fact I rarely bring up the Bible, except to say that observable science supports the Biblical claim that kinds bring forth after their kind. That too is a valid scientific objection because that is indeed what we observe in the real world every single day. It is usually my opponents who bring up the Bible, as in this debate I was asked a question which required Biblical justification.

Bias

Pro's subjective use of the word "supernatural"[11], and it's obvious reference to God, is unfortunate in light of the fact that he ignores the supernatural elements of his own position. When you understand that science seeks to understand the natural world and how it works, you understand that science can only explain that which lends itself to an explanation through natural processes. If one understands that much then one should also be able to see that science has limitations when looking to origins of the universe, and the origins of biological life. Those origins are not something that we see in our natural world, thus are by definition, supernatural occurrences. Supernatural occurrences do not lend themselves to a valid scientific method. They cannot be experimented with, repeated, or falsified. Our origins cannot be adequately explained, and scientifically validated, through natural processes, given our current knowledge. Therefore, our origins are currently outside the realm of science, by any rational definition of the word, and the issue of origins remains a purely philosophical battle, with one side (evolutionists) slowly failing in its attempt to misappropriate science as a weapon.

Simply having a "scientific theory" does not give you a scientifically valid answer for how we got here. A theory in science is essentially a collection of various peices of evidence, combined to tell a story about some aspect of our universe. That story can be wrong even though it has the right evidence. How one interprets the evidence is where bias enters the equation.

Contrary to Pro's opinion, I do understand what science is, and I understand his position against theological thinking in science. I agree that understanding how our natural world works requires focusing on purely natural processes. Where I disagree is passing off unsupported claims as actual science, ignoring conflicting and absent evidence that is critical to the "theory", while portraying all dissenters as ignorant buffoons even if they are legitimate scientists. Pro lists his source as proof that scientific consesus can be overturned with solid evidence, but all his source shows is examples of people who provided "evidence" that is pro-evolution. What they provided deals with HOW evolution occurred, not IF it occurred. Anyone who questions whether an unneccessary degree of bias exists in fields related to CD doesn't have a good knowledge of the issue.

Why hasn't evolution been exposed yet?

I believe I have already answered this question. Evolution HAS been exposed, and that information exists but it is not advertised and marketed by the pro-evolutionary crowd. The information is slowly getting out, but if you wait for it to be proclaimed on talkorigins, or the NCSE sites, you'll be waiting awhile. There are scientists who do not support CD and it only takes one to be right, so to claim that because it isn't accepted by the entire scientific community is nothing more than an appeal to majority. If Pro was willing to examine both sides, he would realize that there is more than what he'll find on his skeptic sites.

Back to you.








Debate Round No. 2
JonMilne

Pro

Round 3 then. Con asks what the error he made that I opened up my R2 with was. I was referring to the plural inherent in "Medic among others" and "Anti-Evolutionists", meaning that it applies not only to Con, but to other people who oppose evolutionary theory for one reason or another.

Lenski

Con starts out by using a source that completely contradicts his overall argument, as the source itself says "the present inventory of links includes thousands of prehistoric hominid species, from frontal bones down to footprints. Her conviction that whatever is there lacks antiquity is incorrect: australopithecines lived long before Lewis Abbott's Pliocene Man" - in other words agreeing that common descent is real. And then later it says "The total Putdown history... legitimizes the study of evolution as a science [and] also suggests that fraud is not epidemic in science" - again contrary to Con's later implications that that is exactly what science entails. It also mentions that while evolution is not perfect, it's still a hell of a lot better than other theories.

Con criticises the appearance of Haeckel's embryos in biology textbooks, however there are some justified reasons for this, namely that similarities in structure do prove common descent as well as the fact that vertebrate embryos do possess gill slits, not to mention that there's nothing wrong with using the drawings to prove a historical point (9) and contrast them with what we understand about embryos while discussing what Haeckel got wrong (10). Sure, in the few cases where those biology textbooks are discussing Haeckel's findings as fact, then it's wrong and should be removed, but when it comes to other stuff about embryos that are actually true in relation to the Haeckel controversy (the embryonic post-anal tail among others) then that stuff absolutely belongs in a science class. Con complains about these frauds, but again I must strongly point out that these frauds were discovered by ACTUAL scientists. I do not condone the frauds in any way and I find them disgusting, but I know those on my side of the fence corrected those frauds, which is more than can be said for those on Con's side. Since Con more or less agrees with me about Lenski, I'll only dispute his disagreement about common descent, as the population of the bacteria that managed to "eat" citrate was very clearly descended from the original E.coli strain that Lenski used to start off his experiment in the first place.

Con then claims that Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other, but this is clearly not the case (11), and Con tries to shift the burden of proof with regards to the light source. Sorry, but Burden Of Proof does not work that way. Because Con was the one who asserted that an alternative light source existed him, it's on HIM to demonstrate that it was that way, otherwise his claims are without merit.

Con also claims that there's no evidence of a single common ancestor, but this is clearly not the case, as all organisms with life have DNA and RNA encoded into their functions and structures, as well as the fact that much of life also shares sequences of amino acids. Beyond that, there's also the fact that any good scientific theory must make valid predictions that will come true. And common descent has (12), as it has, among other things, predicted that "islands that have similar environments, but are in different parts of the world, will not be populated with the same species" as well as also predicting that "the fossil record shows transitions (links) between groups, which are evidence that these groups have a shared history" as well as also predicting that animals would have certain characteristics in common. And all of these have turned out to be true. Con protests his viewpoint is not based on the Bible and asserts that it's purely from "what we see every day" that the Bible gets supported about the whole "kinds" thing. And yet Con cannot provide a coherent definition of "kinds", and Baraminology is sorely undermined by the fact that the vast majority of life on this planet is incapable of hybridizing themselves, among other problems (13).

Bias

Con simply repeats himself about science only testing for the natural occurrences, and then attempts to deride my own position as "supernatural". An odd thing to claim, considering that enough evidence of CD has clearly been discovered to make it the dominant scientific position. I've already acknowledged that science has limitations, but at the same time Con completely fails to address the long history of religious beliefs, including creationist dogma, getting refuted constantly by science, as demonstrated in my (4) from the last round. I've already explained clearly too how CD can be falsified, but Con also ignores this. With regards to origins, Con's argument is irrelevant as evolution and CD actually has to do with how life progressed AFTER said origin, and while the search for the Universal Common Ancestor IS happening, it's not the central focus of evolutionary theory or CD.

I agree that a scientific theory may become scientifically invalid later on. However, until that actually happens, it is completely pointless for Con to throw around empty "What If?" claims unless he actually has definitive evidence that demonstrates the theory is actually false. His accusations against science are completely baseless, as if the anti-evolution dissenters did have any truly valid points to overturn the theory, then as per my Q3 there is no motive for biologists to discount opposing viewpoints if there's a chance that they'll actually overturn the existing theory. Likewise, Con can claim there are "critical" gaps all he wants, but all it amounts to is the God of the Gaps fallacy (14). He also dismisses my Expelled Exposed link because it only dealt with how evolution works. But again, Con hasn't provided anything remotely convincing against evolution, and the fact of the matter is that it's still very much the case that previous conceptions in science were overturned. Still, if Con would like more examples of existing theories that replaced old ones in the scientific consensus, I'd be happy to oblige (15). Con also doesn't address the nature of how science eliminates bias that I pointed out in R2, so that's another concession.

Why Hasn't Evolution Been Exposed Yet?

Con completely contradicts his earlier claim that he's not a "conspiracy theorist" when he implies that the pro-evolutionary crowd are covering up the exposure of evolution being wrong, again failing to satisfy my Q3 about why on earth they'd go to all that trouble, and being erroneous with regards to my Q4 as I've already pointed out that scientists try to disprove evolutionary theory all the time and any credible attempts to disprove it are absolutely welcomed, hence the fact that since there's no motivation by evolutionists to engage in a cover up, then again there's no reason why, if the solid argument against evolutionary theory and especially CD exists, why we don't know all about it all over the mainstream news and in the biggest selling books by now. Con has completely ignored my point how scientific consensus works, and while he is absolutely right that "it only takes one to be right", but until that "one" comes up with the definitive goods to prove evolution and CD wrong, then their claims are completely without merit. Con's final remark is nothing but an ad hominem as I have examined both sides and, judging from how Con seems willing to dismiss evidence collected by highly credentialed biologists with PhD's and articles in real credible scientific journals, one has to cast doubt about Con's actual knowledge of science.

Con may now take the floor.
medic0506

Con

Thanks to Pro for a quick response. I ask that Pro, in the last round, clarify and ask clear, concise questions rather than claiming concessions. I have answered all questions thus far and have not conceded on any points that Pro has made. If he feels that I have conceded then let's clarify because there is an obvious misunderstanding on someone's part, that can be cleared up easily.

Lenski

Piltdown- I used that article [5] for a particular reason. It is a perfect example of what I consider to be "evo-think". No matter what the issue and circumstance, no matter what the evidence that is considered, evolutionists twist it so as to portray the theory and it's adherents in a positive way. Many times this thinking causes them to miss the original point, and misconstrue or totally ignore the importance of why it was brought up to begin with.

The author wastes no time in getting to the main reason for writing the article, "... Piltdown inquest can be seen as validating science in general and evolutionary science in particular", and later, "...was proud of the detectives, who did honor to science by their fearlessness and their candor; they reflect credit upon anthropology by their skill and thoroughness." Even without reading it, you can see the tone and the focal point of the article from those two quotes.

The fact that science showed an example of its ability to self-correct in circumstances where obviously conflicting evidence leaves no choice, is not lost on me, and I agree that the scientists who exposed the hoax deserve credit, however there is a bigger point that is totally being overlooked and in his rush to prove his case, Pro inadvertantly reinforces the point with his round 3 comments. It is that evo-think, the zest to provide supporting evidence for common descent which is clearly lacking, and a rush to judgement, is what allowed the hoax in the first place!!

We have a right to expect accuracy in what is taught in schools and the public arena, and the scientific community has a responsibility to provide that accuracy by thoroughly researching new finds, rather than rushing to judgement to accept things that seem to support its pet theories. That important lesson seems to be lost on evolutionists though. By the evolutionist's timeline, 40 years is nothing. So what is 40 years worth of false teachings and a few tax dollars among friends, right?? We can easily spin doctor this into a positive for science, especially evolutionary science, and that is what is important.

Haeckel- First, Pro says that similarities do prove CD, and he is making the same ASSUMPTION that is critical to the entire idea of UCD, yet there is no proof of that assumption, it is simply asserted as fact. I challenge Pro to provide valid scientific evidence that proves the assumption.

Secondly, Pro proves what I'm saying about why these frauds are dangerous and mislead the public. He is simply repeating what he has been spoonfed to believe, that all vertebrate embryos show "gill slits" and even a tail, as a function of their evolutionary history. He is a victim of the continuing fraud, nearly a century and a half AFTER it was exposed. Scientists know that recapitulation theory is false [12], and the true purpose of these structures [13]. Yet alledged educational sources such as PBS are continuing to perpetrate the fraud, even putting it in coloring books for children!![14]. Even though the true function is known, the sacs continue to be called gill slits, in textbooks and by those who teach our kids. [15][16] Biologist and ardent evolutionist, Kenneth Miller, even uses Haeckel's fraudulent information in textbooks that he authors [17]. Apparently, evolutionary science only self-corrects when it's forced into doing so, unfortunately, with no oversight, evo-think is only forced into self-correcting when not doing so threatens the theory.

Experiment- Pro continues to say that Lenski's findings, the bacteria using a new food source, is evidence for CD. No one questions that they are descended from the earlier bacteria that were used, obviously creationists do not claim that organisms are not related to their ancestors. What is at issue is the notion that all life came from a common ancestor, and that organisms can descend from different kinds of organisms. So long as Lenski's bacteria remain bacteria, then he has some valid findings and useful information, but he has not provided evidence for universal common descent.

Genesis- I've already explained this, and just because Pro chooses a skeptic site to interpret a book they don't believe in, doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct, though they are free to believe as they wish. As for BoP, Pro is the one who made the claim that there is a contradiction of scientific evidence, regarding the initial light source, therefore the onus is on him to present that scientific evidence that is apparently contradicted.

Single Common Ancestor- The existence of dna in all life forms is not evidence that all life formed from the same ancestor. That is again an ASSUMPTION made by evolutionists. That dna could very well be interpreted as the result of all life forms having a common DESIGNER, and that theory can't be disproved by factual evidence. There is no comparison of unrelated organisms that show that presence of dna is proof of kinship, therefore, Pro's claim can only be asserted, but cannot be supported by fact.

Both sides can make predictions that are true. Though that is a part of the scientific method, it is not conclusive unless those predictions are unique to the particular hypothesis. As creation would predict many of the same findings as evolutionism, those findings are not unique. Though there are some fossils that are argued to be "transitional", there is no evidence to show that they are indeed just that. You can't line a set of bones up next to a similar set and show them to have descended from a common ancestor, you can only ASSUME that to be the case.

I can indeed provide a coherent definition of kinds. A kind is a population that shares common ancestry [18]. I don't disagree that baraminology faces some difficulties in tracing down an exhaustive accounting of the original created kinds. Though not at all necessary, I think that it is a worthwile venture.

Bias

Pro again brings up his link to a generic website, and claims that science has refuted a long list of religious claims. I commented on this in an earlier round. I don't have space within this debate to take on an entire website. With due respect to Pro, if he wished to pursue those arguments, he should have made the said argument within the debate, and sourced it with a verifiable reference, rather than expecting me to chase down the argument from a questionable source.

Falsification- Each individual can weigh in on what it would take to falsify something, in their mind. The author of the wiki site that Pro uses did just that, but he didn't reference anyone in the scientific community who has authority to speak for evolution in general, so rationalwiki is not a credible source to speak for the scientific community.

UCA- My point about origins is not irrelevant. Claiming that identifying and accounting for the existence of the proposed original common ancestor is irrelevant to CD is ridiculous.

Against UCD:
Inability to identify or account for the original ancestor
Inability to show how that organism could gain genetic information
Inability to show organisms can evolve to different kinds of organisms
No evidence for how sexual reproduction formed
Irreducible complexity
Sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record

That is far from a complete list but some important points. Perhaps fuel for a future debate??

Why Hasn't Evolution Been Exposed Yet?

As I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I never said that I don't believe in mass hysteria or cults. I've already addressed this point, we have falsified CD, but we can't force acceptance. All we can do is spread the word.

You're up
















Debate Round No. 3
JonMilne

Pro

So this is the last round. Since Con has requested that I do so, I will indeed ask clear and concise questions throughout this last argument, but through doing so I will demonstrate that there are things I have brought up that Con has in fact not addressed at all. So let's begin:

Lenski

Con elaborates as to the reason he initially used the article which completely contradicts his position. It would have been nice if Con had clarified this back in R2. Nonetheless, I'm mystified as to how Con's explanation invalidates the position I've been promoting ever since Con brought up hoaxes. I have agreed that science has limitations and that newer theories come along which invalidate previously accepted theories, and I've also pointed out that the fact that those frauds ever got taught is despicable. But Con proves my point many times over when he points out nonetheless that it was still science that exposed those frauds. Particularly of note is that it was radiocarbon dating that exposed the hoax, the very thing creationists rail against!

Furthermore, Con is gravely mistaken when he claims that even then the evidence for CD had been lacking, for there had been digs in France (Cro-Magnon) and Germany (Neanderthal and Heidelberg) that had found some of the earliest humans, thereby providing evidence for CD (16). While the motive of the hoaxers can't ever be fully analysed since we still don't know exactly who they are, it is very likely that British pride played a significant factor, since while other countries DID have fossils about early humans, Britain had no such thing.

It's also incredibly hypocritical of Con to complain about Piltdown Man, and yet give no acknowledgment of Creationist hoaxes that are in fact still claimed to be fact today, or is Con ignorant of the promoting Creationists still do of Paluxy footprints, Calaveras Skull, Moab, and Malachite Man (17)? Con is absolutely right that PD was a disgraceful hoax, but his side is still trying to promote disgraceful hoaxes into the classroom!

Con lambasts the use of the word "assume", but Con has been told so many times about how assumptions work in science that it's ridiculous. Again, any good scientific theory starts off with a workable hypothesis - an assumption - and then works from there, into experimentation (repeated constantly), submitting your work for peer review, revising your claim, retesting it and then submitting your revised work with something like a 10% chance of it getting published, and then other scientists around you spend years trying to pick apart your findings. It is only after all those obstacles that the scientific community may accept your results, after which your hypothesis graduates into becoming a theory. It is much more than an assumption, it is the culmination of years of rigorous, careful, thorough, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research that has obeyed the Gold Standard of scientific evidence wherein methods have been used to filter out biases and cognitive errors as much as humanly possible. A great recent example of such a method that proved CD can be found in Douglas Theobald's work with amino acids (18).

Next, Con lambasts me for the fact that I point out that gill slits are present in vertebrate embryos, and uses a source I presented to do so. And yet once again a source Con uses contradicts him when it says "Why should human embryos have tails and build their faces from the same embryonic foundation that fish use to build gills?", and also "one way to see "gill-like" structures in embryos is to see that they form a repeated pattern of lines in the neck. Of course, then we have to wonder why human embryos have these strange lines, and why all other vertebrates also have them", and finally "All vertebrate embryos have pharyngeal arches. Because sometimes these structures are referred to by the simpler term "gill slits" in textbooks does not mean that they do not exist or that the homology disappears" This therefore invalidates all of Con's Appeals to Emotion that he provides in his follow-up links on embryos, as the information on pharyngeal arches is in fact correct. And again, where's Con's outrage about Creationism's inability to self-correct, as pointed out above?

Con engages in special pleading as, while agreeing that the organisms are indeed related to their ancestors, he uses special pleading to say that he doesn't believe it can happen in other species. His claim of "bacteria remaining bacteria" is absurd, as I've already explained what the equivalent would be in humans with regards to what happened to Lenski's bacteria. Con provides no evidence of a barrier. As for Genesis, I will concede that since Con believes in a Young Earth, the plants in theory would not be a problem. However, it quite simply does not suffice for Con to claim there was some alternate light source. If that's truly the case, then why the need to create the sun and stars at all? Furthermore, the stars cause a serious problem for any YEC interpretations as the chronologies of stars clearly date to millions of years old (19). There's also, as per my (2), the claim that the moon is a light as well as having whales and birds appear before reptiles and insects, in direct contradiction to science.

Con's claim of a common designer also doesn't work considering that since the beginning Con has been claiming that "life can only come from life", meaning that the Designer MUST have been a living thing, and because of that, this equally requires that the Designer, itself, MUST necessarily have been Designed by SOME OTHER Designer. And following on from that, there has to be an infinite regress of Designers designing Designers etc etc worlds without end. Con could escape this by saying the Designer of humankind is, in fact, NOT a living thing"but if he does that, he can kiss his central premise goodbye. Or he could claim his Designer doesn"t NEED to have sprung from any other life; but this response, like the previous one, just plain old DESTROYS Con's premise for touting as his justification for invoking a Designer. He dismisses fossils, but again only with the "assume" remark that's been tackled above.

Con gives a completely vague definition of "kind". Baraminology has been heavily criticised for this and how contradictory it is (20), especially since it's willing to class "dinosaurs" as all one "kind" even despite the differences many of them had, and yet genetically similar organisms like chimpanzees and gorillas get classed as two separate "kinds".

Bias

Some examples of religious claims refuted by science can include the notion the Earth was the centre of the universe (contradicted by Galileo), as well as the notion that God was responsible for all natural events (contradicted by Newton). Con also requests an alternate source for how to falsify common descent, so I shall oblige (21), although I will say that people like Lenski and PZ Myers and others hold RW in high regard. As for Con's complaints:

1) We don't know, but we're searching. God of the Gaps fallacy.
2) Anything mutations can do, they can undo. (22).
3) Fossil record. DNA. RNA.
4) The fact that this has been the subject of a peer reviewed paper shows otherwise. (23)
5) Watchmaker argument. Fails to differentiate between man made objects and naturally occurring ones.
6) This is pure fantasy, and conspiracy thinking. Previous individual hoaxes alone do not invalidate an entire theory. The fossil record succeeds by what we have as opposed to what we don't have. (24)

Evolution Been Exposed Yet?

Con continues to insist CD is "falsified", and yet provides no evidence for this, instead preferring to just label evolutionists as cultists in an ad hominem conspiracy theory style attack. Again, neither Q3 (motive) nor Q4 is satisfied (why we don't already know big time about it being false). Con has failed to answer the questions sufficiently. Vote Pro.
medic0506

Con

Piltdown- The more important lesson remains totally lost on Pro, and that is that scientists were in such a rush to find supporting evidence for evolution that they didn't bother verifying that the skull was authentic, and that is unacceptable, regardless of whether it was discovered by other scientists decades later.

Radiocarbon dating was not what revealed the hoax. It was flourine testing that revealed that the skull and jaw were of different ages.[19][20] It was announced as a hoax in 1953, but the c14 dating didn't happen until 1959, according to the sources.

Pro claims that early humans provide evidence for CD, but how do humans being human show that those humans evolved from a microbe?? That finding does not support UCD.

Pro makes the claim that some creationist claims are hoaxes, and posts Mark Isaaks article that agrees with him. But there is no actual evidence presented by either of them that any of those claims are false. Just saying its a hoax because it was found by creationists isn't a valid argument, thus Pro fails here.

If you are going to claim that your hypothesis is supported by science, then you need to actually have something that is scientifically valid behind it. If your hypothesis passes through each part of the process because of assumptions, and even your evidence is based on that same assumption, then your conclusion is nothing but an assumption, supported by assumptions. Confirmation bias runs rampant in CD, and that is not science!!! Pro claims that CD has been subjected to years of rigorous double-blind, placebo controlled testing, but again this is just an unsupported claim since he has provided no examples of any of those kinds of experiments that actually supports CD. Bottom line is that Pro hasn't refuted the fact that, similarity equals ancestral relatedness, is nothing more than an assumption and he has provided no evidence that doesn't make that assumption. Yet that assumption is not supported by anything factual, like comparative analysis on organisms that are known to be unrelated. Scientists are working blind when they run any test, without having actual comparisons to show what the findings would be in unrelated organisms. They may very well be looking at refuting evidence, and comparing unrelated organisms, yet they would not know it because of the assumptions made going into that testing. His link to Theobald's work refutes Pro's earlier point that all organisms that have dna are related, Theobald himself says that simply having dna does not prove kinship. Look at another admission made within Pro's own source...

"The common assumption that all life on Earth emerged from a single common ancestor has been a difficult hypothesis to prove." (emphasis mine)[21]

I applaud both Theobald, and the author of the article Katherine Harmon, for their honesty, and I think most honest scientists will also make the same admissions. That is that UCD is an assumption, and is not a proven fact but simply a hypothesis. Pro's own source proves what I've been saying all along, and refutes his assertion that CD is a fact.

Gills- Pro asks, ""Why should human embryos have tails and build their faces from the same embryonic foundation that fish use to build gills?" Look at this picture [22].

The embryo at this point is about 6 weeks old, and only about 1/4 of an inch long[23]. Where else within that 1/4 of an inch, does Pro expect to find pre-cursors to developing structures of the the head?? Those pouches grow into different structures, so it is not surprising to find them in separate pouches (thus explaining the slits), nor is it surprising to find similar structures in embryos from many other organisms of that size. To perpetrate the myth that those are gill slits, and say that since it has an end to its body means it has a tail, is deplorable. Once again Pro is resorting to an assumption that anything showing similarity, means CD, but once again his claim is unsupported.

"Bacteria remaining bacteria" is absurd??...Why is it absurd?? Am I suppose to look at a bacteria and imagine it to be a baseball player instead?? That's what is absurd, looking at something and not seeing what it actually is, and pretending that its proof of something its not.

Genesis- Pro concedes on all but the light source. God said "Let there be light" and there was light, on the first day yet He didn't create the sun, moon, or stars until the fourth day[24]. That's all the proof I need. I've already answered his question, it was a temporary light source. Pro says that the light on day one is contradicted by scientific evidence, yet he fails to provide any contradictory "scientific evidence", thus his claim is obviously bogus. He points to his skeptic site as his only evidence for scientific contradictions and that site is not an unbiased source for scientific information, thus again he fails to support his case.

Pro resorts to arguing an infinite regress in trying to disprove a designer, but an infinite regress is a logical absurdity[25], thus there must be an uncaused cause. God is eternal and uncaused, and is indeed alive thus Pro's argument fails. Life only comes from life.

My definition of kind is not vague. Pro's not liking it is irrelevant, and his not liking it doesn't harm my case in the least. Baraminology is based on Biblical classifications, and to point out that it differs from his preferred method is irrelevant since we obviously have different criteria for each classification, conflict is not surprising, but he has not shown that baraminology is inferior in it's use. Again, no harm done to my case just because Pro doesn't like it, or agree with it.

Bias

Science doesn't know where the center of the universe is and that is not what Galileo disproved. His assertion that Newton somehow disproved that God is responsible for natural events is equally unsupported, and even laughable.

1. This isn't a GoG argument. It is a critical part of the claim that all organisms descended from an original life form. If you can neither identify nor account for the existence of that original life, then your entire hypothesis hangs in the balance, incomplete and unsupported. Too many people give evolutionists a free pass on that point just because they claim that it isn't important. That's an absurd claim.
2. Not that he has proved it, but even if mutations CAN do something, it doesn't mean that they actually DID do something.
3. Again, all Pro's evidence depends on assumption of similarity meaning kinship, with nothing factual to support that assumption.
4. Being the subject of a peer reviewed paper does not provide any conclusive proof for the origination of sexual reproduction. All it shows is that the reviewers agree that it may be the best current understanding. That certainly does not suffice as evidence of what actually happened. That is an appeal to authority, and there is no true authority on what actually happened.
5. Say what??
6. Again Pro links to an obviously biased, unreliable source for actual scientific support, and again I suppose he wants me to take on that entire site instead of making particular arguments within this debate.

Q3 and Q4- Pro continues to say that these questions are unanswered, but I have addressed them as well as I possibly can. Both questions require me to speculate on other people's rationale for their beliefs, or why they don't accept evidence. Again, I can only speculate on those matters, and have done so. Pro doesn't like my answers, but again his disbelief or dislike of my answer is irrelevant to the resolution being argued.

Pro's resolution states that his questions will cripple my case. Whether the reader agrees with my arguments is irrelevant to that resolution. The question is whether he crippled my case. The clear answer is NO, he didn't even land a solid blow, in fact it is his case that is on the defensive, and his sources are for the most part unreliable. Therefore, I ask the reader to vote Con.

Thanks to the readers, and to Pro for an interesting debate.

















Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
v3snel?
Posted by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
Which was kinda justifiable, considering the opponent I had.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
I guess be glad JonMilne didn't just poop out like 50 sources in a round as he did here [http://www.debate.org...]

(okay, so it was only ~30... same dif)
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
WHERE ARE THE SOURCES!!!??? dsfsdfsd
Posted by JonMilne 4 years ago
JonMilne
I did think that this debate would get more than 6 votes considering the length of time it was active and the view count. How does one go about getting big views for one's debates? Does the debate need to contain two big dogs (bearing in mind that in medic's previous debate against F16 Fighting Falcon featured two big name commenters in DDO whereas this one admittedly only contained medic as a big name)?
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
I have to give credit to pro. Less than two hours on the clock, winning, and he asks for more votes.
Posted by JonMilne 4 years ago
JonMilne
The debate voting drama is over. Those who want to vote who have been watching please do. :)
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Please take the drama to http://www.debate.org... since right here it will only scare away voters. There's five likes for this debate, and only 2 attempted votes (call them biased or justified if you want).
Posted by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
You gave all seven of your points to one side. That is a votebomb.
Posted by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
' UPDATE: Countering Vulpes_Inculta's votebomb. That is clearly inappropriate as he recognizes my vote was fine.'

Haha. When did that happen, buddy?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
JonMilnemedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a little hard to follow, as there were several references to past conversations. Other then that, the debate seemed to turn from the resolution, to a debate about CD. In regards to the resolution, I feel that Pro succeeded in proving that anti-evolutionists are crippled by some questions.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
JonMilnemedic0506Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate diverged from the true resolution early on. It became more a debate about evolution and a debate on anti-evolutionism. Both sides showed flaws in each other's arguments (con showed flaws in evolutionism, and pro showed flaws in anti-evolutionism). Pro wins arguments because of the resolution, but if this were a general evolution debate, con would win. Be careful how you word resolutions. On sources, both sides had relatively the same amount, but con's were less biased than pro's. Pro relied to heavily on blogs and RationalWiki, while con used more scholarly sources (that's not to say he didn't have any biased sources, though).
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
JonMilnemedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In future please put your debates into the debate, referencing previous conversations, and the comments section really made this difficult. Conduct never devolved into trolling, but got a little ugly from both sides. Is con held back by not knowing of Simon's Cat? Not really the issue, as it's anti-evolutionists in general not just him (which doubles my opening point about past discussions). Early on pro made a good point about creationists of different religions, which is a holding back their arguments. Overall I'd say con proved that evolutionists are often "crippled" the same as pro proved anti-evolutionists to be, but the resolution was only about if a single side is, not if everyone is or if one side is more "crippled." Thus under the definitions accepted in round one, argument goes to pro. UPDATE: Sources set to tied, partly due to annoyance with both sides for putting most of those in the comments section (was the word count not high enough already?).
Vote Placed by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
JonMilnemedic0506Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate was essentially a tie. Giving sources to Con because many of Pro's sources were RationalWiki, which is neither a reliable source or an encyclopedia. UPDATE: Countering Vulpes_Inculta's votebomb. That is clearly inappropriate as he recognizes my vote was fine. UPDATE 2: As Vulpes_Inculta removed his votebomb, I will revert back to my previous vote - two points for Con due to sources.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
JonMilnemedic0506Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm simply going to abandon this controversy.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
JonMilnemedic0506Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Revised RFD. First off, Pro addressed Con specifically when they say, "I believe this is something that Medic, as someone who has been particularly prone of recent to being anti-evolution in his stance, should address." Therefore this is not a stance for all anti-evolutionist because not all believe the same. This debate came down to Pro assuming all the evidence for common descent without providing it. This was not a debate about evolution or common descent but became a debate about conspiracy theories and Cons opinion and not the resolution. Pro further gives poor criticisms of Genesis without explaining. Con showed that both sides have bad claims. Pro simply went off track. This why I voted the way I did and stated that the questions did not apply to Con completely nor all anti-evolutionist. I give six points to Con because of the VB on my vote. I give conduct to Con. I give arguments to Con and add S/G for the VB.