The Instigator
Alex
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Nail_Bat
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
Alex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,753 times Debate No: 7970
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (9)

 

Alex

Pro

Welcome Nail_Bat I saw your post on the forum, saying that Intelligent Design is not Parsimonious, I would beg to differ.

Unfortunately it is almost 1:30 In the morning, so if you accept I will refute your points, of present mine in round two depending on what you choose to do in your first round.

If you do accept, I thank you and look forward to an interesting debate.
Nail_Bat

Con

Sure, I'll take it.

This is pretty much a debate of fact, but I don't blame you for thinking that ID is parsimonious. At first glance, it is a whole lot simpler! I've also read the previous debate on this very subject, and I will try to clear up some of the misconceptions that InquireTruth had. Whether you believe that evolution happened by its own accord or through the guidance of a sentient being, knowing what parsimony really is will help you understand the scientific method.

It is often frustrating to me that, ironically, it is very hard to explain Occam's Razor in simple terms. It is easy to confuse "the easiest theory to understand" with "the simplest theory". Occam's Razor is also defined as the rule: "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". Even this lead InquireTruth to confusion, stating that ID fit the bill because it made a paltry single assumption (the existence of God) to explain a host of natural phenomena that would otherwise each require their own theories to explain. After all, doesn't the law of parsimony favor a single theory that explains a wide array of phenomena? The laws of gravity explained both how objects fall and how stars move with a single model, and we celebrate it as a triumph in parsimony.

So that I can better help you understand parsimony, I would like you to it in your own terms. Explain why the law (or more accurately, the heuristic) of parsimony is useful, and tell me what it really means to "explain" a natural phenomena.
Debate Round No. 1
Alex

Pro

I would like to ask that my opponent refrain from the use of semantics as the resolution is stated as "The law of parsimony prefers intelligent design"

What my opponent must do is present an alternative theory and prove that it is more parsimonious.

Essentially the law of parsimony is the simplest of the two theories wins, the one which has less assumptions is to be preferred.

InquireTruth did not confuse the law, what you said is exactly right, because we have one solution for the many assumptions that evolution possesses, it is favored by the law of parsimony.

"After all, doesn't the law of parsimony favor a single theory that explains a wide array of phenomena? The laws of gravity explained both how objects fall and how stars move with a single model, and we celebrate it as a triumph in parsimony."

The single theory, is that there was an intelligent being (God) that guided the creation of the earth, which is one theory. Whereas alternative theories have many assumptions, many of which have not been proven.

"So that I can better help you understand parsimony, I would like you to it in your own terms. Explain why the law (or more accurately, the heuristic) of parsimony is useful, and tell me what it really means to "explain" a natural phenomena."

I already explained the law above. It is useful, because when you have two theories like these ones, that are not completely proven, it provides an understanding that the simpler theory tends to be the correct one.

I will now provide an argument of simplicity called the fine tuned argument by Robin Collins.

"Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, for example, was set around 70o F and the humidity was at 50%; moreover, there was an oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system, and a whole system for the production of food. Put simply, the domed structure appeared to be a fully functioning biosphere. What conclusion would we draw from finding this structure? Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not. Instead, we would unanimously conclude that it was designed by some intelligent being. Why would we draw this conclusion? Because an intelligent designer appears to be the only plausible explanation for the existence of the structure. That is, the only alternative explanation we can think of--that the structure was formed by some natural process--seems extremely unlikely. Of course, it is possible that, for example, through some volcanic eruption various metals and other compounds could have formed, and then separated out in just the right way to produce the "biosphere," but such a scenario strikes us as extraordinarily unlikely, thus making this alternative explanation unbelievable."

This shows only a small amount of the complexity of our earth. It shows that of all the assumptions that science must make in order to explain these things, that our one assumption is clearly simpler, and the more plausible of the two.

The next paragraph in the argument explains the razors edge chance for life to occur the way alternative theories suggest.

"The universe is analogous to such a "biosphere," according to recent findings in physics. Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe--for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy--is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur. As eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (1979, p. 251)--in short, life as we know it would be impossible."

Not only is the chance of the universe forming the way others suggest most implausible, but the explanations for sustainable life are even more so.

When our theory is clear, simple, and more plausible.

I will await the theory you believe is more plausible before i continue on to my rebuttals.

http://home.messiah.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nail_Bat

Con

>> I would like to ask that my opponent refrain from the use of semantics as the resolution is stated as "The law of parsimony prefers intelligent design"

You see, this is the problem. You do not understand what parsimony is, and would like to teach you. I can see that you don't understand it because when I asked you to explain why the principle is useful, you just repeated it. Therefor, I will ONLY use semantics. I'm not going to debate the fine-tuning argument, if you want me to do that, challenge me to a debate about it. This is not a true debate because it has an objective answer. Even if ID were actually correct, the principle of parsimony would still favor evolution by natural selection as a scientific theory.

>> It is useful, because when you have two theories like these ones, that are not completely proven, it provides an understanding that the simpler theory tends to be the correct one."

Ignoring the fact that you've used the word "proven" (heresy in the domain of science!), you have not given me the reason WHY the simpler theory tends to be correct. Why should it?

The principle of parsimony, as you stated it, is that "The simpler theory wins", or better yet "Choose the simplest theory that is consistent with the evidence."

The problem is that this na�ve definition of the principle of parsimony will always select for "magical" explanations, as they are consistent with observations and able to explain just about anything. Let's take the famous watch analogy in a new direction, and assume some alien civilization has found a digital watch, without knowledge of its origins. They don't care whether the watch was made by intelligent agents or if it came together naturally. What they want to know is: "How does this darned thing work?"

One possibility is that it works by magic; that the inner workings of the digital watch are beyond their ability to comprehend. On the other hand, through considerable effort they may be able to piece together some of the principles that go into the workings of a watch. This would lead them to the possibility that the watch works through a complex series of interactions that they only partially understand.

How might the principle of parsimony guide the alien researchers? Both the "magic theory" and the "complex interactions theory" explain how a watch works, but the "magic theory" is considerably simpler. Not only that, but the more complex theory fails to explain all of the parts of the watch. It would seem the magic theory wins on every account, but you should be able to grasp that science would reject the magic theory outright and pursue the more complex one.

Clearly there must be something more to the principle of parsimony. Do we need to add additional rules to it, such as "The simpler theory wins, unless that theory involves magic"? Many proponents of ID seem to think that science should be redefined to allow for metaphysical explanations, as if there were some rule of science that said "Thou shalt not honor metaphysics". However, by adding such rules, we risk violating the very principle that we're trying to define!

Fortunately, we don't need to twist the principle of parsimony at all: "All other things being equal, choose the simplest theory" will do. All we have to do is understand what, exactly, it means for a theory to be simple. To do that, we need to take the concept of a theory apart and prod its innards.

We'll start with the ability to categorize the world into objects and qualities. We can talk of an observation (this object has these properties), and we can talk of events (these objects had these properties, now they have these properties). To use an easy example, let's consider the motion of stars across the night sky. The "objects" are the stars, and the "qualities" are the coordinates of the star in the sky (depth is ignored for obvious reasons). The "events" are the change in position of the stars each night.

We can describe the motion of the stars by recording the position of each star, but this is an awful lot of information! Furthermore, we would only know where the stars were on the days that we recorded them: we couldn't say where the stars might be next week.

Enter the "theory". A theory is tool which compresses information into manageable chunks that are far easier to explain, understand, and manipulate. It does so by proposing that there are consistent relationships between objects and qualities. The scientific theory actually evolved from the common mental ability to notice patterns in observations and turn them into predictions.
"Last few times Og eat berry from purple bush, Og get sick. If Og eat berry from purple bush, Og get sick again. Og no eat from purple bush no more." Not a scientific theory for sure, but the spirit is the same.

Newtonian gravity proposed a precise relationship between mass, distance, and attraction. This law allowed us to compress the vast amount of data about star positions with a simple formula. Compressing information, without losing too much of it, is what theorizing it all about. Its what science itself is all about.

"Magic theories" don't just compress information, they lose it. The entire process that goes into creating a watch, not to mention the processes that go into making it consistently increment a timer, are whisked away. This actually results in magic making things MORE complex, not less. If we believed the stars move by magic, we are still stuck with the fact that each moves differently. Therefore, it is not one theory explaining how all stars work, but a separate theory for each and every star. In other words, we're back exactly where we started: only knowing about the stars what we record.

I will now explain WHY science follows the principle of parsimony. The fitness of a theory depends on how much information it loses when it compresses it (the less the better, obviously) and how much information is can compress (the more the better). If two theories are evenly matched in these two fields, the principle tells us we should pursue the theory with the fewest premises. The reason is that the simpler a theory is, the easier it is draw conclusions about the theory from experiments. The principle of parsimony is not a hard and fast rule, and it is now plain to see why.

The topic of this discussion is whether the principle of parsimony favors Intelligent Design, presumably over the theory of evolution, unless there's some third theory anybody wants to profess. The principle includes the condition that "all other things be equal", which they are not by any stretch, but we'll just focus on simplicity for now.

For every unique species of animal, ID postulates a unique creation event. By abstracting away all the details, the ID proponent can use the same language to say that God created fish or that God created birds. It is language, nothing else, that makes ID seem simple, but because ID does not compress information, it is actually much much MORE complicated than the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I expect that you will have some confusion about what I've said, so I will use the last 2 rounds to clarify any last misunderstandings you have.
Debate Round No. 2
Alex

Pro

"You see, this is the problem. You do not understand what parsimony is, and would like to teach you. I can see that you don't understand it because when I asked you to explain why the principle is useful, you just repeated it. Therefor, I will ONLY use semantics. I'm not going to debate the fine-tuning argument, if you want me to do that, challenge me to a debate about it. This is not a true debate because it has an objective answer. Even if ID were actually correct, the principle of parsimony would still favor evolution by natural selection as a scientific theory."

It is interesting that you say you will not go into the fine tuning argument, giving that it is a very good analogy at making us understand from a broader point. But yet you bring up the watch analogy.

However, I will discuss with pleasure the analogy YOU brought forth.

If i were to travel to, say a newly discovered planet, one that to our knowledge is a virgin to humanity as we know it, and I found a watch. However this isn't anything like we know it, we would, like you said rightfully we would want to know how it works, ID does not demolish that. We would as you say, prod the watch in an attempt to figure out how it works, but as is obvious, we would not think the watch naturally formed on this unknown planet. Instead, even after we had theories that have not been proven of how the watch works, rightfully we would think that something guided the creation of this device, because of its constant rhythmical features, and complex design of course we would not come to the conclusion that it came there naturally, but rather was guided.

Whether or not you will refute this, I am going to bring up part of the fine tuning argument once again, and if you do not refute it, that should only hurt you.

As we look at our world from a scientific and mathematical standpoint, obviously we must observe the complexity of it.

The way atoms and molecules bond together, and are able to stay together is on a razor's edge chance of actually occurring consistently enough for say, water and other particles to help in sustaining life.

But that is only one thing, the absolutely necessary relationship between plants and humans is to essential to not have become at the same time. The way we cannot live without them, and they cannot live without us is substantial.

They take in co2 and produce oxygen that we then inhale, use and produce back the co2 that they will take in and the process continues.

The way evolution has it, is that all life came from bacteria, and over billions of years have grown into different species by separation of species. But that would not be able to happen without the plants producing oxygen, and then them turning back co2.

That is substantial evidence that we must have been formed at the same time, not over a process of long periods of time.

What you have turned into Parsimony, is what you think you need to win, you are twisting it's definition in your favor but say its impossible to do the same for us.

Sure, in some cases of equal comparison the Law of parsimony prefers one over the other, however; it is not solely for that purpose.

But 1. There is nothing saying ID is any less proven then evolution, or that is possesses and less evidence then evolution. Unfortunately for you, the principle of parsimony does not only work the way you would like it too.

If you look at one of my debates about fire breathing dragons, I used the rule, rightfully so. Of course the Law of Parsimony would favor the non existence of such creatures over the existence. Did I not have the right to do so? I think i did, rightfully of course.

"The principle includes the condition that "all other things be equal", which they are not by any stretch, but we'll just focus on simplicity for now."

This is simply not true. There is sufficient evidence that both parties are possible. And saying that the Law of Parsimony cannot be used as a deciding factor is balderdash, because neither are absolute at the moment.

"For every unique species of animal, ID postulates a unique creation event. By abstracting away all the details, the ID proponent can use the same language to say that God created fish or that God created birds. It is language, nothing else, that makes ID seem simple, but because ID does not compress information, it is actually much much MORE complicated than the theory of evolution by natural selection."

1. Nobody necessarily said anything about God, the term Intelligent design merely means that it did not happen on it's own, that something or someone was guiding the process.

Say you took a very large cup, and you tore little pieces of paper up, each with one number on each piece, numbering from one to a trillion, you then shook up the cup and took out one piece at a time, evolution suggests that it is more likely that the pieces came out in numerical order.

Where as the Law of Parsimony would suggest that something guided the numbers to come out in numerical order. It is much more likely that you yourself looked into the cup and pulled out the numbers in numerical order rather then them falling out in numerical order on their own.

The Law of Parsimony acknowledges that fact and therefore can blatantly see, without question that it is more likely that you pulled the numbers our in numerical order.

2.

For every species of animal, evolution suggests that it came from one being. Like a tribe of monkeys once inhabited a section of land, but then a volcano erupted and separated the monkeys. So over billions of years, under new conditions the monkeys evolved into different species? And at the same time it happened to the millions of species we recognize today? It is much more likely that the millions of species we know did not evolve from one thing.

What you are trying to do is twist the definition of Parsimony to where it cannot be used in a lot of situation,s whereas you cannot do that unless you are the creator of the said law.

We are debating theories here not the definition of parsimony, even though it can clearly be used in this scenario.
Nail_Bat

Con

That's funny, I thought the title of this debate was "The law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design", not "The fine tuning argument shows that there must be a creator".

For all your clamoring about the fine tuning argument, it really is irrelevant in this debate. It all comes down to what parsimony actually means. If it means what you think it means, then ID wins hands down, no contest. If by chance parsimony means what it actually means, then ID loses hands down, no contest. The fine tuning argument doesn't even factor in at all. You have one more round to at least TRY to argue that your definition of parsimony is correct.

Let me use the wonderful power of analogy to explain just what is going on here.

You challenge me to a debate: "The moon is softer than a damp kitchen sponge". In your opening argument, you make it clear that you think the word "softer" means "has more mass". I point you to a dictionary and explain that "soft" doesn't mean what you think it means.

However, you reply back saying that this is not a debate about semantics, and implore me to prove that a sponge has more mass than the moon. The more I tell you that your definitions are mistaken, the more you come to me with calculations and measurements comparing the volume and density of the moon versus a sponge. Finally, you conclude by telling me that I've twisted the definition of "soft" without explaining why your definition is better.

Does that make it clear? You will never understand science until you understand why it rejects ID and similar "theories of magic". I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to dodge bullets in slow motion.

>>>Say you took a very large cup, and you tore little pieces of paper up, each with one number on each piece, numbering from one to a trillion, you then shook up the cup and took out one piece at a time, evolution suggests that it is more likely that the pieces came out in numerical order.

Or....maybe you've just been trolling me this whole time. With creationists, its kind of hard to tell the difference. I'm sure there are some people out there who actually do believe that what you just wrote here makes any sense whatsoever. I really hope you're not one of them.
Debate Round No. 3
Alex

Pro

Before I begin I ask that you only refute points, and not create any new ones because i will not be able to refute them if you do. Except if you wanna say something new in the comments that is fine.

It is, the fine tuning argument is an argument that shows the simplicity of ID. Which is a valid argument seeing as we are debating which theory it would prefer, regardless of what you have chosen to argue.

Lets look at some definitions.

"Noun 1.law of parsimony - the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

"The law of parsimony tells us that when there are alternative explanations of events, the simplest one is likely to be correct."

http://www.stat.columbia.edu...

"…which is lex parsimoniae in Latin, is often written "entia non sunt multiplicanda prater necessitatem", which I interpret to mean "the simpler the better." William of Occam, the 14th Century English logician, capsulized the principal as Occam's Razor–a means of cutting through verbose and unnecessarily complex philosophical theories:"

http://whomdat.wordpress.com...

I think that is enough.

These definitions prove that the definition i gave in the beginning is sufficient. Just because you disagree does not mean that the law cannot be used in this situation.

"You challenge me to a debate: "The moon is softer than a damp kitchen sponge". In your opening argument, you make it clear that you think the word "softer" means "has more mass". I point you to a dictionary and explain that "soft" doesn't mean what you think it means."

This is so wrong it's not even funny.

Here is a better analogy.

I challenge you to a debate on the subject of Christianity only has one God, the word "God" can mean, and is commonly accepted as The on supreme being, creator of the universe. But it can also mean "An omnipotent being" It is obvious in the beginning of which one I am referring too, so i politely ask that we refrain from arguing semantics. However you refuse, and insist on arguing that angels and the devil are gods because you think they are omnipotent. However that's not the definition we are arguing.

"Does that make it clear? You will never understand science until you understand why it rejects ID and similar "theories of magic". I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to dodge bullets in slow motion."

That does not make it clear, because that analogy expresses a definition that's completely wrong, whereas the this debate, my definition is accepted by everyone except for you.

And my analogy makes perfect sense.

It is explaining the probability of the earth forming naturally, vs the earth forming with guidance. I'm not sure why it was confusing its pretty simple.

This whole debate was taking a simple concept (being the law of parsimony) with a commonly accepted definition, and putting ID against any theory you were supposed to bring forth.

I have proven my case, that it is preferred by the law of parsimony.

You on the other hand have only tried to sell that the law has requirements, however it doesnt have what you say, it is a simple concept.

And your term "Magic" is incorrect. Guidance does not necessarily mean magic, only aid.

Sure the Law may be more effective on a different argument however that does not mean that you cannot use it on this one. There is nothing saying what Parsimony can be used on and what it cant, it simply means the simpler theory is to be preferred, like every site i have looked at states.

I wish we could have debated what the resolution was, but since my opponent did not i hope that the voters will acknowledge that.

I understand that if there was a case like such:

Mickey Mouse Created the Earth vs. The creation of the earth happened Naturally

The Law of Parsimony may be useless here except The existence of God has plausible, equal evidence, like such.

1. Millions have experienced, and felt Gods presence.
2. The Case of Tacitus
3. The Case of Josephus
4. Caiaphas, which in 1990 his tomb was discovered, and he was the one that presided over Jesus's trial.
5. With so many Accounts outside of Biblical people that recognize and verify the identity of jesus, it is not absurd to think he existed.
6. Etc

You would be right, The law of parsimony would reject ID in this debate if only Evolution did not fail to explain the vast majority of details it is needed to.

Because it does fail to explain a majority of the details of evolution, this leaves the two cases as equal explanatory power.

Therefore the Law of parsimony is accepted here, and would choose the simpler of the two equal explanatory powers which is Intelligent design. Thank you and Goodnight

What you mistake, is that you think there is less evidence for ID, or that evolution covers more bases, however like i explained above, there are to many details that evolution does not come near to covering.

Again I would just like to point out that he did not argue a more plausible theory. Or that it is simpler by any means.
Nail_Bat

Con

I am disheartened at your stunning inability to learn. I wanted to teach you, but instead you have covered your ears and shouted at the top of your lungs.

The definition of parsimony is not under contention, we both agree that it means that the theory with the simpler and fewer premises may be more likely to be true. What you don't understand is what "simpler" means.

I have explained what being "simple" really means in the context of theories. I explained that black box theories like ID don't simplify information, they abstract it all away. I explained why science automatically rejects these kinds of theories. Sadly you have not tried to push back against any of my assertions. Instead you simply repeat the fine tuning argument.

If I am wrong about parsimony, then why did you not show me the flaws in my reasoning? Had you attempted to fight back against my explanation of parsimony, I would have gladly explained away your confusion until you either came to understand what I'm saying or lost the will to try. Do you know why I asked you to explain parsimony in your own terms? Simply copying a dictionary definition doesn't show whether or not you know the MEANING behind those words.

I can't blame you with the horrendous education you are probably receiving from school, but the theory of evolution by natural selection is among the most powerful, respected, and accepted theories in modern science. Only with a tragic lack of understanding can anyone make the claim that ID and the theory of evolution are evenly matched.

There was no need to put forth another theory (not that ID is a theory in the first place, but that's besides the point), as its plainly obvious what the "alternate explanation" is. The very NATURE of ID prevents it from ever becoming a scientific theory, though. If Darwin had never lived and the whole of science had never thought that traits could be selected for, the principle of parsimony would still strike Intelligent Design down as a scientific theory. It works well enough as a conventional theory, yes, but not a scientific theory.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
I never fully read this debate before, but I just did, and it's a shame the voting turned out the way it did.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Nail_bat, The Theory of Evolution is accepted by 99.86% of the relevant earth and life scientists. The dissenters number about 1500 of around 500,000, and the ID believers are almost entirely in the US Bible belt, although there are a few fundamentalists in India and elsewhere. There is no significant scientific support for ID, it is entirely religious. ID is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved. Many of the examples of irreducible complexity offered by ID have been fully explained with evolutionary origins, but believers simply point to the ever-decreasing number of remaining examples as evidence. Evolution is easily disproved, all that is needed is a new species that comes into existence without an evolutionary precursor.

The reason that there is no push behind astrology being taught in schools is that there is no significant religion behind it, at least not in the US. In California, where I live, there are quite a few odd things that are occasionally pushed for inclusion in schools, like shamanistic healing and Wicca magic. The push comes not from the scientific merit of the ideas, but from the religious beliefs of the proponents.
Posted by Nail_Bat 8 years ago
Nail_Bat
I'm gonna have to disagree, Roy. There is way too much effort being spent trying to keep ID out of schools. People are welcome to not understand science, but the problem is that people THINK they understand it and this is why science constantly has to play defense against people trying to get ID to be accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. I've never seen anyone get up in arms over the fact that horoscopes are not taught in public school.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Nail, That's true, but mostly harmless. They very rarely succeed in having it taught. If they did, I'd concede it was a more significant problem. Compare it to horoscopes appearing in newspapers. It's nonsense, but it's also not a major problem. Don't get me wrong, we ought to argue against it, and I do so regularly. It's just that it ought to be kept in proportion in terms of the actual harm it does.
Posted by Nail_Bat 8 years ago
Nail_Bat
>> RoyLatham
Nail_bat, While Creationism is utterly wrong, the virtue is that the belief is mostly harmless.

Not quite. It's not so harmless when these people who don't understand science start trying to take control over how science is taught to children. I've seen grown men, in positions of power, making the same flawed arguments that Alex here is making.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Nail_bat, While Creationism is utterly wrong, the virtue is that the belief is mostly harmless. The belief is relatively easy to sustain in that there is nothing in the everyday world that blatantly contradicts it. It is pretty much in the same category as Buddhist belief in reincarnation. Wrong, but not much impact. The beliefs that are really damaging are things that make the world substantially worse, like belief in socialism. Those beliefs are damaging to ordinary people by making them impoverished.
Posted by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
The fact that the debate was that the law of parsimony prefers ID should be a factor, regardless of my points he neither refuted them nor put forth his own theory, so how can he be the "true" winner?

Also my point of why ID and evolution are equal was not refuted at all, which is also key
Posted by Nail_Bat 8 years ago
Nail_Bat
There was no winner, Kleptin. Remember, this is a site where half of the debates on whether .999 repeating equals 1 were won by the challenger.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I myself have given up on DATCMOTO, no question about it >.> PRO's arguments were simply terrible and incorrect on so many accounts, they weren't really even a factor in this debate. Creationists don't learn. They really never do. While I agree on the notion that their very fundamental beliefs are flawed, they are also flawed beyond repair. A creationist who is open to outside ideas is not a creationist at all. 99% of the time, open-mindedness and support for Creationism are mutually exclusive. The attempt to teach is noble, but also futile.

If I had more control over the debate rubric, I would be justified in not only voting all points for CON, but also in taking points away from PRO as well. Regretfully, I had to vote according to a rubric that was unsuitable in dictating truth for this particular debate.

Regardless, we all know who the *true* winner in this debate is :D
Posted by Nail_Bat 8 years ago
Nail_Bat
What a great example, Roy. I wish I had thought of it.

Sadly, Alex will continue to grow up thinking he understands science, just like the bulk of creationists. Someone with more patience than me (like Kleptin, patron saint of patience) will have to go and debunk all of the little scientific misunderstandings he had. Even if the judges had voted for me, I would still be disheartened by his unwillingness to learn.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
AlexNail_BatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
AlexNail_BatTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
AlexNail_BatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
AlexNail_BatTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
AlexNail_BatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by girlforgod21 8 years ago
girlforgod21
AlexNail_BatTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by prozoro 8 years ago
prozoro
AlexNail_BatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
AlexNail_BatTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
AlexNail_BatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03