The Instigator
triangle.128k
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Jonnykelly
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The theory of Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
triangle.128k
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,782 times Debate No: 73009
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (79)
Votes (3)

 

triangle.128k

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that the theory of Evolution is true. Con will be arguing why Evolution isn't true.

This debate should be impossible to accept, if you find a way to accept it, you automatically win for being so clever. If you are interested in debating against me, please let me know in the comments.

The format will go like this:


Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Rounds 3-4: anything else
Round 5: Anything and you must state why you feel you did better than your opponent


I will be arguing for "micro" AND "macro" evolution. The contender can accept micro-evolution as a fact or deny Evolution in general. (even though they are the same thing)
Jonnykelly

Con

I accept this debate, and I will be arguing that while micro evolution, or adaptation, is present in nature, macro evolution did not bring about the world and her inhabitants as we know it.
Debate Round No. 1
triangle.128k

Pro

I will be explaining why Evolution is without a doubt right. Evolution is one of the most important aspects in biology, evolution denial is nonsensical and makes no sense. Now without further ado, I will be proving the theory of Evolution.


The fossil record

The fossil record proves Evolution. According to Creation theory, all humans and animals were created from the beggining. However, dating methods for rocks and fossils are very reliable. We can also see organisms have significantly changed over time. 500 million years ago, ancient fish had existeed. A few million years later, the fish had evolved jawbones. Reptiles existed for 300 million years and mammals existed for 230 million years.

Now if Evolution isn't real, why are there time lengths between certain species? Why aren't there 500 million year old human fossils? According to Creation theory, everything came from the beggining. The fossil record however indicated that creatures came along the way. Did god just magically create creatures along the way? Creation theory states that current animals today are the animals that survived the global flood.


Transitionary Fossils

Many transitionary fossils prove Evolution.

[Figure 1.4.4: Hominid skulls]

This image here is an example of the transitionary fossils of the common ancestor we evolved from. How could these fossils have came here without Evolution? From a creationist standpoint, I can only imagine these being a result of mixed-species breeding. If this really was the case, what's with all the mixed breeding species back then? The more human-ish skulls are actually younger fossils. Why do you not see any of the mixbred fossils today? There are also fossils of legged fish in which they later started to slowly get out of the water. Did a fish really reproduce with some mammal? Where did the mammal come from if they didn't exist as long as fish existed?



Micro vs Macro evolution

Micro and macro evolution are the SAME thing. Creationists like to group evolution in these two groups, but one is just a smaller scale of Evolution. If an animal has some adaptations within a few years, who is to say in millions of years they will look different after many more adaptations? How the hell can microevolution exist and macroevolution can't?






Sources

The Holy Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org...;(creation is depicted as a pseudo-science in wikipedia)
http://biologos.org...;
http://www.theguardian.com...;
http://www.talkorigins.org...;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
Jonnykelly

Con

I accordance with rubric for debate, I will not refute any of my opponent's arguments just yet. I will instead provide my own arguments against macro evolution as a creator of life and species as we know it.

Macro evolution lacks enough evidence to be called fact, and to quite the contrary, most evidence suggests that macro evolution is impossible. Scientists and common people alike have just accepted evolution as the origin of life and species, but few have taken the time to look deeper into the issue. I have several main contentions against the theory of evolution.

Contention #1: Evolution provides no beginning

This is the most obvious contention with evolution, and yet it is one of the least answered. Where did it all begin? Some say an asteroid crashed into earth with bacteria, [1] and that bacteria started the evolution process. But where did that bacteria come from? Where did the asteroid come from? How did the lifeless earth come to be? Where did the energy to sustain adaptation come from? I invite my opponent to formulate, cite, and rationalize a beginning to evolution.

Contention #2: Evolution violates laws observed in nature

This is perhaps my favorite problem with evolution. So-called science being proven wrong by science. One example is the violation of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy. The Big Bang Theory calls upon the necessity of a large expenditure of energy to put mass into the places that they are today. [2] But according to the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy, neither matter nor energy can be created. So what started and fueled this expansion? Another blatant example is the violation of the Law of Entropy. [3] The Law of Entropy states that when subject to chance (such as mutation), objects in nature tend to descend from higher levels of organization into chaos. For instance, if you drop a bag of bricks on the ground, those bricks won't land in a stack. So a series of mutations bringing a lower life form into a higher life form is laughable. Far more examples of law violations can be cited, but for the sake of brevity, we will keep it at these.

Contention #3: Evolution relies on too many constants to be considered fact

Thousands of scientists "calculate" evolution by measuring distance to stars, measuring expansion of the universe, measuring carbon's radioactive decay, and a score of other mathematical measures. But these calculations are far too reliant upon mathematical constants within today's nature. They rely on a constant speed of light, a constant use of centrifugal and centripetal force, a constant force of gravity, and especially on a constant rate of radioactive decay. There is no evidence that these rates have been constant throughout earth's history.

Contention #4: Evolution relies on fabricated evidence

Whether it be fake skeletons, assumed missing links, or fraudulent reports, evolution repeatedly demonstrates its need for fake evidence to support its preposterous claims. [5] Even in the image brought up by my opponent, you can see parts where an artist filled in what they ASSUMED the skull would look like, not what science would actually have them draw.

Conclusion:
Evolution has not provided enough evolution to prove it as fact. Most evidence supports the opposite. Evolution through mutation over time cannot be accepted as a form of life creation and species progression.

Sources:
[1] http://science.time.com...
[2] http://www.space.com...
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[4]http://mathcentral.uregina.ca...
[5]https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
triangle.128k

Pro

Since round 3 is for rebuttals, I will be debunking Jonnykelly's arguments. Con's arguments were not very valid and without further ado, I will go ahead and debunk them.


Arguments by Jonnykelly:

A: Evolution provides no beggining?

Evolution isn't supposed to provide a beggining, it doesn't have much to do with the appearance of Earth's first life forms. The appearance of the first life forms on Earth is known as abiogenesis. Jonnykelly provided a source that the first life could have been transported from mars through a meteoroid. However, this doesn't debunk the theory of evolution, it rather provides an explanation for the beggining of life. Just because life may have been seeded from Mars, that doesn't mean evolution can't take place. Scientists believe that life may have resulted due to chemical proccesses that triggered the first life forms.
Scientific reasonining isn't as simple as creation theory but it makes a lot more sense. Creation theory says everything was always like this, so one theory explains everything. Observations and evidence point towards the Universe or Earth to not be static, everything came to be in many different processes.

sources
http://origins.swau.edu...


B: Evolution violates laws observed in nature?

Nobody knows for sure how the big bang theory was created. How the big bang theory started is still a great mystery. However, this has NOTHING to do with Evolution. The big bang theory has literally nothing to do with Evolution, your point is completely invalid. The big bang theory is an explanation for the beggining of the universe. The theory of Evolution is an explanation for the origin of species.
Also, the thing fueling the expansion of the Universe is not known, but the most commonly agreed on idea by scientists is dark energy. And second, what on Earth does this point have to do with Evolution being true? Mind to stay on topic?
The law of entropry argument is invalid. Evolution isn't random or by chance, Evolution happens based on your enviornment. For example, some Asians have an "epicanthic fold" on their eyes This evolutionary traits protects their eyes from the harsher winds found in some regions in Asia, in which are not present in other parts of the world.

sources
http://science.nasa.gov...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov...



C: Evolution relies on too many constants to be considered fact?

Thousands of scientists calculate evolution by measuring distances to stars and expansion of the universe? Where on Earth did you get that from? Evolution has nothing to do with the universe's expansion or distance between stars. You don't have evidence or a source to support the fact radioactive dating is inaccurate. There are many methods of dating and they all work differently. They are in fact scientifically approved to be very valid. Your argument clearly shows that you have no idea of how scientists are. Scientists know more about science than either you or I do.

sources
http://www.nhm.ac.uk...


D: Evolution relies on fabricated evidence?

Your source, (number 5) is NOT a reliable source. The source is simply a blog, anybody can make up false data and post a blog like that. The sources the blog posts are also biased sources made by psuedo-scientists trying to prove creation. The image I brought up is pure fossils, in no where is it an artist's filling of what it's assumed to look like.





Conclusion

Jonnykelly has failed to prive any valid piece of evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. I have explained why in my rebuttal as he has not brung up valid arguments. Many of his arguments were also off topic and had nothing to do with Evolution.


Jonnykelly

Con

Before I refute any claims from my opponent's first round, I think it would be fitting for me to visit some of the things said more recently by my opponent.

"Evolution isn't supposed to provide a beggining, it doesn't have much to do with the appearance of Earth's first life forms. The appearance of the first life forms on Earth is known as abiogenesis."

I am fully aware that evolution, in and of itself, does not bring life to earth, or the creation of the universe. However, Any scientific explanation for progression of species is reliant on a reasonable explanation for exactly why the former explanation is even possible. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that if scientific, logical beginning to earth and the cosmos cannot be constructed, evolution as a theory is completely laughable.

"The law of entropry argument is invalid. Evolution isn't random or by chance"

As reported by LiveScience, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is dependent upon chance. "The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called "mutations."" [1] According to Miriam-Webster, a mutation is, "a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes" [2]. Chromosomes are not changed for a specific purpose, and cannot be changed for intended benefit of the species. Evolution relies on natural selection. Natural selection for evolution relies on mutation. Mutation is a chance-type event. Entropy states that chance cannot bring about a higher order and organization of beings.

"Evolution has nothing to do with the universe's expansion or distance between stars."

My opponent seems unable to realize that evolution relies upon a timeline. This timeline is measured by several methods, including using the speed of light to measure distance between stars relative to distance in the past. This rate is used to give an approximate age of our universe, and thus a timeline for evolution. [3] This and carbon dating is where we get our 'billions of years'. Without a reliable set of constants, evolution's timeline is invalid.

"Your source, (number 5) is NOT a reliable source"

My source is notarized, and backed up with other accounts. Like it or not, my opponent has made a mistake here. You can also CLEARLY see in my opponent's image that an artist has filled in the skulls with blue, purple, and light gray.

A quick note on my opponent's opening argument:

My opponent goes on many assumptions in his opening argument ("We can also see organisms have significantly changed over time, Why aren't there 500 million year old human fossils?, etc.") as though they are accepted fact. He provides no reason for me to believe that these assumptions are based in fact, and goes on to cite Wikipedia as a source. Who is the one using unreliable sources?

Conclusion:
My opponent lacks simple logic in his assertions and attacks my arguments based on a false set of reason and science. He has failed to provide indisputable proof for the case of evolution, and has dodged, rather than answered my contentions.

Sources:
[1] http://www.livescience.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] https://www.e-education.psu.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
triangle.128k

Pro

Beggining?

Evolution isn't supposed to provide a beggining and therefore is not valid? That literally makes no sense only due to your fallacied creation logic. Creationism says that everything was just simply created in the beggining, it assumed that nothing had changed over time. Scientific reasoning proves things change over time in various processes. Evolution is one of these changes to explain the origin of species. One theory providing a beggining for everything would only mean that the Universe is static, nothing changes. We know this is not true and observations have proven things change over time. The Earth was a lifeless rock of lava flowing on it's surface and meteors always impacting it during it's creation. However, we can see that clearly this is no longer the case.


Mutations

It's true that mutations usually are random by chance, however natural selection is what drives evolution. The reason why modern humans are in existance is due to natural selection of the best genes which were spread along all of us. For example, the latest ape primates were homo sapiens and neanderthals. Both of them were a result of genome mutatations, however the homo sapiens had a genome advantage which is why neanderthals no longer exist. Mutations may be random but natural selection isn't. The reason we humans exist today is because we were genetically superior to the neanderthals. This not only goes for us but many other plants and animals that have came to be.

http://mic.com...
http://www.indiana.edu...


Dating

First off, distance to stars is not an accurate dating of fossils found on Earth. Other dating methods are used to find the dates of things we find here on Earth. Evolution's timeline is perfectly valid because we have calculated the Earth to be in existance for 4.5 billion years old. The Universe's age is calculated to be around 14 billion years old. The distance between stars is no way that we use to calculate the timeline for fossils on Earth.

http://www.space.com...
http://pubs.usgs.gov...


Also, I do apologize as I will try to use other sources to back up my arguments instead of wikipedia. However. wikipedia's science articles are highly revisioned and edited. Your source was just a blog that used biased sources trying to teach creation as a source. None of them were reliable non-biased scientific sources.


My opponent goes on many assumptions in his opening argument ("We can also see organisms have significantly changed over time, Why aren't there 500 million year old human fossils?, etc.") as though they are accepted fact. He provides no reason for me to believe that these assumptions are based in fact...


Who is one dodging arguments here? I had actually rebutted all of your arguments and showed why they are invalid. Please don't accuse me of dodging arguments when you didn't bother to debunk the first argument.



Also, here is more evidence of Evolution. We can see fossils are arranged perfectly in a chronological order. The deeper you get down, the older fossils are estimated to be.
Jonnykelly

Con

My opponent's latest argument is a perfect example of wasted, empty rhetoric. My opponent's rebuttals amount to, "I am right, your arguments are false," and provided no new evidence or logic to back up his claims.

My arguments on timeline to this point are as follows:
-Evolution takes a long time
-Earth must be old for evolution to be possible
-Scientists must prove that earth is old to prove that evolution is possible
-Scientists use dating from star distances as well as radioactive decay and others to age the earth and universe
-These dating methods rely on constants
-These constants have not been proven to be constant
-IF these constants are not constant, evolution's timeline is disproven

I am not sure why my opponent cannot follow this simple train of logic. (Quick reminder to my opponent: this debate is about evolution, not evolution vs. creation. Stay on task.)

My opponent asserts that even though mutation is random, natural selection is not random, and therefore it does not violate the law of entropy. In the sources I have already cited, Darwin's theory of evolution states that natural selection RELIES on mutation, a random chance event. Thus natural selection in Darwin's theory is random, and violates the law of entropy.

My opponent also seems to think that putting an image in his argument somehow provides evidence to his point. But it doesn't, it only illustrates his opinion.

I will not cite any more sources for this argument because I do not believe there was significant debate in this round to merit further evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
triangle.128k

Pro

My opponent has again dodged my argument saying it has no logic. If the fossils are arranged in such a chronological order, why doesn't that prove Evolution? Evolution is the change of species over time. If older fossils are very different from younger fossils and there are some transitionary forms, we can clearly see that Evolution can be proven. If Evolution did not exist, this would mean new animals are always created on the Earth all the time. This is of course false because creationary theory states that god created everything and the Universe and Earth is static, nothing changes.


Con is dodging the arguments and claims this:

"1. Evolution takes a long time
2. Earth must be old for evolution to be possible
3. Scientists must prove that earth is old to prove that evolution is possible
4. Scientists use dating from star distances as well as radioactive decay and others to age the earth and universe
5. These dating methods rely on constants
6. These constants have not been proven to be constant
7. IF these constants are not constant, evolution's timeline is disproven"

1. Evolution does take a long time, that is correct
2. The Earth has been proven time from time to be around 4.54 to 4.6 billion years old. Life has existed for 3.5 billion years.
3. The Earth has been proven to be old.
4. Wrong, they don't date the Earth's age from star distances.
5. For a fact, they do.
6. Incorrect, these "constants" have been proven. These dating methods are in fact very accurate and proven by scientists.

sources
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://www.space.com...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://www.nature.com...


Young Earth Creation

Con is seeming to lean towards young Earth creation. Since i've included scientific-based sources to back up my arguments, I would like to see Con do the same. You can talk nonsense about the Earth's age and dating methods all you want. However, they are proven to be accurate amongst scientists, the scientists know more than you on what they are doing.
You can find scientific sources to back up millions of years. However, you can only find biased sources that attempt to prove a 100% literal intrepretation of genesis in the Bible. These are not reliable sources and in no way are they scientific. The scientific methods relies on getting evidence and drawing conclusions from it.


I am not sure why my opponent cannot follow this simple train of logic. (Quick reminder to my opponent: this debate is about evolution, not evolution vs. creation. Stay on task.)

Creation is currently the only alternative for the origin of species as opposed to Evolution. So I can prove Evolution by debunking Creationism and explaining why Evolution makes more sense.


sources
http://paleobiology.si.edu...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...


Natural Selection

Con claims that natural selection relies on mutation thus making it random. This is not the case and I am going to demonstrate how natural selection works.



These colors all represent mutations. On the left is a cold enviornment with the "cooler" colors have an advantage over the "warm" colors. The opposite goes with the population on the right.



Eventually, the organisms with the better mutations survive longer thus having more of the chance to spread their genes and live.






After a while, we can see natural selection has favored those species with the better genes. This is exactly how life on Earth came to be. The organisms that had better genes adapted and survived to spread their genes. The other organisms however fail to survive thus becoming extinct. This is what happened with us Humans. Homo Sapiens had better genes to survive as opposed to Neanderthals. Natural selection favored us Homo Sapeins because our species had a genome advantage.


sources
http://www.indiana.edu...


Why I did better than my opponent

The rules of the debate states that at round 5, both of us must state why we did better than our opponent. I have done better than my opponent because I overall had more convincing arguments and better sources. I have given evidence of Evolution, con has failed to show any evidence for Creation what so ever. Con claims that this debate is about Evolution and that he does not need to prove Creation. I have however stated that Creation is the only alternative to Evolution and Creation can not be proven scientifically. Con has also failed to properly attack my arguments, I have proven why Con is simply using false reasoning. For example, my opponent states Evolution is false because it doesn't provide a beggining. I have stated why this is not a valid argument against Evolution because it doesn't need to provide a beggining. Abiogenesis explains the beggining of life on Earth, Evolution explains the origin of species.

In Round 2, my opponent has also went off topic. He went on to talking about the big bang theory and the distance between stars. You can also see that my opponent completely dodged my argument on the fossil record. Not only did my opponent dodge that, he also dodged my argument on micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, rather with different scales for each. While both my opponent used proper scientific sources for the most part, con interpreted them with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I have explained why none of his arguments make sense. Con's only source against Evolution is simply a wordpress blog filled with biased sources. None of the sources there are proper scientific sources.

In conclusion, I have provided logical arguments and explained why they are accurate. Con is using pseudo reasoning to disprove Evolution. 'More convincing arguments' should be given to be because of this. Sources should be given to me, con has only one source against Evolution, that source is not a reliable source.




Jonnykelly

Con

Pro doesn't seem to have the ability to follow a simple train of logic, so I will not press the issue of timeline any further. The voters can decide.

On my opponent's fossil layer argument: Why would invertebrates (such as the horseshoe crab), fish, reptiles, and amphibians be found deeper in the ground if these species still exist today? By your logic, they would be found throughout the whole spectrum. The answer is clear: depth of fossils has nothing to do with evolution or age. [1] [2]

Regardless of what Pro thinks my view of earth's origin is, this debate is NOT about creation, and my opponent should have dropped the topic long ago. Creation is not the only alternative to evolution.

Pro seems to think that explaining how natural selection works will make it any more plausible, but he is unfortunately misguided. Darwin's theory of evolution RELIES on mutation for natural selection to be possible. Mutation is, by definition, random. I extend my previous points on Entropy. (Previous sources cited)

My opponent did not accomplish the task put before him.

As Pro, my opponent's responsibility was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Macro evolution is true and observed. My opponent has instead worked off of assumptions, made claims without proper evidence, and provided fabricated records, while dodging clear evidence that disproves his claims. My opponent attempted to make this debate evolution vs. creationism, when creationism is irrelevant to this debate.

I have fulfilled my role as Con.

As Con, my task put before me was to provide enough evidence to put a reasonable doubt in the truthfulness of evolution. My unanswered claims about constants, entropy, and false evidence have put far more than a reasonable doubt in the contradiction know as evolution.

I have fulfilled my duty as Con, while my opponent has failed as Pro.

Final Sources:
[1]http://www.discoverynews.us...
[2]http://tumblehomelearning.com...

List of unconvinced scientists:
http://www.discovery.org...

Even if I, a high school student cannot convince the public, let those who have studied the matter for years convince you.
Debate Round No. 5
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
Honestly, I'd like to see a rematch between you two. One that is more focused (i.e. no inclusion of Creationism/Abiogenesis) and that has more concisely presented arguments/rebuttals. (I'm not holding my breath, though...)
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
I'm not being rude in any way.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
@triangle.128 Rude....
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
You never even used good arguments in the first place. I don't know how one could give arguments to you.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
Votes should be unbiased and most of the time, they are.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
not really
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
Everything on this website is biased.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
That vote was pretty biased.
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
@bluesteel Are you kidding me?? A legitimate voting member is entitled to vote how he sees fit, provided that they give good reason for that vote. Just because you don't like It doesn't mean you can do what you want.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
================================================================
>Reported vote: Marauder // Moderator action: REMOVED<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: This is a rare case one side earned all 7 points in a non-forfeited debate and here is why... Conduct: Pro leaves sources that are simply strait filler and had nothing to do with his case (like saying 'the holy bible' when no scripture was quoted) which is deceitful and several round one sources lead to 'page not found'. S&G: "due to your fallacied creation logic" Pro should know fallacied is not a word and this is not grammatically correct. Sources: Pro's sources when they are not pictures or 'page cant be found' include Wikipedia and talk origins, which are ironically notorious for being blog post's which Pro had the nerve to criticize Con for. Arguments: Con stayed on topic and even got Pro to admit mutations are random, undermining his primary defense that evolution is not random. Saying Natural Selection makes it not random is like saying buying multiple scratch off tickets and turning in only the winners makes winning the lottery not random. Con just did an all around better

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Awarding conduct for something that is already accounted for in the sources point vote. (2) Awarding S&G for a single grammatical mistake. I can understand really disliking someone's argument, but you can't award all 7 points unless you can legitimately justify it.
===================================================================
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nicoszon_the_Great 1 year ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
triangle.128kJonnykellyTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: JonnyKelly displayed a blatant ignorance of the actual research done into the theory of evolution and relies in stead on third-party, biased and untrustworthy sources to support his arguments. That being said, both sides tended to fall slightly to the realm of pathos argument rather than logos debate, I fault neither of them for this.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
triangle.128kJonnykellyTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had great conduct. Spelling and grammar was even, I didn't notice any errors. I think Pro had better arguments and more evidence to support his claims through his pictures and he provided explanations with his pictures. However pro did begin to change the topic from to theory of evolution to evolution vs creationism, which was not the debate topic. Pro used more scientific and reliable sources while con used unreliable sources such as a blog that can be edited.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
triangle.128kJonnykellyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Some minor Ad Hominem by both participants. S/G appeared even. Sources were about the same strength on both sides. RFD regarding arguments in Comments.