Theistic evolution over Darwinian evolution

That being said, I am genuinely confused by his last round. Very little seems to actually address what I've said. Perhaps it is merely a misunderstanding, but that is the danger one runs into if you spend 75% of the debate on your opening response, without responding to any criticisms until the last quarter. Even if everything said directly applies to what I've argued accurately, he has still missed out on a lot of criticisms. I can't blame him since he had to go over three rounds in one, but again this was due to the fact he needed three rounds just to establish his theory. First he attempts to respond to my Spite example. He claims his sources in R3 do more than merely assert an intelligence is responsible, but show how one is needed. Is that true? Let's see. Source 14 (S14) attempts to debunk a particular explanation for abiogenesis. Even if true, and I doubt it is, that doesn't show natural abiogenesis can't happen, which is claim Pro made. S15 is cited by my opponent as showing that life isn't monophyletic. What was the conclusion of that source? Just read the last line: "These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life. " Yes, Pro cited a source which directly says the opposite of what he was claiming. S16 from R3 merely shows how intelligence can affect evolution. No one is arguing intelligence can't do that, the question is whether or not intelligence is required. Human beings can build a freezer and make liquid water solid. No one believes that you need intelligence to make ice. For S17, this merely establishes the likelihood of large sweeping evolutionary changes. This in no way helps Pro, since a variety of proponents of Darwinian evolution actually support this theory, with both Stephen Jay Gould [1] supporting the idea and Richard Dawkins has also examined and incorporated the same evidence with little issue [2]. S18 is the Prairie Chicken study, but he cited it in the wrong location. He cited the study, which describes humans incorporating other Prairie Chickens into the dwindling population as evidence that God replaces extinct species with different animals. The sources isn't even in the same round as when he argued Prairie Chickens were saved because an intelligence intervened. Even if he had sourced correctly, again no one is arguing intelligence can't affect evolution. It doesn't help Pro's case at all. S19 merely shows the difficulty with inbreeding, that doesn't demonstrate intelligence replaces species or that evolution can't happen without intelligence. S20 merely asserts there was a local flood and humans all evolved from Noah (right after posting the difficulties with inbreeding), despite the fact that humans where as high as Scandinavia at the time of this alleged "local flood which covered all the mountains" [3]. S21 through S24 seek to debunk design flaws, and his newest source in R5 doesn't mention the need of an intelligence at all. Not only did Pro's R3 and R5 sources not demonstrate that intelligence is required for evolution, none of them even purported to demonstrate that conclusion. Next we get to Pro's Predictions heading. He attempts to say that UCD can't be true, but his own source says it is true [4]. He hopes to show Design Decay hypothesis, yet that is reliant on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states: "In a closed system . . . " And we can stop there. Earth is not a closed system. We are getting constant energy from the sun. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply doesn't apply, regardless of whether a god exists or not. His other method of falsification is to falsify Substance Dualism, which he claims can be done by proving another theory. So I will say my theory of Hitler's death was by alien death ray, which can be falsified by proving Hitler died another way. My opponent does not understand falsification. Regardless, Substance Dualism (SD) has been falsified. I explained in the previous round how split-brain patients make SD untenable, in that it was is demonstrated in such patients that when one side of the brain experiences something, the other has no idea what the first side experienced. This could not occur if some "mental non-physical material" was controlling the brain, as SD asserts. Pro did not respond to these criticisms. He claims his hypothesis is based on the assumption of SD, but ignores my criticisms of it, thus his entire argument has not passed for the purposes of this debate. Right here he virtually concedes the debate. Also, Penfield's experiment is ludicrous. If we shock a computer system, we don't expect it to run Microsoft word, you think shocking the brain (a much more complicated system) is going to turn a better result? Everything else in regard to SD is refuting argument I haven't even made. Under the heading Con's previous objections, kenballer argues for DNA being information. What he does not do, is demonstrate that information theory claims information must come from an intelligence. He simply posts a Wikipedia article that does not argue that claim or even mention it. The only reference to intelligence is that intelligence agencies like the CIA use information and AI. He hasn't even bothered to correct his source I pointed out in the first round, he just links to Wikipedia of all places. Then he argues something about quantum events. Quantum events caused the universe to exist, he says. This is exactly what I've said, I never said it was uncaused. I'm only citing the very paper he brought into this debate, and repeating the conclusions it came to. I don't have to prove there was a quantum field, my opponent already argued for one. The Newberg study's newness has nothing to do with my criticism. Pro claims the study demonstrates an outside force is behind Christians speaking in tongues, because other studies had different results. My criticism is that there were no other studies. No like Newberg's. He was studying a completely different thing than all studies previously, by his own admission. Pro is arguing "This new study that has never been done before shows different results from every other study like it that came before, for which there are none, therefore I am right. " Pro asks me for the evidence of a multiverse. Why is he asking for evidence he already provided? I'm only going off of BVG theory which he himself offered as the basis for his cosmological argument. Not to mention I am not the one making the claim. Pro is arguing the chance of life developing is very small, but he needs for there to only be one universe for that to happen. He can't show that, therefore his teleological argument falls flatter than a quantum pancake, just like I told him the last time we debated this topic. Pro has not really offered any sources that show an intelligence is required for evolution. He has offered ones that show it isn't necessary, ironically enough, and relies on a severe misunderstanding of both evolution, science, and philosophy. He spent most of the debate trying to describe his theory, and only spent one round responding to a few arguments, many of which I didn't even make. Since he has given incorrect sources, as well as ones that say the exact opposite of what he claims, I urge you to vote Con for sources. Since he has not really offered any evidence for his position, nothing that gives his theory more explanatory power, and especially since the basis for his argument which is Substance Dualism was effectively rebuffed, I urge you to vote Con for arguments. [1] The Return of Hopeful Monsters (1977) [2] Climbing Mount Improbable (1996) [3] Europe's First Farmers – T. Douglas Price [4] . http://tinyurl.com...