Yes I am biased. Biased is not intrinsically wrong. No one would complain about a bias towards justice or fair play. The overwhelming evidence of evolution produces my bias.

There is no scientific support for intelligent design. In fact ID has yet to produce a cohesive theory to even test. While there exists organizations that support ID these are political lobbying groups rather than research groups.

In Kitzmiller v Dover the judge stated in his findings, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

1. US over Brazil
2. England over France (I assume Scotland and Wales are included. Closest fight on this bracket)
3. Russia over SK
4. Germany over Spain
5. India over Thailand
6. Pakistan over Isreal. (176,000,000 Pakis will eventually beat 8 million Isrealis)
7. China over Japan (size wins this match)
8. Turkey over Iran (Another close fight but Turkey has twice the GDP of Iran. Also good ties to the west so spare parts are easy to get. Iran flies F-15s which have issues getting spare parts.)

First off I must admit my bias. I almost exclusively post on this board in atheism or evolution threads with strong pro atheist and evolution opinions. Therefore my vote for Oceanic is hardly surprising. With that said I do believe Oceanic put forth the stronger argument, though I really wish the moderator would have switch chairs on these debaters. Have Drew Ali defend the negative while Oceanic had to defend the positive. This would have forced both to radically alter their natural position and try to find the strongest arguments that they could agree with from the other side of the debate.

While I voted for Oceanic I am going to start with a critique of his argument. He took a shotgun approach by posting all the golden oldies of the atheist position. While I agree with those positions I think Drew missed a golden opportunity to sweep Oceanic's first post under the carpet by pointing out the debate was whether there was an "Intelligent Designer" not God. Had he done this Oceanic's first four points would have been moot. His entire first post would have been reduced to the "Argument from Design" by a single sentence from Drew. Given the fact this argument was the strongest he had it should not have been left entirely to a cut and paste quote.

Unfortunately, I think Drew fell into old habits. Both Oceanic and Drew have debated this subject in a half-dozen threads or more and there is a lot of water under the bridge. I feel Drew relied on previous arguments he had made in threads with Oceanic without providing the supporting detail in this thread. For example in reply to Oceanic's "Argument from Proof" Drew stated "~ Allah manifests in several planes ~ Everlasting of the past unto the never ending days to come.........". This isn't really a counter-argument. It just flowery speech.

Perhaps the worst example of this is Drew's response to the main argument Oceanic made. In response to Oceanic's "Argument of Design" Drew argued could be "explained thoroughly through theses seven principles, which I will elaborate on later.......". Unfortunately, I never noticed if Drew actually did explain these principles and why they counters the argument from design.

I think Drew in his previous 2 debates did quite well but in this one I think he allowed himself to be distracted by Oceanic's shotgun attack and did little to address Oceanic's initial arguments.

"In other words......

If you "evolved" from any other creature, it is the swine..............

Which is why......

Leviticus 11:7 - 11:8

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.



All praise is due to Allah.............."

This is my favorite part of this thread.

While I concede I can misconstrue what people intend with their posts this seems like Drew is saying the passage from Leviticus is based on the pigs close association with us. That it is some kind of near cannibalism that makes the pig unclean. I had thought it was because the pig does not chew the cud.

Some south pacific cannibals call human flesh long pig so maybe there is something to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

A vestigial organ may not be useless it has simply lost its primary purpose. Some moles still have eyes covered by skin these organs are useless while an appendix might offer an advantage to our immune system. The evidence that vestigial organs present is of organisms in a state of change.