I watched half/most of it.
i have read the creatyioniost guys articles in magazines.
i thought he did a great job and the evolutionist stuttered too much over what he was trying to say. then both got into trivial details too much.
The evolutionist , as usual, insisted dNA is the trsil for biological relationships. yet common design would deny this and so the evolutionist is mnot making a point. Just a faith statement.
There is no limit to what common design could do in nature. any result can be from processes of a common design in biology.
In these debates they need to make a FEW killer great points and a FEW great counter points to the others killer points.
Otherwise its hardly a debate but just stating your points.
For a public its not very good but Jeanson would win any vote of a neutral audience.
Another thing was the evolutionist started, wasted our time, by striving to discredit the intellectual right of dissent opf his opponent and others like him.
THEN had the debate. He should of just left to be consistent.
it was embarrassing for me to watch him dISCREDIT himself by this high school attack.
IF YOU ACCEPT A DEBATE ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BEHIND SOME SUBJECT then you can’t say the other guy is not scientific. !! THATS a real rule. It just looks like cheap shots because they are cheap shots!
I have seen worst origin debates with both sides at fault.