My notes of the debate so far:
Stratnerd:
1. Made the standard positive claims regarding the debate subject, nothing unexpected.
2. Did volunteer to debunk creationism, since most of the audience here adheres to that.
3. It seems he did not do his homework on Hilston. This is not going to be a standard my evidence vs your evidence debate. It will be more on the lines of what is evidence, and what is your foundation to recognize evidence. If he is willing to engage his opponent on thier field and is really unprepared, then as Clete said, Hilston will eat his lunch.
A winning strategy would be to not get suckered in. This is not a debate about whether science is a credible worldview, but rather if evolution is science. Hilston will not let him out so easily, and if stratnerd sticks to this valid point, we will all be left with a very uninteresting debate. So Stratnerd will have to choose between winning (while appearing bad, he won't answer his opponents out-of-topic questions), or a risky but interesting debate.
Hilston.
1. Jim seems like one bright cookie, and his writing style and formating is much clearer. It looks like experience is on his side.
2. He has taken on much more burden than would be necessary to win the debate. All he had to do was falsify the statement "evolution is science", but he took on the responsibility of a positive claim regarding creationism.
3. I hope this debate won't get too bogged down in terminology. It would be unfortunate to reach round 7 when the debaters still have trouble agreeing on basics. Hilston's case is largely based on agreeing to favorable terminology, so I doubt he would make many concessions here. His experience is showing, in that he defines many terms in advance, to save some back and forth.
4. His definition of faith should raise some objections.
5. Winning the debate. Hilston recognizes that no one is actually going to admit defeat here, and is laying the groundwork to claim he has won.
6. Definition of science. This is where the future of this debate stands or falls. Hilston makes some fantastic claims here (that the biblical worldview is required to make sense of science). Opposing this will mean Stratnerd has been suckered in to Hilston's well mined territory.
7. Hilston does leave his chosen path of debate a couple of times, such as claims like
how does his worldview get things to become their opposites? E.g. Orderliness out of chaos. How does Muller's paradigm generate such things as hearing and seeing..
These are direct attacks on the Evolutionary theory, and Stratnerd should be able to combat these types of claims. Hilston main claim does not rely on this, but it would be interesting to see him defend it.