Creation is the only logical explanation

Unfortunately, before presenting my rebuttal, I must once again adress debating formality. Concerning the burden of proof: this is a debate. I repeat, this is a debate. As the pro side and the supporter of the resolution in question, my opponent must offer evidence as to why creationism explains the existence of life. I need only disprove his claims, not offer an alternative to the explanation or any evidence whatsoever. One doesn't need to prove disbelief. It is my task but to negate the resolution. My opponent has, up to now, completely failed to grasp the concept of burden of proof. Now, I shall address my opponent's round 2 argumentation. The first part of my opponent's argument which deals with the burden of proof has already been addressed, so I deem it unnecessary to speak of it once again in my rebuttal. He then offers an analogy concerning a garden, exclaiming that it is intuition and common sense that tells him it was created by a gardener. This analogy, though, is very far-fetched. Creationist "intuition and common sense" have brought creationists to many wrong conclusions in the past, as I've already mentioned in round 2. Furthermore, the sense of proportion my opponent possesses seems to be somewhat distorted. I do not see how a garden can be compared (even metaphorically) to a matter as grand as the existence of life. My opponent proceeds to say atheists must provide evidence for their refutation of creationism; here we see, again, that he does not understand burden of proof. I do not have to provide evidence for my disbelief, nor am I obligated to offer an alternative. My task is simply to disprove creationism, regardless of what the alternative might be. The refutation to the creationist theory was given in my round 2 exposition, and my task completed. Next, we hear a sentence so often used by creationists: "Out of nothing, nothing comes. " Unfortunately, theists and creationists alike often make the mistake of intuitive generalization, committing a fallacy of bare assertion. Through observation, they conclude that since, on Earth, everything has a cause, so it must in the universe. I'd commit the same fallacy if I were to say, for example, that since all students sitting in room X possess mass lower than 200 lbs. , the total mass of all matter in the room must also be lower than 200 lbs. Furthermore, there are another two flaws in my opponent's reasoning:a) Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty directly contradicts my opponent's statement. We reach the point where quantum physics come into play, which is unfortunate for creationism; it doesn't seem to consider anything beyond the sight of the naked eye. [1]It has been observed that, in the quantum vacuum, particles materialize and dematerialize at random. Since it happens in a vacuum, we can safely say that those particles materialize with no apparent cause and no creator or creational force behind said materialization. To quote Taner Edis: "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. " [2]Should from this arise the question from where comes the energy necessary for quantum fluctuations, I answer with another quote, by Stephen Hawking: "particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. " [3]Furthermore, concerning quantum vacuum fluctuations, they are defined as uncaused emergencies of energy (according to the aforementioned uncertainty principle). According to the definition of quantum vacuum fluctuations, the fact that the total energy of the universe is equal to zero, and the random materialization of particles in said quantum vacuums, comes a model constructed by Alexander Vilenkin, who explained that the universe originated from a void; no matter, no energy, no expansion - no cause. [4] A simple understanding of quantum physics brings us to the first reason why my opponent's logic is flawed. b) My opponent still provides no evidence supporting creationism. My opponent proposes we all accept the hypothesis of creation as superior to all others; yet we know nothing about the creator. It is hypocritical that creationism should question science, while it, itself, can answer no question as to the existence of God, the properties of said existence, the relation to the space-time continuum concerning said existence etc. The only explanation creationists have is simply: "We believe. " As long as creationism fails to adhere to its burden of proof, it shall not be accepted as an explanation for the existence of life. Next, my opponent statetes that there isn't a single example of nature producing information, and that it all must come from an intelligent creator. The only thing proven by this statement is that my opponent possesses absolutetly no knowledge of simple biology. The fact that a human being's DNA is in the right order simply represents the end of the chain of natural selection, and even here we have malformations - how do creationists, then, explain malformations on human DNA? Furthermore, it is atrociously wrong to state there are no examples of nature producing information - what about the replication of DNA? How do you think children recieve their genetic code? It happens through merging of the DNA of the sperm cell and the female ovum - a most natural process. Must I go on? There are billions of examples where nature produces genetic information; each living being represents one such example. My opponent ends his round 2 the way he began - speaking about evidence and the burden of proof. I really see no need to address this once more. He ends his exposition by accusing me of not providing evidence. In his eyes, apparently, the debate "might as well end" if I do not present evidence. It is really disappointing that my opponent should throw such accusations around after I explained the matter of burden of proof multiple times; so I shall paraphrase his statement:If my opponent continues to refuse to grasp the concept of burden of proof, the debate might as well end. SOURCES:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://atheism.about.com...[3] Stephen William Hawking: A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes (1988), page 129[4] . http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...