Creationism is real

===== Sun is shrinking ===== My opponent has forfeited this argument. Voters, take note of this. ===== Big Bang Theory ===== My opponent has said nothing new or hasn't even refuted my points. Yes, the Big Bang only talks about what happened after the singularity expanded, because classical cosmology (the Big Bang being the prime focus) only deals with how the universe began/develops. HOWEVER, quantum cosmology seeks to explain the initial conditions that can bring forth the singularity, thus the Big Bang, thus our universe. Seeing as how I have given some examples, like the Hartle-Hawking state, and you haven't refuted any of my points, this argument goes to me. ===== Evolution ===== >>>The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology...This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.<<< These lines betray my opponent's ignorance of science quite definitely. The colloquial definition of theory is "a guess", but in SCIENCE it means the total opposite. The theory, in fact, is the strongest tool of explanation a scientists has. You're thinking probably goes like this: Hypothesis Facts and laws may interchange, but you know what I mean. A scientific theory seeks to explain a set of phenomena and give accurate predictions. A theory explains WHY something happens, while laws state that something DOES happen (and is usually more broad). In no way is a theory inferior to a law, in fact may scientific theories contain various laws in them. Gravity is a theory. Would you say that gravity is then unfeasible? No. >>>A scientific law must be 100% correct.<<< Nothing empirical can be 100% correct. ===== Evolution - Dog breeds ===== First, "breed" isn't a scientifically accepted term for taxonomy; it's a term that's used by independent dog organizations who they themselves diagram over specifics. A breed is equitable to the human version, "race". To make such a drastic evolutionary change such as having a feline being the product, it would take much longer than it is. Domestic dogs have been around, at most, for only 15,000 years[1]. Also, do note that we are somewhat taking over natural selection by selective breeding - there is no pressure or tension for one trait to become more dominant the others since there is no battle over reproduction or any other scenario in which speciation occurs. >>>Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.<<< Uh mutations dude. Are you kidding? DNA is something shared by every living organism, and you don't need to "go outside of DNA" to create new species. >>>New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.<<< Because it'd take forever. A few thousand years isn't enough. >>>In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.<<< While there are some studies concerning the partial effects of some genes, like LRRMT1[2] which could give some disposition to left-handedness, the main cause is environmental causes. It's not a protein, and has nothing to do with evolution. ===== Evolution - If evolution was true, then X... ===== All these examples presuppose two things: that there was a long of time for things to happen and that natural selection would choose the options given. My opponent makes the incredible claim that Eskimos have enough time to develop fur. Are you kidding? Such a drastic change in physical traits would take millions of years of evolution, and yet they've only been around thousands of years. Secondly, you SUPPOSE that evolution would create furry-Eskimos. But natural selection is unpredictable in the sense that mutations are random. While we can expect to see a useful trait to emerge as dominant (the un-randomness of natural selection), we can't reliably tell WHAT exactly the trait will be. This stems from not only the randomness of traits, but the ability of organisms to adapt traits into different functions, this is called exaption[3]. For example, the horse's foot was three toes and now one, or the panda's thumb. >>>Therfore evolution is a flase accusation of how the EArth was started...<<< Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth or abiogenesis. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent has conceded the sun shrinking argument. He has given NO argument in favor of the Big Bang by God argument, and his misunderstandings of evolution parallel that of a child's. ---References--- 1. http://www.nature.com... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...