Evolution (Pro) vs Creationism (Con)

Sorry about the confusion over the third person, I, Con, will continue in the first person, for the remainder of this debate. Pro stated, “If you didn't like the definitions of the words I addressed in round one, you should have said so in round one.”Pro also stated in Round 1, “First round is acceptance only. A forfeit is an automatic loss.”According to your rules, I could only use the First Round for “acceptance only.” That means no debate on definitions in the First Round. Therefore, this debate becomes, in part, one of a debate over definitions and belief. Pro stated, “I hate to break it to you, but evolution actually ‘pertains’ to living organisms, and is based on that idea.” I like debates, for the sole reason of the learning experience. Therefore, debates are a form of evolution in learning. Evolution covers a wide spectrum relative to the Constructal Law in both inanimate and animate, where the Constructal Law is part of the Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature trumps any previous metaphysical definitions of evolution from the Darwinian Era. And in saying that, I recommend Pro should move from those classical concepts and explore the current discoveries on evolution. http://www.amazon.com...http://www.youtube.com...Pro stated, “And about the definition of ‘creationism’ it mentions God creating the universe, but it also mentions God creating life.” I agree with Pro about God creating the universe and life through evolution via God's Laws of Nature after the event of creation known as the Big Bang. As I mentioned, my belief in God creating the universe and everything in it aligns with the “creationism” philosophy known as “Theistic Evolution.” Please read the following link: http://ncse.com...Pro stated, “We are not battling for survival now are we? Once governments and nations were set up, we stopped living in a state of nature. If you are a citizen of a country, then you no longer live in a ‘state of nature’ Your argument was that we still live around natural laws, and we still live in nature. I’m not sure if you know anything about this subject, but we no longer live in a state of nature.” We humans are battling for survival every day. Each breath we take is the bio-energy required in the pursuit for survival. Bio-energy is not free, we need to battle, as in work, for the money needed to buy food. If you are on food-stamps, or living off your parents, aka on the dole, someone else is battling to keep you alive. “A citizen of a country” is a member of a social group like any other group found throughout the symphony of life, to name a few, in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, etc. With the evolution of technology and social systems, Pro thinks humans are now above the “state of nature,” oh, what arrogance. In conclusion, since I believe in God, I find Pro's definition of “Creationism” more accurate than his definition on “Evolution.” “Creationism:the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes such as evolution.”To emphasize by parsing, "creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms (both inanimate and animate) originate from specific acts (acts from God's Laws of Nature) of divine creation (the Big Bang), as in the biblical account (interpretation of the Book of Genesis), rather than by processes such as evolution (Pro's incomplete definition of evolution)."