E v. C

“[Con] can establish the truth of creationism by attacking evolution”As I said, there is a difference between providing support, and affirming it. Pro does not acknowledge the difference, which is not mundane.“yet to establish a single argument”Pro has yet to refute my argument regarding evolutionary stasis, which is firmly supportive and in favor of my motion. He has dismissed the argument simply because it contains a quote, and that the paradox is “satisfactory.” “5 should have been a 6”This means that you 5 is unnecessary. Why source it in the first place?“it did not contain any actual evidence, only assertions”The title of the series is “Creation Magazine Live.” The purpose of the show is to explain in layman’s terms that which is semi-technical, but peer-reviewed, and published in said magazine. If Pro wanted, he could easily have located the articles in question and would have seen numerous sources in support. The (10:00) I was referring to cites my (4) as a reference. My arguments tie together neatly. It is not only a reliable source of information, but an expert source of information, because it comes from the (retired) Professor Sanford, geneticist and primary inventor of the gene gun. This is not unreliable, since almost all GM foods are derived under his invention. “Wikipedia...is far from "unsourced"”Let me quote myself: “It is unfortunate that the exact portions of his citation has a primary source in Wikipedia.” From this statement, it is easy to infer that most portions of Wikipedia is sourced. Indeed, I myself use wikipedia, but only for statements that are sourced. Pro quoted an unsourced portion of the entry. Now, at best, he could argue that it references Muller’s original article, but that would be a missource because Muller definitely provides a reason for ignoring such phenomena.“impossible for me to caricature it”Let me once again quote myself: “organisms can never become something other than their “kind,” which God (supposedly) created” (I will not repeat allegations of rule breaking by Pro in the previous round, as he has done so again, I will just cite the new cases.) This is enough to show that kind=/=species, and that the statement that God created “species” is false. It is also apparent that by “degradational” I refer to the net effect of mutation.Pro then goes on to provide supposed evidence for the evolution model. As my argument regarding stasis is unrefuted, and that regarding genetics is well defended, I will simply go to his arguments, but not in quote form. (Pro cannot complain that I filled the textbox, it was his idea to let me start)Let me start with a brief overview of his argument. Pro repeatedly and undeniably breaks his rules. Over and again, we see that he does not begin from first principles.Throughout the round, Pro uses a debate trick called equivocation. This, coupled with his extensive use of the fallacy of parts-to-whole, make his arguments easy to refute. Firstly, let us go through the basics. Evolution and young earth creationism overlap somewhat. You see, to have a debate, we have to disagree about something. I suppose Pro would agree to that. However, this distinction of “micro-” and “macro-” evolution, was made in 1960 by an evolutionist philosopher by the name of Kerkut. He stated, and I quote,“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” [1]You see, the YEC do not deny STE, it is even part of the YEC paradigm. The YEC deny GTE, and that is what Pro is supposed to be defending. Pro gives us numerous examples of STE, which nobody disagrees with, and claims that they support GTE. This is the fallacy that I refer to. By conveniently switching between the two theories, one of which is a subset of the other, Pro fantastically commits two fallacies in the same argument.It is not the fact that no animals can be naturally altered genetically past a certain stage but that there is absolutely no evidence of such. It is the BoP of Pro to provide such evidence, aka. evidence of GTE. Pro then goes on to break his own rule that “no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence.” Pro assumes that GTE is true, and expects the reader to assume so as well. I will not directly refute his evidence in so many words, because to do so would be to take on an unrequired BoP which Pro is trying to shed on me. Instead, I will dumb down my arguments to the same level as his. Providing sources. Now all that matters is the quality of the source.For the age of the universe, see these articles: [2], (Rightfully, this alone should be enough, but I will do more than this), [3], [4].Speciation and the implications for evolution: [5], [6]The thing about our sources is that all of mine are strictly peer-reviewed. I purposefully chose only that which is peer-reviewed.On the other hand, Pro’s sources are popular science sources, or public edit sources. Now back to Pro. Please provide some evidence for the Grand Theory of Evolution, rather than assuming its truth and demanding I present evidence against it. 1. http://ia600409.us.archive.org... (p. 157)2. http://creation.com... 3. http://creation.com... 4. http://creation.com... 5. http://creation.com... 6. http://creation.com...