Creation vs Evolution

My opponent has simply wasted two rounds, with no defense on the theory of evolution, He has failed to come up with a logical conclusion on the origins of the universe. He has failed to refute any evidence to my initial rebuttal, so I would conclude that He has conceded the first two rounds of this debate. His opening argument Demonstrated irrational reasoning that doesn"t make any sense. He wasted a round by saying and I quote, "I hope your creation. Because histories of genetics will be flying your way." Now if my opponent believes that genetics will be flying, I would encourage him to become a Christian today because flying genetics would be a miracle! 2nd it is not my creation, the creation belongs to God, so you"re illogical assumption has no reasoning. I would also encourage my opponent to research debates with an objective mind before engaging in debates and learn how to engage in debates. Because a logical rebuttal would have demonstrate my point by point Arguments for creation & point by point refute it, debunk it, then in its place present a rational alternate hypothesis. My opponent wasted a round to ask the question and I quote, " Before I argue, if nothing came from nothing, doesn't that contradict the existence of God? If nothing came from nothing, it is just as likely as a space wizard that popped up from where?" Nothing. To answer his question directly is no it doesn"t contradict the existence of God, as a matter of fact It gives reasoning to the existence of God. There are three hypothesis on the fine-tuning of the universe, 1.Physical necessity, 2. Chance, or 3. Design. Physical necessity is not, however, a plausible explanation because the finely-tuned constants And quantities are independent of the laws of nature. Therefore they are not physically necessary. 2. So could the fine-tuning be due to chance? The problem with this explanation is that the odds of a Life-permitting universe governed by our laws of nature are just so infinitesimal, That they cannot be reasonably faced. Therefore the proponents of chance have been forced to Postulate the existence of a world ensemble of other universes, preferably infinite in number And randomly ordered, so that life permitting universes would appear by chance somewhere in the ensemble. Not only is this hypothesis to borrow Richard Dawkins" phrase, " An parsimonious extravagance", But it faces many logical objections. By far, most of the observable universes in world ensemble would be Worlds in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the vacuum and observes it"s otherwise empty world. Thus, if our world were just a random member of a world ensemble, we ought to be having observations like that. Since we don"t, that strongly disconfirms the world ensemble hypothesis, so chance is also not a good explanation. 3.It follows that design is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe constitutes evidence for a cosmic designer. God is the best explanation of the intentional states of consciousness in the world. Philosophers are puzzled by the states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It signifies the object directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think about my summer vacation Or I could think of my wife. No physical object has this sort of intentionality. A chair, or a stone, or a glob of tissue like The brain is not about or of something else. Only mental states of consciousness or about other things. As materialist, Atheist Dr. Rosenberg recognizes this fact and so concludes that on atheism, There really are no intentional states. By contrast on theism, because God is a mind, It"s hardly surprising that there should be finite minds. Thus, Intentional states fit comfortably into a theistic worldview. So, we may argue, One if God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist. Two, but intentional states of consciousness do exist. Three, therefore God exists. Again for my opponent to win this debate, he must tear down the creation hypothesis I have displayed & in return present a more rational explanation on the theory of evolution as the most logical explanation. Thank you for you"re time and attention. www.resonablefaith.org