Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

Thank you for your arguments in Round 3. If Con is taking this debate seriously, I wish he would try harder because his arguments have been extremely weak. My guess is that he's too cocky to try hard. In fact, in a private message my opponent said that his links have proved everything and his "arguments" still stand. He said I have yet to refute anything. I tried to explain that sources do not count as arguments, that that is plagiarizing (you have to write your own arguments to prove your own point), and that he hasn't proved anything for evolution in any of his arguments. Though, I do concede how he pointed out that some of my sources were not the most reliable, even though some of those facts I needed sources for were obvious or common sense. So during this last round I will back up some of my previous sources with better ones. But remember, about "bias" sources, does my opponent have to use a creationist's website to deliver evidence for evolution? I want Con to answer this: what harm did my so-called bias sources do? I would also like to point out how the Internet is not the most reliable for any source, either. Yet another funny thing is that my opponent only used three sources for what he called his arguments, whereas I went to the work to find YouTube videos and other websites that explain the facts I was trying to convey! It's also kind of hilarious that he tried to shun me for getting a fact from a website in 2011, then wrote how he would show a, quote, "credible source made in two thousand twelve..." Con actually wrote the number out in words, sneaky sneaky! Last note about sources...here's what my opponent said: "Bias sources normally put out bias information. For instance, would you trust an article that says smoking increases your life span if it was published by a tobacco company? I wouldn't. It's the same thing. Tell you what. Bring me links that aren't from anything like answering genesis or any other Bible site, and maybe it will be a credible source. But, come on man! Answering genesis? All of your sources are from a creationist origin." If Con can find me creation evidence in an evolution (or vice versa) website then I'll concede. Or even better, if he gives me a content from one of the links and refutes it straight out, then he has proved his point. Enough about links. Here are my rebuttals: "We have emotions and feelings because our brain evolved in some ways. Apes have feelings. They even mourn for their dead. The Tower Of Babel didn't bring host to different languages, races, ETC." First off, can apes talk? Second, why did some apes stayed the way they are now and other "apes" evolved into "humans"? Third, even if it's a "good" source saying that apes mourn for the fellow dead, the site literally says "Chimpanzees MAY gather in hushed quiet to watch a fellow ape in her dying moments, and chimp mothers in the wild MAY carry their infants' mummified remains for weeks, ACCORDING to new research on how humanity's closest living relatives deal with the deaths of those closest to them." That does NOTHING to prove evolution. Fourth. I agree that the Tower of Babel did not host to different races. It's a long story and I think my opponent should perhaps READ IT before going on saying it's not true. Side question towards Con: where did languages come from if evolution is as you said? By the way, tell me if this site has anything proved false about the Tower of Babel. http://creation.com... Con: "Is this a joke? A stupid you tube video with no scientific backing? Wow, the world has reached a new low." Yes, it is a joke. I thought my opponent would find it funny considering it's a Christian song that a lot of Christian little kids learn in their childhood... Con: "If Satan was a serpent, how could he talk? He was in a serpent's body, and they have no vocal cords." If my opponent believes God is a Trinity (3-in-1)? Because I know he believes in God. Think of it this way. God is omnipotent. My belief says He created the Serpent. What image comes to mind when you hear "Satan"? Is it a monstrous evil person with fierce red eyes holding a pitchfork? Because he has the power to tempt us all in lots of ways, I believe he can form into many different bodies--including ones of animals like a snake. Con: "I feel I don't have to even try to refute the first few parts of your arguments, as this debate has nothing to do with my status of being a Christian. You do realize the book you gave was from Stephen Hawkings, a devout Atheist right?" If my opponent even read my arguments he would have known how I debunked what S. H. said because I was hoping the Christianity vs. Atheism topic would come up eventually. I'm wondering why he doesn't want to explain his belief in God AND in Evolution, because this debate is about what HE thinks vs. what I think. I'm sorry if I got uptight in this debate! I look forward to the "rematch" because I want to further debate and do it, this time, without as bad of conduct. I apologize but I think I warned everyone, on my profile, that I'm a nice person but when it comes to debating I can get fierce! Thank you, CDB, and debate you later. My conclusion is that evolution is 1) unfitting for a Christian standard, 2) has too many flaws to make it credible, and 3) is a lie that doesn't make sense. Again, I believe in Creationism because it is more stable than the theory of fabrication that scientists are often modifying to make it sound unrefuted, and because it better fits my belief in God. http://www.newgeology.us...