Biblical Creationism is more probable than atheistic naturalism

I do hope for both our sakes that we provide a challenge for one another. Let's not forget that this should be enjoying as well as taxing. [INTRODUCTION] I will offer three (main) contentions for us to focus on in this debate. My first contention will be the support of God's existence. The second will be in support of Biblical Creationism. And third will be the problems with Atheistic Naturalism. There many points to bring up so I will number them as I go. [Support of God] To require a process to even assess the truth of a claim you require rational thinking. No thought that is true or false can come solely from a physical source. No arrangement of non-physical materials can create a rational thought. [1] Rationality does not arise from out of nothing but only from another rationality. Humans are able to convince by argument, there must be a rational being on which rationality derives. This is the being we call God. For us to question the existence of God is simply fundamental. Though it is impossible to answer straight forward because we circle around natural causes and God is simply outside the rules of nature. [2] I think Richard Lewontin said it well when he said, "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations. " (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," p.28). The majority of my case is on the astronomical odds that biochemists and mathematicians themselves rate the odds of life arising from non-life. The discoveries in many scientific fields have suggested to us that we have a creator. Astronomy has shown us beyond any doubt that the universe did have a beginning. [3]If it had a beginning then something started it. The early space programs were attempts at learning how the solar system evolved. [4]Though after all these years of testing these questions have not been answered. After the lunar space program, no evolutionist could explain with any knowledge or confidence how our moon formed. Advances in molecular biology have shown vast amounts of information coded in ever living cell. Every cell of out body exists a detailed instruction code which is like a computer program. [5]A program that seems designed. Right along with philosophers, scientists agree that only a creator and Law giver can be the only plausible explanation for complexity, design, and moral standard. Though it does not stop there, I have rounded up a few straw poles that focus on the question, Do you think God exist? [6] The majority of people do believe that God exist. . http://www.gallup.com... . http://www.gallup.com... . http://realtruth.org... [SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT] This all leads us to the question, did the worldwide flood happen? The implications of a worldwide flood deserve serious reflection from every person. [7] Earth has many features that can only be explained by a worldwide flood. In the 1800's, Benjamin Sillman, head of geology of Yale, wrote, "Respecting the Deluge there can be but one opinion: geology fully confirms the scriptural event. These fossils indicate that they were buried by the same catastrophe which destroyed them, namely a sudden and violent deluge. " Our life is more than just energy and matter (Gen. 2:7; Job 12:7-10). [8] We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Scriptures agree with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. In the Bible we have the book of Genesis which gives a description of creation. This description has never failed under the screwtinity of real science. In this description we are given the precise events that made our universe and life. Scientist have verified that creation started with time, space and matter just as the Bible stated in the very first verse. [9] We can see that the creation in Scripture is supported by all true facts of nature. Of course a naturalisitc model is in contrast with nature. [PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM] Atheistic Naturalism has become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities for just principle. [10] As atheist JBS Haldane said,"Not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger then we can suppose. But I am sure that it is stranger the we, as atheist, tend to represent while advocating atheism. " Decay is the major factor (and ultimate juggernaut) that shows the naturalistic point of view wrong. [11] Naturalist maintain a continuing naturalistic origin and increase in complexity. Though creationism suggests a supernatural origin and presents decrease in complexity. Evidence for this complexity and its decrease is implicit in observable data. In the defense of naturalism it must maintain a version of scientific realism. I will be arguing that nature is only comprehensible scientifically if it is designed by supernatural forces. [12] For one cannot embrace naturalism and scientific realism. The origin of all things in the universe are a chain of cause and effect that would never end and so of would not begin or stop at the Big Bang. [13] There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe. If we are to believe in naturalistic models of evolution then we should also ask them were all this proof is at? [14] All we here about are mutations of bacteria and viruses. Even those explanations are inadequate to claim naturalistic evolution. We see this from scientific sources of the probabilities of evolution:The Science Blog:Science News Straight From the Source. .. 'For 40 years, scientists have used quickly reproducing bacteria and viruses to watch evolution in the laboratory. The vast majority are loss-of-function mutations or modifications leading to diminished function. ' [CLOSE] We have considered the realities of Creationism and Naturalism. The relationship between nature and creationism is apparent. Though it is not looking as probable for an atheistic naturalist. I have successfully given my case. I hope it was provided in a understanding way. Thank you for reading and thanks to my opponent. [RESOURCES] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... . http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... . http://www.creationscience.com... . http://ontology.buffalo.edu... . http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu... . http://richarddawkins.net... . http://www.wikihow.com... . http://www.icr.org... . http://www.understandthetimes.org...