Evolution.

Hi! :) Thanks again for creating this debate. Now that I've already presented my initial argument in favor of evolution (Round 2), I'll address my opponent's arguments and try to conclude the debate. The definitions that my opponent has provided seem pretty on point; I thank him for providing them. As per Con's own words, my opponent's argument is "based off of the concept of time." My opponent is correct in saying that "time is a record of past, present and future events," and that "this record is used for study, and observation of events that occurred, and for events that did not occur." However, I find my opponent's citing of multiple Bible sources regarding time fairly inappropriate, as he/she has not been able to provide any evidence whatsoever for said claims. Though I do appreciate my opponent's very liberal use of sources regarding what the Bible says regarding history and time (including a rather interesting 795-page Biblical analysis), I find Con's failure to include sources regarding how the claims he/she has made are valid rather disconcerting. Of course, if one wishes to espouse claims as such, one must also provide evidence in favor of these claims' validity, not just an analysis of said claims. I could just as easily produce an equally in-depth analysis of the Islamic view of history and time, though this analysis would be without merit unless evidence can be provided in favor of its truth. While my opponent is correct in stating that the Bible "teaches a literal 7-day creation" and "illustrates this through days, and years," he is once more unable to provide evidence that said claims are true. Con does, in fact, state that "Biblical History can also, be proven through biblical archaeology, dates, and many other sources" and provides (Source 1) in favor of said claim, this source does not in any way address the alleged creation of the universe in seven days, nor does it assert that the universe is only around 6,000 years old. Instead, the script provided merely summarizes a variety of mid-eastern civilizations mentioned within the Bible between 1300-1100 B.C.E. (I encourage voters to review this source for additional validation if they so choose). Clearly, this source does not advance my opponent's claim that the universe was created in seven days 6,000 years ago, as the topics it discusses are irrelevant to the creation of the universe. My opponent's next argument revolves around the claim that "[observation] can only be used in two ways... in the present, and in the future." While my opponent is correct in stating that the human species can, in fact, observe events taking place in the present (I find his assertion that we can observe the future dubious, but that is irrelevant), I find his later assertion that "observation cannot be done through the past because, we live in the present age, and do not live in the past, lest we assume that we can observe the past" inherently flawed. While we, of course, cannot physically see past events unless they have been recorded using photography or videography, this is not to say that we cannot show past events to be true using evidence. Clearly, this is the case with evolution, as though we (obviously) cannot see evolution actually happening right in front of us, evidence for such is extremely widespread and easily accessible (see my Round 2 argument for more information) (Source 2). Con next claims that "there are 40 authors of the Bible who kept records," saying that "the Bible records history" and that "sources revolving around the Bible can be confirmed through multiple witnesses." As usual, he/she is able to produce many sources, though, after looking through each of them, I have found that none actually provide any evidence that these claims are true (once more, I encourage voters to read through my opponent's sources if they so choose in order to validate that they are, in fact, irrelevant to providing evidence for the validity of the Bible). The sources provided in this section of my opponent's argument, as well as virtually all of the others, simply analyze Biblical claims instead of providing scientific or historical outside evidence that they are true. My opponent next, of course, addresses my claims. First, Con argues that radiometric dating somehow can't be valid, as "radiometric dating did not begin during the beginning of time, but in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood." I find that my opponent uses claims along these lines often throughout his argument, though I fail to understand how they are relevant. It appears that my opponent is unable to understand the concept of being able to know about past events using modern-day evidence-collecting techniques. Con appears to be arguing that historical events cannot be shown to be true unless you actually witness them yourself (this allegation is further emphasized in his earlier argument regarding observation). Of course, this allegation is overwhelmingly absurd, as nobody would be able to do much of anything unless we would be able to use modern tools to collect past evidence. For example, using my opponent's logic, modern-day detectives would be unable to show that a culprit is responsible for a crime based off of fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc., as the detectives weren't actually there to physically see the crime take place. The evidence for evolution is just as compelling as that at a crime scene (fingerprints=fossils; DNA evidence=DNA evidence, etc.), and it is just as absurd to assume that detectives are unable to find someone guilty of a crime based off of said evidence as it is to assume that evolution is impossible to validate due to us not actually being there to see it. My opponent's argument regarding radiocarbon dating is essentially the same, as he argues that it is impossible for radiocarbon dating to validate any past events because radiocarbon dating, like radiometric dating and forensic technologies, rely on evidence from the past in order to validate claims from the present. My opponent brings up two counterarguments regarding evolution. They are as follows: 1. "How could man evolve from Australopithecus afarensis, if man was already here one million years before them?" This claim just isn't... true. According to (Source 3) and (Source 4), Australopithecus afarensis lived "between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago", while modern day humans cropped up "nearly 200,000 years ago." (Source 5) further validates the actual evidence I have provided. 2. "Neanderthal man has a brain 13% larger than humans, how do scientists reconcile this information?" While this may be true, (Source 6) and (Source 7) explain that the Neanderthals needed to use much more brain space than we do to accomplish simple tasks that we are able to accomplish easily, such as sight and hearing. Meanwhile, anatomically-modern humans are able to use much more of their brains for relatively complex cognitive functions. Overall, I believe that I have won this debate, as I have successfully provided numerous valid arguments in favor of evolution's truth (see Round 2), successfully rebutted the counterarguments made by Con, and successfully rebuked each of Con's claims regarding the validity of historical Biblical accounts. Before I hand this debate to the voters, I must stress that while my opponent has provided a fairly large number of sources, none of them actually provide evidence in favor of the validity of the Bible's historical claims, instead merely analyzing civilizations mentioned in the Bible and quoting a variety of Biblical stories/passages. Meanwhile, it seems that my sources have, in fact, been able to provide actual evidence in favor of a pro-evolution argument, through fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and other forms. Thank you, and good luck! :) Sources: 1. tinyurl.com/mabh3zl 2. tinyurl.com/7xceypt 3. tinyurl.com/3mck4yc 4. tinyurl.com/ptpun67 5. tinyurl.com/22j6nj 6. tinyurl.com/pydjxj4 7. tinyurl.com/ps37fpa