Creationism is a Rational Belief System

Most of Pro’s argument here is irrelevant to evolution, such as the idea that people don’t call evolution a theory enough and that it doesn’t disprove God. I agree it doesn’t disprove God, however since creationism refers to the claim that life was created by God other than natural processes, it would be a misnomer to say creationists shouldn’t worry if evolution is proven. Pro says evolution is referred to as a fact most often, rather than a theory. He has yet to show this is true, the distinction between fact and theory, or its relevance. A theory is an interpretation of facts [1]. If such an interpretation corresponds to the world, it is also a fact. Furthermore, you can clearly see well known places of information refer to evolution as a theory [2][3]. His main argument against evolution is that humanity developed quickly culturally, therefore biologically humans didn’t evolve. First, Pro said himself he’s trying to refute the claim that humans developed over millions of years, however these such culture developments happen within species. It is therefore a categorical mistake to state this proves humans didn’t develop over millions of years. Even if a biological change is necessary, such a thing can happen rapidly [4]. However, there is no reason to think brains needed anything new to become smarter. Humans may have just learned to use their minds differently. For example, I know how to memorize a large list flawlessly, not because my mind is different than anyone else’s or prior humans, but because I know how to use my mind differently. Anyone can learn it with ease [5]. Learning language, mathematics, ect can simply be learning to use what’s already there differently. In this case evolution is memetic, not genetic. Fossil Record I will now present some arguments for evolution. This one being from the fossil record. Evolution would be disproven if we found fossils belonging to the wrong evolutionary time period. Instead what we find is correct evolutionary sorting along with showing the evolution of entities [6][7]. This is strong confirmation of evolution, as if it were false, fossils should be disorganized. ERVs Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are traces of viruses in our genome. Evolution predicts that we should share these ERVs with our closest ancestors and less with our distant ancestors. As Douglas Theobald said, this is exactly what we see. “There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.” [8] Evolution fits with these two pieces of evidence better than creationism. Back to Pro. [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... [4] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [5] http://www.memorizeeverything.com... [6] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [7] http://www.agiweb.org... [8] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012