(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con)

I will now attempt to defend my argument. First off Pro, you accuse me of explaining what version of creationism I support. There is a reason that I have not committed to a particular one, arguing in favor of it. That is because this debate is not about"Christian Creationism versus Evolution". It is simply about creationism. So, I am free to argue in favor of creationism in it's most basic form: that a supreme being created the world. I hold personally to the story in Genesis, but that does not mean that I am required to argue my case from that point of view. Secondly, I have a reason for "focusing almost completely on the offensive". It is because evolution is currently the only major theory for explaining the coming about of existence without being by a creator. Thus, if I can prove that evolution is not a valid theory, then I have proved indirectly that creationism is correct. A somewhat indirect manner of doing it, yes, but a valid manner all the same. Also, in response to the matter of taking the Bible metaphorically versus literally: I take the Bible literally. That includes the part about Noah's Ark, Jonah, flat Earth, Young Earth, etc. The theory of their being a round earth is simply that: a theory. Same as evolution. Neither are proven. As human beings, we are incapable of knowing "absolute truth". We simply can deduce what the most legitimate idea is for how something is or for how something acts, and assume that is true until proven otherwise. Scientific reasoning has usually followed that line. A scientist makes an observation, comes up with a hypothesis, tests it multiple times, and after going through rigorous testing, it becomes a theory. Thus, a theory is what we believe to be true, based on evidence in testing. But it has not been "proven" to be true, only shown to be likely based on current evidence. After all, theories are only as good as their evidence. Once evidence is submitted that destroys the theory, a new one must be created that takes into account the new evidence. That is the problem with a round earth. Like evolution, the theory has several flaws. Not as many evolution perhaps, but many all the same. But this does not belong in the debate. round earth versus flat earth is a separate matter entirely. If you only brought this up to attempt to get me to concede that the Bible promotes the theory of a flat earth, then you certainly have it, I concede. But that is a separate debate for a separate time. As for the age of rocks, I could go into detail as to how the means by which scientists determine the age of such things is faulty at best, but won't as this would constitute a new argument. In fact, I believe that by making that statement like that, you introduced a new argument against creationism, which would have violated your debate rules, as we are supposed to make our arguments in the second round. Introducing a new argument in the third round would certainly not be valid. The Bible does not teach polytheism, though that is certainly one of the most common arguments made against it. The matter of one God being a trinity is easily explained, and goes back to what I said about natural law. God, being the creator of all things, is not bound by his creation. To do so would make him subject to his own creationism, something he could not do because he all powerful. True, he could become subject to his creation if so chose, but he would still have the ultimate power over them. Think of it like human being creating robots. We are not subject to the robots, but could be if we wanted to. However, we are still in control, as we were the ones who programmed them. They can't rebel against their programming, unless they were programmed to do that. But even then, they cannot rebel against that programming. This is why robot uprisings are nothing more than Hollywood fantasy, and could never occur in real life. And thus, not being subject to natural law, God can do things that we, who are subject to such law, cannot fully comprehend. That is why we are not able to fully grasp eternity. In the same way, we cannot grasp the concept of one being three. But I suppose the best way to describe it would be like this: Suppose you have three people. Physically, they are very different. But they are one in mind. They have the same mind, and thus act similiarly, because they are truly one in mind, though separate in body, or being. Why the trinity is not quite like, I believe that paints a very good picture of how it is. My opponent then goes on to say that abiogenesis, evolution, and the Big Bang theory are separate theories, and that they cannot reasonably be blended for an argument. While he is right in saying that someone could believe in a God as a creator of the universe through evolution, he is incorrect in trying to argue that such theories are unique to themselves. Why? Because, assuming, as my opponent does, that all of existence was brought about by evolution without the help of a creator, then the other theories would have to be included in order for the entire theory as a whole to work. They would all depend on each other. For example, evolution cannot work without abiogenesis, for otherwise there is not a theory to explain the existence of living things coming from the non-living. A different universe is not the answer either. If we assume this universe came from another one, then we must ask ourselves: where did this other universe come from? We cannot scientifically say that it came from nothing because evolution is subject to natural law, and in natural law, things do not come from nothing. My theory about a creator may not be able to be to be proven true directly, but if all other theories are proven false and mine is the only theory in existence not proven false, (hypothetically speaking of course) then it is most likely true. Thus, it is proven indirectly that there is a creator. Your explanation of gravity does not adequately refute the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That there are opposing forces is a given. But there is still the matter of cost: lost energy. If you jumped, the energy it took to complete that jump is now gone from you, and can only be replenished through constructive intelligent activity (i.e., eating). "Self-repair systems" need energy. Thus, the force of gravity has already taken a toll, albeit a small one, on your body. This is natural law in action, and is a valid weakness in the theory of evolution. My opponent attempts to claim that abiogenesis is not only the source of organic matter (living things) arising from the in-organic (non-living things), but also the source of the instincts that living things possess. This is not valid because, again, natural law does not allow for nothing to come from something, an idea without which abiogenesis cannot function. There is not a means by which life can be created, except from other living things, naturally. Thus, abiogenesis must either be 1. supernatural or 2. Impossible. To prove it possible, one would have to exhibit an example of life coming from non-life, that can readily be observed in the present, not something which has been assumed to have happened in the past. As this cannot be done, abiogenesis is thus disproved. Abiogenesis may not evolution, but evolution cannot exist without it and explain the existence of life by natural cause. The car example illustrates many particles coming together to construct a functioning object. Such a thing is possible by evolution without abiogenesis and the big bang theory. a billion Christians once believed the earth was flat, but you believe they messed that up. Once better evidence is submitted (discovered) adjustments in thinking must be made. Unfortunately I ran out of space. I would like to go, and go into better detail, but cannot. Suffice it to say, I believe have made an excellent case why evolution is not scientifically and naturally possible and how creationism is the answer. Thank you