There is evidence for Creation

Termite"This would only be true if the termite was already trying to digest cellulose There would be no need at all for the termite to have protozoa. The protozoa would not be a benefit to them if there was nothing for it to digest."Thought experiment.A is eating cellulose, but is not very effective at it.B can help it digest cellulose, and would benefit from a host a host, but does not need one.If A keeps eating cellulose, it would be beneficial for it to become the host of B.A can now eat cellulose, and B can live in a host.A no longer needs to ability to digest cellulose by itself, so over time it loses that ability.B no longer needs the ability to live independently, so over time it loses that ability.Both A and B benefited from the mutations for their environment.This does not violate natural selection.Replace A with termite and B with protazoa.Again, even if I conceded this point, it would do nothing to affirm your position."When was the last time that you saw an animal evolve. When was the last time you saw an explosion created life."Both have been explained by natural law. Also, the silver fox experiment is a great example of evolution. As well as that, life came from abiogenesis, not the big bang."Bacteria evolving to resist anti-bacterial injections.If you knew about this you would know that this is called adaptation."Genetic adaption=evolution....Bees and Flowers"The flowers would not be beneficial to the bees if they already ate something else."ANOTHER thought experiment.Creature eats A.B appears in the environment that Creature lives.Creature can eat B.Eating B is easier and less dangerous than eating A.Creature starts to eat B.Creature evolves over time to eat from B easier and to get more out of it.Since Creature no longer eats A, it starts to lose the ability to eat A.Over time, Creature can no longer eat A but can eat B more efficiently.Replace Creature with bees over time.Replace A with whatever food source they used to have.Replace B with flowers.Again, this does not violate natural selection."And also they would become dependent on the flower which would make it weaker than other bees."Again, no it would not. They would be able to survive more easily, despite the dependence, and therefore would be more suited to their environment. You keep strawmanning evolution.Morality"This statement actually is saying that the twin towers and other terrorist attacks are right."Strawman. I said people have their own views of rights and wrongs. I am also saying that there is no such thing as a real "right" or a real "wrong".You also have not provided any evidence for an objective morality."What are the public schools actually teaching about our history. What are thy leaving out that Americans don't even know about their own country. The founding fathers clearly believed in a God and founded this country off of the Bible."1) Yes, the vast vast majority of the founding fathers believed in a god. That is completely irrelevant to the founding of this country being biblically based or secularly based.2) No, this country was not founded on the Bible. You have provided no evidence for that claim."And if you have ever read the Declaration of independence then you would know that the second paragraph starts off by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."" 1) Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence was not a document to decide how our country should be, it was a declaration to Britain that we were going to become an independent nation.2) The statement you wrote is also refering to an European philosopher's (John Locke) philosophy, one who was popular. This was most likely included to insult the British government by saying they do not give these rights."And in our pledge of allegiance (apparently not according to Obama) we state "One nation, under God"."So what? This was not included in our pledge until the last century[1]. It was added later in response to the Red Scare because people were afraid of Communism. Since the Soviets were officially atheistic, the United States, despite the constitution, added religious parts to our government."Our founding fathers believed in Creation, that God created the world"Appeal to authority. Also, irrelevant. Of course they believed in creation, it was the only idea at the time of how life got there. Evolution was not yet discovered. Darwin, who discovered evolution, wasn't born until 1809."They were way smarter then we will ever be."Citation please."If these men believed in creation and saw evidence of it, why doesn't anyone see it today"Appeal to authority.Fossil"Your source for the soft tissue being rehydrated is evolutionary. It isn't a trusted site."1) Genetic fallacy.2) You have used creationist websites, should I just say crap about your sources?3) Talkorigins, unlike creationist websites, has actual scientists that help write it. It is reliable.4) Any source that teaches about science in a broad sense or bilogy can be considered "evolutionary" as evolution is the only valid scientific theory at this time, and so that is what is taught."So now you are not even looking at the sources I give."First, you should make it clearer which source is for which argument.Second, your source talks about what the person getting fired said, not what evidence points to."He was fired within 2 weeks of finding the soft tissue, and he wanted to show his students that there actually is soft tissue."Considering how scientists have no problem with there being rehydratable soft tissue on dinosaurs (since it has already been explained how that can happen), this is obviously not why he was fired[2]."More soft tissue is being found, that should never be able to live as long as scientist say. The only way it could be soft is if it died more recently than scientists claim"Again, rehydratable soft tissue is no problem for million year old fossils.Early Man"Early man, according to evolution, was unintelligent and had very primitive tools. If this was true then obviously we would expect to find these tools that they acquired as they progressed. But that is not what we find."Really[3][4][5]?"We find things that we cannot do today. An example is stone henge. How were people who were very unintelligent be able to erect giant stones the way they did without the help of machines."They had simple machines (like when the pyramids were built). Also, this is not "early man" you are talking about now, you are now at early civilizations.Oh, and we know how they built stonehenge[6]."Another is the pyramids. How were the Egyptians able to erect these giant monuments. Even today we can't make one like theirs."Simple machines, we know how they did it[7][8]."Nazca lines"Same as above[9]."Not only that but an artifact made of gold that resemble an airplane has been found"Citation please.Argument Against a Creator GodDo you know what cause and effect is?"How can time not exist"The progression of time is illusionary. The past, present, and future all exist equally."The definition of time is"Irrelevant to the point of philosophical discoveries about time."If time doesn't exist then the earth isn't old at all. The earth then has no age. If there is no time then why do we sleep, have clocks and grow food during certain parts of the year. Don't you realize your contradicting yourself."Because there is the illusion of the progression of time. I also am not contradicting myself."First you say the earth has been around for 3.5 billion years. Then you say that time doesn't really exist, there was no past."Strawman. I never said that there was no past. The past, present, and futre are all equally real. The progression from one to the other is an illusion.Also, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And if we move beyond 4.5 billion years in the earlier than direction of time we would not see the earth. Illusion of time progression=/=no time."Since this argument is mostly the base for your other arguments then the others aren't logical."This one is completely irrelevant. Even if I were to drop this point, which I won't, the others still stand.ConclusionPro has not refuted my argument against the ability for there to be a creator god. He made claims that were not backed up. He strawmanned a lot of what was said, and used other fallacies. Vote Con.Sources[1] http://www.ushistory.org... [2] http://www.livescience.com...;[3] http://humanorigins.si.edu...;[4] http://pages.ucsd.edu...;[5] http://humanorigins.si.edu...;[6] http://www.stonehenge.co.uk...;[7] http://news.discovery.com...;[8] http://daily.jstor.org...;[9] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...;