Creationism is not a logical alternitave to Evolution.

Burden of ProofThis was completely dropped. Hence my opponent concedes that I do not have a burden of proof in this debate. He continues to say that "the debate seems to be two sided", if that's the case, Pro still cannot drop my argument explaining why I don't have one. For this reason, he concedes this argument. AffSince my opponent dodged the contention last round, I will reiterate it to his suiting:"In my opponents arguments he does two things: Provides rectitude for evolution Says that there isn't any evidence for creationism But this does not affirm the resolution. Why does it? My opponent missed a piece. His argument is depicted by this syllogism:" P1: There is evidence for evolution P2: There isn't evidence for creationism C: Ergo, evolution is more logical For the argument to actually affirm the resolution, it should assume this form: P1: There is evidence for evolution P2: There isn't any evidence for creationism P3: If there is more evidence for evolution, then evolution is more logical than creationism C: Ergo, evolution is more logical than creationism As predicted, he cites an ipse dixit he says that it is more logical because evolution is not written in an old book. This evidently doesn't suffice. What is the justification for that? Pro has not successfully proven that creationism isn't a logical alternative for evolution. .. He repeatedly states: "it's written in an old book", "it isn't science", "there's no proof". Without correlation (justification from the third premise) there is nothing linking the premises to the conclusion. Creationism "To clear up confusion, what I'm saying is, because of the abundance of research and evidence to support evolution it is a more logical theory than Creationism which has lack of research or evidence that supports it. That is the my objective comparison. " But why is that? Why? Why do you come to the conclusion that it must be more logical if it has more evidence for it? This is an ipse dixit as you did not provide necessary justification for it. I can say the opposite - creationism is more logical as it has less evidence for it. His objective comparison lacks coherency and is a bare assertion. "I thank you Con for confirming that there is not any evidence for creationism. " When did I do this? "In this case I actually am the source explaining that I can not find any real evidence. " This is confirmation bias and an anecdotal fallacy - just because YOU cannot find evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't any. I provided an argument last round - that's evidence. "Is Con suggesting that Creation is real by this statement. " No I am not, I need not prove creationism to be real. "And if Con says abiogenesis provides the origin of life. Why then does he think Creationism is logic. Its one or the other. " What if God used abiogenesis to create life? Your logic dictates that when someone stabs someone to death, the person didn't murder the other person; the knife did. "You ask why its not logical to believe something because its written in an old book. Okay I ask you, do you believe the Egyptian religion, or Greek, or Romans religion, or the Koran? How about Satanism? That's an old book, do you believe in that? My guess would be probably no. " I don't see how this proves creationism to be illogical. "My logic is people tend to stick with the one religion taught to them by there guardian or parent, which learned from theirs, and so on. " No proof. "Have any of the people ever stopped and tried to find proof for the these things they were taught? " I did. " A book Religion says is the word of God. But why doesn't this "God" with his all powerful, all wise, and all knowing fallibility. forget to include things in this really old book like, don't rape, don't torture, don't molest or abuse children. If this being "God" couldn't think of these horrible things as "sin" Why would it be logical to fallow his ideas? " Maybe he didn't forget maybe he didn't need to use them. Just because you think of those things as sin, doesn't mean that they are objectively sinful. "But if that's your view then you are saying the Bible is not the word of God. So if the Bible is written by man why is it logical to believe in God. " Your definition of creationism consists of the biblical account of divine creation - I can interpret the bible in any way I want, hence at bare minimum, all I need to believe is that a God is the creator of the universe. "Saying there is a God because it's an easy way to explain something, not understood, is not logic. " You are referring to God of The Gaps, and I never used that argument anywhere. KCA My opponent merely states that all the listed premises are opinionated and non-factual. He accuses me of God of The Gaps. I stated that the cause must be transcendent, and that the only transcendent entity able to create the universe would be God. This was dropped. " also before the big bang it's been speculated that our whole universe could have possible passed through a giant black hole, causing the singularity that exploded, after the black hole decomposed enough. Which could suggest its always been around. " This presupposes the multi-verse theory. .. Nonetheless, that cause is not transcendent so it doesn't explain the existence of all space-time matter and energy. Pro has not refuted this argument - he attempts to dismiss everything with an ipse dixit and suggests a material cause for all material - an oxymoron. Pro's Conclusion "In conclusion Con has not shown any logic for Creationism. " I didn't need to since you dropped the burden of proof argument. "He has not even seemed to notice the evidence I've provided. " I acknowledged it, but I had proven that the evidence provided does not successfully affirm that creationism is less logical. "He has failed to provide concrete evidence for his argument. " I didn't have an argument, or even if I did use the KCA, Pro doesn't successfully refute it. "I again have looked for evidence for Creation. I still have not had any luck" Anecdotal fallacy. Conclusion I used non-cognitivism to show that my opponent did not successfully correlate his premises to his conclusion. He did not prove (without committing an appeal to intuition fallacy) that if A has more evidence than B, then A is more logical than B. I have professed that I did not have a burden of proof and that if I refute my opponent's arguments that I would win the debate. That wasn't touched by Pro. The KCA was dismissed without evidence and the multi-verse theory doesn't explain how all of space-time, matter and energy came into creation ex nihilio. Pro uses a lot of his characters providing more evidence for evolution, which I have shown no problem with. And Pro presents a lot of unneeded clarification about what a scientific theory is - it's a red herring.