Evolution vs Creationism

There, you admit yourself that we only have limited knowledge, we do not know for sure, and could be wrong." True. However, we only use evidence we have CURRENTLY. If the current evidence shows that A is true, it is considered true. That's the whole point of falsifiability. All scientific theories or facts are falsifiable. "so being wrong 100 times is equal to the one, as they were still wrong." That's still using the continuum fallacy. Your statement is even more similar to example #1 from my previous link. (1) "You acknowledge that the theories you support can be false by this." Addressed in first rebuttal of this round. "Your source uses each animal species, while the real ark brought only two of each order or family." Huh. That's a pretty good explanation. Let's take a look at two other impossibilities: Plants: Your link (2) says that plants weren't on the ark. However, the salt water would have made plants extinct, like what Hurricane Katrina did to soil, except worse. (3) Fish: The flood would have caused a mixing of fresh water and salt water, thus disturbing many, if not all aquatic life. (4) "This evidence is predominantly theoretical evidence, with some observations, too; this is not good, solid evidence." Well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black! Your evidence from round 3 on speed of light had NO EVIDENCE at all! It's just a blind explanation! I'm starting to regret saying that your "two of each order or family" was a pretty good explanation, as what you are doing is trying to interpret your Bible in a way that is best fit for you. Please try not to do this again, as even in your Bible, Jesus speaks against hypocrisy. (Matthew 7:4ï¿½1) "And, please explain this paragraph, I could not understand it." Just look at the last explanation in (5). "None of the major steps of evolution have ever been recapitulated in a lab" Au contraire, (6). "When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection" Huh. Turns out that somebody had a problem with your argument, and contacted some friends on rationalskepticism.org for help. Here's what happened: (7) The next argument is about fruit flies. Who would have guessed. While scientists still don't know why they haven't evolved, we do know of things that have evolved OUTSIDE OF LABS! 1. The Peppered Moth. This is a good example. Before people started polluting the earth, Peppered Moths were peppered white and grey to blend in with trees, but when the industrial revolution started, the trees became polluted. Thus, a new type of Peppered Moth was better at camouflaging. It was darker to blend in with polluted trees. So, it became the dominant species of Peppered Moth. Nowadays, people are trying to stop pollution, and so the trees are starting to retain their lighter color. So, the original Peppered Moths are the dominant species of Peppered Moth. 2. Nylon-eating bacteria. Just take a look (8) 3. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria. MRSA is resistant to benzyl penicillin and methicillin. (9) "Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won't develop 'spontaneously' " That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Two different things. (10) "The little 'Grand Canyon of the Toutle River' is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon." There are some differences between these Canyons that show why the "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" formed relatively quicker than the Grand Canyon. (11) "Coal, supposedly millions of years to form, could be forming as we speak in Spirit Lake, where tons of logs were deposited after Mount St. Helens eruption, became waterlogged, sunk, and formed peat." You can dig a hole in two minutes with a shovel, but that doesn't mean that all holes are two minutes old. While peat could form in 30 years, that doesn't mean that all peat forms in 30 years. The conditions were PERFECT, and it formed in 30 years. If it was off, it takes MUCH longer. CLOSING STATEMENT: Thank you for the debate. It was great, argument-filled, and had two people who know what they're doing. (1) http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... (2) https://answersingenesis.org... (This is the link you go to from your link to get to what your were talking about) (3) http://rationalwiki.org... (4) http://rationalwiki.org... (5) https://answersingenesis.org... (6) http://www.newscientist.com... (7) http://www.rationalskepticism.org... (8) http://en.wikipedia.org... (9) http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... (10) http://rationalwiki.org... (11) http://scienceblogs.com...