Evolution vs Creationism

== Response to Rebuttals == I do agree that vestigial organs were useful to our ancestors. I did not misread your argument. Pro seems to be missing the point that if these organs were once useful to our ancestors (thus, being necessary for life to advance), then an intelligent designer would be completely justified in designing them. The fact that they are currently useless is irrelevant. The purpose of the vemeronasal organs was to help our ancestors survive and reproduce so that we could be here today living in enough comfort to not need those organs anymore. "This statement alone shows that species can develop and change, and likely evolve." - Yes, I know, I've already admitted that. But once again, that's not at all what this debate is about. We are not debating how life changes. We're debating how life BEGAN. I have repeatedly challenged Pro to demonstrate how evolution accounts for this beginning - how life springs from non-life. I still have not seen an answer. Pro has given us nothing to demonstrate why evolution is a good explanation for how non-life transformed into life. In regard to the discussion on code, Pro says: "Again, Con uses the argument that 'Life is too complex to be created by chance.'" This is not what I'm saying at all. The complexity of life has nothing to do with it. My entire point here is that DNA is a code, and codes never form naturally or randomly. Every code we currently know of was generated by intelligence. Again, think dumping ink on paper vs. Shakespeare writing Romeo and Juliet. The argument goes like this: All codes come from intelligence. DNA is a code. Therefore, DNA comes from intelligence. To defeat this, all Pro had to do was show that not all codes come from intelligence. I challenged Pro to do so in Round 3, and tellingly they did not respond to the challenge. Since Pro admits that DNA is code, and since Pro could not show that codes can form through a random natural process, we must conclude that intelligence is the best explanation for the existence of DNA and therefore life itself. The Miller-Urey experiment: Ah yes, the classic M-U experiment. Fascinating, no doubt. But it only shows how amino acids can form in a carefully controlled laboratory, not the early Earth. In fact, most scientists no longer accept its findings. Scientists now believe the early Earth atmosphere was different than the one simulated by Miller and Urey, and when they repeated the experiment with a more accurate early atmosphere, the experiment failed: "Researchers who have repeated the Miller-Urey experiment under the new atmospheric assumptions, including Miller, have shown that this new mixture does not produce amino acids." [1]. Regardless, amino acids still aren't life. Pro still cannot demonstrate how life comes from non-life or how amino acids naturally turn into code (DNA). "Question for Con" - Pro claims that I have merely made a "barrage of rebuttals," and that I have not made arguments of my own. I would like to direct Pro to Round 2, where I very clearly made 3 arguments: 1) Something cannot come from nothing, which means design is a better explanation than evolution. 2) The existence of irreducibly complex biological systems is better explained by design than a gradual process of small mutations. 3) The probability of a designed universe is unfathomably greater than the probability of an accidental one. In each of these arguments, I showed why design is a stronger explanation for life than evolution. Pro has since dropped #1, failed to understand #2, and never responded to #3. In reference to #1, Pro does say that God would have presumably come from nothing too. This is the topic for a whole separate debate, but in sum, God is eternal and requires no creation. The very definition of God is an omniscient, eternal, supernatural (lit. "above nature") being. Therefore, God is outside of all things natural - including time - which means God could not be created because creation is a temporal act. By definition, God has always existed and requires no creation event. But, like I said, this is a whole separate topic.... As I explained in Round 2, there is no "scientific proof" for either evolution or creation. We can therefore only find an inference to the best explanation. I never said that evolution is too complex to exist. Rather, I said that evolution cannot currently explain how codes form naturally and how life springs from non-life. Intelligent design can. Therefore, I.D. is the better explanation. I encourage all voters to look past their own personal opinions on evolution and strictly weigh the strength of arguments and rebuttals presented within this debate. Thank you Pro for a fun debate. [1] https://phys.org...