(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con)

R3 ArgumentsSummary of opponent's r2 argument.First, I want to comment on my opponent's r2 argument. My opponent has done little to explain what version of creationism he is supporting. The contender has failed to build up creationism, focusing almost completely on the offensive. I've learned from previous debates that going all defense is a poor decision strategically. If my opponent throws 8,000 characters of attacks and zero characters of defense I can effectively lock myself in trying to defend against my opponent, and let them take control of the debate. Instead, I will split 50/50 offense and defense. First, attacking and showing how my opponent has not mentioned Jesus once in the debate nor quoted the Bible. My opponent could easily be backing up deism, another religion, another denomination of Christianity, and finally failed to explain their interpretations of the Bible in regards to flat Earth vs round, old vs young Earth, geocentric or barycenter, and so on. If my opponent chooses to take the Bible metaphorically, then my opponent's case for creationism is immediately weakened. Since, how can my opponent believe in creationism and not flat Earth? This would be a deviation from the scriptures and my opponent would have to explain why to believe the Bible literally in one passage and metaphorically in another. The other route is to take the entire Bible literally. Forcing my opponent to back up Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Great fish, flat Earth, geocentric Earth, and Young Earth in additional to creationism. I must assume this is a tactical decision on my opponent's part. To not commit and not build up their argument for creationism hoping I would miss the gaping hole. I have noticed the hole, the absence in my opponent's argument, and I plan to exploit this weakness fully. I will exploit my opponent's non-committal approach by forcing my opponent to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible. If my opponent attempts a metaphorical approach, I will call him on that, since my opponent will have gained an unfair advantage by me having to hit a moving target.OffenseThe Earth has proven to be round. Yet, my opponent sticks to a literal interpretation of the Bible. As seen here from answering-christanity.com an awesome website for showing the flaws of Christianity in my opinion. "The Earth has Edges?!"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" " [7]Yet, satellite pictures have shown the world to be round. A flat Earth would have trouble with the theory of gravity. After-all, all those rotation would gradually turn a flat Earth into a spherical Earth. Then, there is the problem that all the other planets are round. Why would Venus be round and the Earth flat. Next, is the problem with Young Earth creationism and light speed. Distant galaxies are over a billion light years away. Meaning the age of the Universe must be at least a billion years old. "Most young earth creationists don't realize that the young earth model contradicts God's account of the fourth creation day in Genesis 1:And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, (Genesis 1:14)" [8] Taken from the godandscience.org website. An awesome website for destroying Young Earth Creationism. "Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion19Age of meteorites 4.5 billion24Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion25Age of earth rocks 4.2 billion17Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion26Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion27" [8]Finally, there is the problem of polytheism, multiple Gods, within the Bible. The trinity, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How can we trust a book that claims there is one God, and then promotes polytheism? We can't. This ought to destroy literal interpretations of the Bible, thus discrediting the main source of my opponent's argument. DefenseNow, I will attack your arguments that attack evolution. "While there are many theories as to how the evolution process began, they usually involve some sort of major event. A large bang perhaps, or several small ones." Kescarte_DeJudica My opponent's argument has blended evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang Theory. These are three separate theories. Someone who believes in deism for example could believe in evolution but not abiogenesis nor the Big Bang Theory. Instead, having a faith based approach that a deism God created the universe, thus Big Bang, and the first microorganisms than this God disappeared. Evolution, would then be completely scientific. "One could assume that the bangs came from something that had been there for all eternity. After all, what else would make sense? We can assume something has always been, but not that something comes from nothing. For when have we ever found in science, or anywhere else, that something came from nothing?" Kescarte_DeJudicaA different universe is a more likely scenario. We would have little knowledge of this other universe that our universe came from. Something may come from nothing. "That is what Creationists believe. That a divine creator created the all of existence, and that this creator was, is, and always has existed." KescarteWhile I cannot prove you false, you have no proof that your statement is true either. This is also an answer that creates more questions. How can God have always existed? How can such a being sustain himself? Can mundane object have always existed? "While evolution teaches that things can become more organized and efficient when left to their own devices, the second law of dynamics says the exact opposite." KescarteOften, two forces oppose each other, yet they do not always cancel each other out. Think gravity for example, in order to jump I must overcome gravity. Since I am able to jump, I can conclude that my muscular system was able to overcome gravity. Instincts and self-repair systems are able to overcome entropy."evolution offers no explanation to it's origin, unless you assumed that it "evolved" as well." KescartePlants have and microorganisms have primitive instincts. This is how an amoeba is able to engulf prey and how plants are able to turn towards the sun. Single cell organisms were created via abiogenesis with simple instincts which evolved to more complicated instincts. ": if one area of the cycle of nature fails, then the entire system will fail, and every living thing will perish." KescarteLiving organisms are tough, there are microorganisms on Mars. [9] Despite, less than ideal circumstances life manages to persist. There is life from polar bears in the arctic and Emperor penguins, to scorpions in the desert, to deep within the ocean, dry, cold, humid, and hot. "Evolution would have us believe that living things evolved from non-living things. " KescarteAbiogenesis is not evolution and evolution is not abiogenesis. [10] "5. More Evidence of Intelligent Design" KescarteBad analogy of a car and evolution. This seems to have nothing to do with evolution at all. This has more to do with abiogenesis and the big bang theory. [11]"carbon dating system" KescarteThe carbon dating system has been proven to be effective by other Christians. I don't see how over a billion Christians, many of them experts, could somehow mess this up. I also fail to perceive a motive for lying in this scenario. Thanks for debating. I look forward to your response. Sources7. http://www.answering-christianity.com...8. http://www.godandscience.org...9. http://www.nature.com...10. https://www.britannica.com...11. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...