Creationism's Claims Are Valid

I enjoyed your argument Con, well done. This is not natural for me, but I'll see how well I can do. I would like to point out that the debate topic is simply "Creationism's Claims Are Valid" with creationism being defined as "The universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, rather than by natural processes." In this, we must acknowledge that there are a wide variety of creationist claims. I do not assume that I am to defend or argue for them all, but merely for the validity of the argument. Con has rightfully accused that I did not argue for the validity of specific acts. I was not intending to argue for any specific divine acts validity, but for the validity of the claim of creationism; the universe and life came about through divine acts. The evidence is available for everyone, and although my outlined process may have been inaccurate overall, it was summing up our basic understanding of cosmology, physics, geology, biology, etc... Con states in his second point that the origins of the universe do not necessitate creation, which is entirely true. It also doesn't preclude it. I did not specifically mention divine, yet as representing creationism, it is inferred that the origin is caused by the divine. But let me say that. Through a specific act of divine intervention, the universe was brought into being. This is manifest through the big bang, and through the subsequent expansion of the universe. Con continues to criticize my use of known "natural" processes. But in the defining of this debate, it is on me to explain specifically the universe and living organisms originating from divine acts. We can have everything in our understanding explained with perfect validity through our understood science no matter what we presume BEGAN the universe or life. Creationism can be completely compatible with all of our scientific discoveries. Creationism, in this general sense, posits a cause to the universe and a cause to life. These are both easy targets for creationists to attack as neither has an explanation that is sufficient to science, or is at least theorized. There is no understanding of what came before the big bang. We can hypothesize nothing, and singularities, but those are not evidenced. We can, with equal support, propose the divine. Similarly, with life; we can do our best to create life to the best of our ability and our understanding, we may even succeed in the creation of life. But how likely are we to know how the life we have now originated? Con claims that I need to show divinity. But why should that be? Can Con show "nothing"? Can Con show how our life originated? Based on the information at hand, it is equally valid to propose natural or divine. The real argument here is that the divine explanation is one that cannot have a grounding or basis in science, as the study of nature, and naturally needs to deviate to the realm of supernatural. But to my understanding, that was not a defined limitation to this debate. I simply suggest that I could posit a divine being as the origination of both our universe and life, and with what we know, that is technically valid. For the record, I love Lawrence Krauss! Creationism does not need a sound basis in fact to be valid, it just has to be possible. It will remain possible until (and likely after) we have a sound basis in fact supporting the origins of the universe. Too illustrate, young earth creationists constantly fight a sound basis, being evolution. Their arguments are generally not valid, but they continue. The goal should be argument and education to pull people away from the damaging ideals that tear parts of our future generations away from scientific understanding.