Evolution more rationtal than creationism/god

Hi Pro Pro's Contention My opponent's objection is that the collapse of the wave-function "does not mean the wave part of the duality disappears it still has to be present otherwise all our molecules loose intrinsic properties." And I absolutely agree with this. However, I do not think that it has much relevance to my argument. Rather, the general point that I was trying to get across is that our - and indeed the universe's wave function has collapsed [1],[2]. Because otherwise, everything would exist as mere potentiality. However, nothing can exist like that. But, we exist consciously. So, our wave-functions have collapsed. And my argument seeks to find an answer as to just why our - and indeed the universe's wave-functions have collapsed. And I draw the conclusion from the experiment, and how observation collapses the wave function. [3] If our and the universe's wave function has collapsed, that means that we have to be observed. But, that goes into a regress of observers, so there then has to be an observer that exists outside of the universe, observing all of us, making us exist as more than just mere potentiality. Maybe my terminology was too simple in my original argument, causing confusion. In hindsight, maybe I should have swapped my first 2 premises for: 1) Wave functions only collapse when they are observed 2) Our wave functions have collapsed That would have been more accurate. However, I still think that my original premises are correct - molecules still only exist in any certain form when they are observed. Pro's 2nd Contention Pro states: "if the quantum world is part of everything then we can only know one part of the system by observation. That means that we can never know all the parts of a system at one time which is what would be expected of an Omniscient god" Absolutely. But again, I don't think that this has any relevance. Sure, we can't know more than one part of the quantum system. But an omniscient God would - that is the whole point of being 'omniscient'. That is the point of my argument; there has to be some form of observer beyond the universe, observing everything. Evolution Pro also talks about my evolution rebuttals, and I will go through them quickly. First argument Pro's objection is that evolution is a "scientific theory can be classified as fact when the theory has been tested multiple times and has been shown to be accurate" However, this seems to have misunderstood the argument. The argument is, that because our cognitive faculties evolved because of survival - not truth - we cannot trust the content beliefs; also meant for survival and not truth therefore. The assumption here is that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and that whatever we 'test' is true. But even these tests are based on our cognitive faculties, which are not based on truth! Second argument This is obviously a matter of opinion. But I think that it is obvious that creationism is the most simple answer out of the two. As I have already explained, there is probably an equal amount of evidence for the two hypothesis - that is the whole point of the debate! I have provided evidence; pro has provided evidence. Pro cannot be be begging the question in assuming that there is more evidence for evolution; it needs to be critically assessed, and I hope I have done that in this debate. Third argument I think that I should clarify here. I am not saying that on an evolutionary worldview, these things are impossible, answerable or incoherent. Rather, I am saying that evolution is so unlikely to produce these traits that we now have merely through genetic mutation and natural selection, that it cannot be rationally accepted. Nevertheless, on the origin of genders, I think that I should point out that asexual reproduction is by no means a 'better means of reproduction'. Because, sexual reproduction encourages genetic variety among species [4], which means that offspring are more likely to adapt to their environment and survive. Conclusion First off, thank you Pro for an enjoyable and interesting debate. That being said. We have both given evidences for Creationism and Evolution. However, I think that I have sucessfully countered Pro's claims; of which, have not been successfully proved to be wrong. So the motion stands - Creationsm is more rational to believe than evolution. Sources: [1] http://deoxy.org... [2] http://www.nature.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...