Evolution vs creationism

I will support creationism in this debate and show that creationism is fundamentally a better theory and the evolutionary model. Contention 1 is time-scale a. Evolutionist believe that evolution occurs due to natural variability and mutations in genetics. This theory is an assumption which is not in fact supported by substantive proof. Evolutionist claim macro evolution based on the findings of micro evolution and assumes that micro evolution points to macro evolution when in fact it does not. "The observable changes that evolutionists cite as evidence for their paradigm, such as in sticklebacks, bighorn sheep, Atlantic cod, pollution-resistant worms, and antibiotic and pesticide resistance are all going the wrong way. They"re the direct opposite of what microbes-to-man evolution requires." Not only are these changes in the wrong direction but Evos (evolutionists) must admit that all mutation we see are destructive in nature. The Evolutionary Model Cannot Account For This Fact...every mutation we see is destructive in nature and not beneficial, even the minor ones. cancer is a great testament to this fact. We should see a vaster array of species. For instance why is it that only homo-sapiens roam the world, why is it that there are no more neanderthals or differing human types still alive to this day? Furthermore, why hasn't the human population mutated since the dawn of recorded history in Any Way? Evolution simply doesnt have enough time to occur on such a vast and specific scale as claimed, even accepting the idea that the earth is 4.54 billion years old (which isn't fully proven) and especially acknowledging the fact that almost all mutations are defects. b. Evolutionistic ideas as opposed to creationist ideas don't hold up in the Grand Scheme of things. As logical people we must be sure to address the simple fact that matter can neither create nor destroy itself. In the physical realm infinity is impossible, the universe had to have had a starting point and in the current scientific view, there had to have been at one point, nothingness. This idea is impossible, there cant be nothing and if there were it is completely scientifically illogical to believe that two particles would instantaneously be created and cause the big bang. In essence we come to the problem of the push back. In the push back we simply keep asking where the origin of the origin came from. What was before the big bang? What was before the before the big bang? The creationist model can account for this however. The bible says that the Earth was created in 7 days. Fundamentalists took the english translation as fact and so assumed 24 hours was a day. The reality however is that the word used in the bible for 'day' is a poetic termed used to mean "a period of time". The word used is "yom" and can mean Several things related to time, only one of which is a twenty-four hour period. yom- 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, both compare a day to a thousand years demonstrating how this word can be used to mean different periods of time. God is a being who exists outside of the realm of time and space however. That is how he created it and that is why The Push Back does not apply to the creationist view, God operates outside of our perception of time. He is the one who created it you know... c. Creationist view points are essential to a moral standpoint for humanity. Without god's decrees which give us a moral base, humanity's moral outlook must be completely subjective while god shows us that some things are definitely wrong and some, definitely wrong. Evos absolutely cannot escape the fact that evolution means that morals are invented and imagined and accepting an evos view point means that you can no longer believe that your moral compass is correct because each person has their own moral compass and it is not your place or right to impose your beliefs on them. This truth is acknowledged by leading atheists. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." Richard Dawkins, a leading voice of atheism, says, "Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." In terms of the debate, voting affirmative means accepting that there is no real meaning to life and morals do not exist, it is to throw out your very human nature. Evos are trapped in a mental cage. The only way to prove god's existence to them would be to show physical evidence. To show that some laws have been broken in the physical world. This cannot happen of course so there is no way to prove, with physical evidence, the existence of god. d. The argument from truth 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. e. The origin of the idea of god 1. We have ideas of many things. 2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. 3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God"an infinite, all-perfect being. 4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause. 6. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God. 7. But only God himself has those qualities. 8. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. 9. Therefore God exists. f. The world wide general consensus 1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine." 2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience. 3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced. g. Pascal's Wager creationists are often denounced because they rely on faith in stead of scientific consensus or lack thereof, in fact it is atheist who have the most faith though. I've shown many large flaws in atheist and evo ideology and I have only scratched the surface. Religion has been the most longstanding and traditional outlook. Current atheist and evo ideas deny the consensus and go off on a limb based on their personal beliefs so they rely on just as much and often times more faith than believers. one nice demonstration of this fact is what is called Pascal's Wager which is a fairly simply line of logic concerning the result of either belief: If you place your bet with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing." In conclusion Evolution is not a reliable theory and there are many many holes in it, it simply doesnt have enough time to occur. atheism fails because it doesn't recognize that there must be a being outside of reality which created it and without a creator we have absolutely no moral compass on which to rely. I have also provided a plethora of logical proofs and for those reasons I can only contend creationism over evolutionary ideas. http://www.trueorigin.org... http://creation.com... https://answersingenesis.org... http://www.compellingtruth.org...