Creationism is an irrational explanation for life on Earth

First of all I would like to acknowledge your statements: "You start off by saying that "The Bible is an unreliable source of information and is flawed". I can't understand why you would think that, though. The Bible is the most read book in the world. It beats #2 on the list of most read books in the world by a couple thousands of millions. Are all of those people Christian? I highly doubt that. Anyways, that topic is for another debate, we're here to talk about the rationality of Creationism." Right then you have made the Ad Populum fallacy which illogically states that 'If many believe so, it is so.' You may feel free to search that up, but I do not wish to delve into that anymore, as it is quite irrelevant. (FYI: I actually own a copy and read the Bible before) You stated: "Let's examine what you've said here, as you make an attempt to confirm evolution." I would like to remind you that the argument is on 'Creationism is an irrational explanation for life on Earth' and therefore I'm not arguing that evolution/abiogenesis is confirmed (Although evolution might as well be), I'm just saying it is more rational than creationism. "Evolution is a theory. It isn't a scientific law. Scientific laws are 100% true. What you're trying to explain here is a theory. Have you proved that theory? No, simply because it hasn't been done yet, and it never will. Why? It's a gold mine of errors. Thus, explaining why it's still just a theory." ...is a classical argument against evolution. But I believe your definition of a scientific theory is flawed. Cell theory, Theory of relativity, Theory of molecular genetics, Theory of gravity are all 'theories' but nonetheless facts. (Unless you want to debate me about why gravity doesn't exist and etc) THEORIES, in the scientific world mean a scientific explanation for a way something works, whereas LAWS, are a literally a defining rule or law for the nature of the world and beyond. The LAW of gravity exists and states that 'two objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them' while the THEORY of gravity explains why. The second LAW of thermodynamics state that "the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium" (Basically an 'ordered' isolated system will tend to go to 'chaos'.). This is a LAW because it doesn't explain something, just states the tendency for a system to behave a certain way. This is why evolution is, and always will be a theory. "Yes, new kinds and variations of a certain species are possible, but this isn't, and has never been done by science. What you don't, and refuse to admit, is this very fact; no species has ever been proved to evolve in any way." On the contrary, evolution have been seen happen, but not 'Darwinian evolution'. In fact, many creationists actually accept evolution to some extent. (God made a male and a female dog which evolved into all the species of dogs we know today) However, given time, this type of evolution can change into different 'Families' of animals and etc. "You base most of your first points off of a thing called "natural selection". This idea has been proved false before, also. Say that natural selection were true, and thus, a reality. What would happen? Humans would adapt to their setting on a physical level. Those who live in the north, in the cold, would develop fur to keep warm. If this were true, humans in the south, the tropic areas, would have reflective skin to keep them cool, or something along those lines. Natural selection just isn't true." I don't want to insult you, but I find this quite funny. Humans, and other 'intelligent' creatures have the intellectual capacity to create tools. Humans in the cold wore and made jackets. Humans developed medicine and a social system to cope as well. Because of such 'tools', humans have stopped dying off, and using the logic of natural selection: 1. Animals are occasionally born with mutations, which can be good bad or do neither. 2. Animals with favorable traits are more likely survive and reproduce. 3. Animals pass down genes which define specific traits 4. Different locations, climates, predators and etc can effect what is considered a 'favorable trait', making species evolve differently based on surroundings, creating new species and etc. 5. Over time, this can create entirely different 'kinds' of animals. Favorable (Eg. Higher immunity) and non favorable (Eg. Born blind), less likely to benefit/be disadvantaged from such mutation (Step 2), therefore stopping this process. "Now, on to your second points on Abiogenesis. For those who don't know, Abiogenesis is, by definition, the natural process of life coming from non-living matter, under proper conditions, of course. I'm not quite sure why you brought this up, as scientists of molecular biology have began to conclude that this is less and less probable, and is outside the realm of probability. I won't discuss much of it here, or my own head would start hurting. If I could see what you have to say on this topic, that would be splendid." Believe it or not, parts of the theory of abiogenesis are actually tested, such as step 3. I have no idea where you got the idea that molecular biologist disagree, but latest research prove otherwise: http://phys.org... (Feel free to read it. I find it intellectually enlightening.) "Now, finally, onto my side of the story. Creationism. You say that there is zero evidence in favor of creationism. I disagree, and I disagree with a generic answer that, quite frankly, hasn't been disproven yet." You're forgetting the logical fallacy of burden of proof, meaning the "Obligation on somebody presenting a new idea/ claim to provide evidence to support its truth. Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true." "Look around you, there is evidence of creationism all around. You don't even need to leave your seat to see that our entire universe is in perfect design. We, planet Earth, sit in a position perfect from the Sun. A fraction closer or further away, life would not be possible. Our solar system is a perfect design of flawless living conditions. And, by definition, a design must have been created by a designer." Think about it. Is the Universe really that perfect? I mean, if you ask me, I could have done better than this so called 'God'. The Universe is 14 billion years old, and humans have only been around for 200,000 of those years. In around 5 billion or so years, the sun will expand into a red giant, consuming the Earth and ending all life on it. In fact, a vast majority of the Universe is inhabitable. I'm going it a bit philosophical here. If Earth was closer to the sun, we would not exist. Life on Earth would be impossible. However, the Earth is in a perfect position, and therefore we exist. It would seem that its perfect, but in reality, in order for us to debate, the Earth needs to be in that position. To address: "Could all of this you see before you come from chaos? Perfection doesn't come from chaos, and never will." This is known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You can research more yourself as I am running out of characters, but it means that this is only true for a closed system where there is no energy source. However, if you do some more research on cosmology, you can see that the universe is likely not to be a closed system. But this point about the Universe is irrelevant to the original topic of life. For more info read: http://www.scientificamerican.com... I look forward to your response.