Creationism is a viable theory

I’ll begin by thanking pro again as a courtesy. I did specifically ask for Pro to combat all my claims, in fact, it was part of the agreed-upon opening rules. However, since there was indeed a lot to cover, that’s fine. What was not fine was Pros preposterous opening and closing lines. He opened his round by saying “Since Con did not substantiate his claims under the heading "evidence" for evolution...” I fairly clearly laid out several proofs, like the human appendix, which under the creationism model stand as proof of evolution and a proof against so-called perfect creation. So as far as I can tell, all my biological proofs stand unaddressed in their entirety. Following this opening remark, Pro closes the round by saying “I propose that Con drop the textual arguments against the Bible...” So in opening, he completely dismisses and avoids the entirety of my biological proofs, then has the chutzpah to tell me to focus on evolutionary proofs. What a ludicrous thing to say. It seems to me that Pro would rather get stuck in discussing translation, and what god really meant, rather than address facts and science. I will combat his claims on the biblical proofs, but I ask that pro next time try and use logic and reason when criticizing my presentation of proof. “He begins by making a fallacious…” Gilgamesh: the exact same story, in the same order. Both stories have: Serpents saying they will “be like god” if they eat forbidden fruit. Being naked in perfect gardens Eating the wrong fruit and miss out on eternity Make clothing to hide their shame Ninti, the Godess of life, is created from Enki’s rib Or take the flood account in Gilgamesh: “All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field…I sent out a dove, and let her go. The dove flew hither and thither, but as there was no resting-place for her, she returned. Then I sent out a swallow, and let her go. The swallow flew hither and thither, but as there was no resting-place for her she also returned. Then I sent out a raven, and let her go...” And the flood account in Genesis: “...Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind... Noah ... sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark...”I have trimmed them for space - but similarities continue, of course. I was looking forward to Pros explanation of the inconstancies in Genesis 2, and he doesn’t disappoint. It’s an old classic. “God is one being who has manifested Himself in three persons, namely Father, Word, and Holy Ghost”. Or, alternatively: “The bible contains bizarre contradictions, so we created a system that makes them all make sense.” If you want to believe that, that’s entirely up to you. I don’t want to get neck deep in the tiresome theology of the trinity. I will submit, as I hope you will submit, that simply saying you are well-read or well-educated in an area will not save you from providing facts to support your side. “Genesis 2 is not a retelling of the creation event but rather a description of particular events which took place on day six, when God made man.” That sounds like the description of a retelling to me. If you want to believe that three or four scribes over different periods of history had the wisdom or “foresight” to describe Genesis 1 in Genesis 2 directly after describing Genesis 1 in Genesis 1 – and to describe Gen. 1 in Gen. 2 in a different order and by referring to god as being of multiples and then of one being (because that offers foresight?)…well that is up to you, but to me it seems like a major logical leap – despite your protesting. In Gen 1: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” And in Gen 2 after Adam is formed from dust: “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.” Any good debate builds to some kind of a climax, and pro kicks the climax off when he submits the catch-all hidden ace of any good creationist “…as a Christian”. Having debated many a creationist both online and of course in-person, any time I see that admission I know I have shaken my opponent. Here we enter the world of faith; a world without logic – much like the Twilight Zone, I expect. I can’t and I refuse to debate anybody in the world of faith, because evidence ceases to have meaning, therefore I can’t reason and therefore I can never win. It is willful ignorance. His claim that he can just simply trust that god has preserved the word is of course utterly ludicrous and completely disregards any proofs I submitted that the bible, like any ancient tale, has been altered over time, and it undisputedly has. On the firmament: They thought that hell, or sheol was beneath them, and that the heavens, or shamayim was above them and that the solid firmament, or sky, held heavenly cosmic waters in place above the earth. From the Jewish Encyclopedia: “The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.” Indeed, there was a kind of battle among some ancient Saints over what the firmament consisted of. For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote an entire paper of whether or not there is water above the firmament: “If, however, we understand by the firmament that part of the air in which the clouds are collected, then the waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved from the waters which are raised above a part of the atmosphere, and from which the rain falls.” He reminds me a bit of a creationist. Desperately trying to mash some religious nonsense with science and reason. It simply doesn’t work. We need to stop using this book for science. It’s utter madness. “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." A piece of prophecy poetry that refers to earth not as a sphere but as a circle? Do you honestly expect me to accept that as scientific proof? You missed the rest of that verse, by the way, which says “…that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” – another reference to the firmament – a tent-like flap. Ex. 1:22 “And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.” Job 37:18 “Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” Gen. 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Sources: http://www.theopedia.com... http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com... http://biblehub.com... https://books.google.com.au...