Evolution (Pro) vs Creationism (Con)

The following is Con's argument ending with two comments on Pro's argument:The foundation of this debate has been set in Round 1 by Pro and it follows:“Evolution:the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earthCreationism:the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes such as evolution”According to Pro's narrow scope of “evolution” pertaining to only “living organisms … during the history of the earth,” and with Con's belief in the existence of a God; Con finds Pro's definition of “creationism” to be more accurate to the creation of the universe, compared to Pro's definition of “evolution. ” This debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God. And with that said, Con is a Deist who believes God set off the Big Bang (Creation) but has since remained indifferent to the universe, as God's Laws of Nature is the instructions, or program, defining the evolutionary process of the universe both inanimate and animate. From the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God, there exist a common design, not random or chaotic, found throughout the universe and is elegantly described by the Constructal Law. . http://www.amazon.com...http://www.youtube.com...Con's alignment with Creationism runs closest to “Theistic Evolution. ” . http://ncse.com...Pro's definition of “Creationism” also includes the phrase “. .. as in the biblical account. .. ”In reference to the Bible---man's written scriptures. For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc. ). And in saying that, “the biblical account” is a scripture for interpretation. In the Book of Genesis, Con simply interprets that God created the universe and everything in it. Finally Pro's definition of “Creationism” ended with the phrase “. .. rather than by processes such as evolution. ” Pro's definition of “evolution” is simply incomplete, it only includes the animate (“process by which different kinds of living organisms”) and left out the evolution of the inanimate. Inanimate evolution is a prerequisite for life. How could you have life without the elements of the Periodic Table? Those elements did not exist at the Big Bang, therefore they too had to evolve. Pro's definition of “evolution” also restricts it to the “history of the earth. ” According the God's handwriting (the Laws of Nature), evolution is throughout the universe. Con has only two issues with Pro's argument:1. Pro stated, “For in order to win this debate you need to prove that God created life. ” Proving the existence of God (“. .. prove that God. .. ”) is not a debate parameter defined in Round 1. Again Pro's definition of “Creationism” contains the phrase, “as in the biblical account. ” The bible and all of man's written scriptures about the supernatural is only based on belief. Hence, there is no proof of a God. God is only a relationship one has with their faith. We could eliminate the concept of God and the bible from this debate and little will change. For example, the Big Bang is the event beginning, the creation of the universe and time where evolution is a function of time. Therefore, the Big Bang is not part of evolution but the creation thereof. Right after the Big Bang starts evolution according to the Laws of Nature as a function of time. And in saying that, creation created evolution, whether there is a God or not in the event entity that caused the Big Bang. The men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the Big Bang; hence, faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof. 2. Pro stated, “This process [Natural Selection] is disrupted in human life today since we no longer live in a state of nature. ”Life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. Humans are part of life, part of nature. All what humans do are confined within the matrix of the Laws of Nature, there are no exceptions. In this universe it would seem the “blue” pill is life, where the “red” pill is death (. https://www.youtube.com...). Humans are also confined to the “Natural Selection” process as in wars, disease, natural disasters (when the next meteorite hits the earth), etc. One may argue humans could interfere with the “Natural Selection” process. Since humanity is part of nature, the event of human interference is therefore, part of the “Natural Selection” process.