Creationism is a Rational Belief System

Pro’s first argument remains dropped. He also drops his notions about Dawkins. Instead he presents an argument against abiogenesis. His basic argument is that life came from life, not nonlife. This is an appeal to intuition, and it doesn’t make much sense. If life came from life, where did that previous life come from and that previous life, ect? Since the Earth hasn’t existed for an infinite amount of time there must’ve at one point been no biological life. Proposing creationism doesn’t get around this, as God isn’t a biological lifeform. On a trivial note, Pro’s equation is flawed because no one is claiming non-life equals life. For example, I come from my mother, but I’m not the same thing as my mother. Abiogensis is speculative, but more plausible than creationism. Experiments like the Miller/Urey experiment have shown that abiogensis likely happened [1]. Pro claims spontaneous generation has been disproven, this is true, but irrelevant. Abiogensis and spontaneous generation are two different things. S.G. states that higher order life cannot come from nonliving matter [2]. It says nothing about lower order life. Creationism is less plausible than abiogensis a priori too. Abiogensis does not posit any extra entities than what we already know. Abiogensis and evolution are two different subjects, even if Pro has shown abiogenesis to be implausible, it doesn’t follow that evolution is. Nor does it follow that creationism is justified. Pro then goes on about transhumanism, I’m not sure why as this has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Fossil Record Pro drops his argument from gradual change and instead argues against the concept of a strawman. He misunderstands what a strawman is, a misinterpretation of the meaning of words is an equivocation fallacy [3], not a strawman. Phyletic Gradualism isn’t an accepted model of evolutionary change, it would be like me arguing against creationism by arguing against the canopy model. It has nothing to do with motive or semantics, it is simply the wrong position one is advocating for. He asserts without evidence that biologists haven’t seen evidence about the fossil record. Despite the fact that I did present evidence from the fossil record. The sorting and the transitions that show up in the fossils are powerful observable evidence of evolution. Biologists conclude evolution from this. They don’t just guess or go at it without confidence. ERVs The argument has nothing to do with mutations being beneficial. Nor has anyone claimed ERVs are beneficial. He asserts that the ERVs pick out hot spots, but he fails to give a source or explain why the ERVs are inserted precisely where evolution predicts. Why is it that we share more ERVs with chimps which is what’s predicted by evolution and less with new world monkeys? Are the ERVs involved in a conspiracy with the nested hierarchy? ERVs are still better explained by evolution. He then talks about quantum entanglement and various dimensions of space for some reason and goes onto attack abiogensis again. Conclusion Pro again fails to address my refutation of his argument and has dropped his rebuttal against the fossil record. His argument against ERVs is flawed and unsourced. He again throws red herrings into the debate by speaking of quantum entanglement, string theory, ect. Back to Pro. [1] http://people.chem.duke.edu... [2] http://www.britannica.com... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...