There is evidence for Creation

First I will defend my arguments, then I will refute con's points. Defense. 1. Termites "Even more primitive termites may have fed on a range of things they could digest themselves, Poinar said, but eventually they acquired protozoa that dramatically increased their ability to digest cellulose, and through evolutionary processes they came to depend on it." This statement is contrary to natural selection and evolution. Evolution teaches that we are becoming better and better. That we came from scum to man. That we are always progressing and getting better. But if an animal (or bug) becomes dependent on something else for survival, isn't that a step backward? Why would something totally capable of taking care of themselves become dependent on another. This is against natural selection and evolution. According to natural selection these type of termites should have died out, because they are weaker than the other termites that were able to take care of themselves. But since they didn't then that means this never happened. Creation is the only logical way that termites would even be alive. And them getting there by supernatural means doesn't mean that it is impossible. The definition of supernatural is "something that is above or beyond natural." This includes evolution. If we don't see animals evolving, or explosions creating order, or even explosions coming from nothing today then that is supernatural. You can't dismiss this evidence for creation just because it is supernatural. If you did this you would have to dismiss evolution since it also is supernatural. But, I am not here to prove evolution is wrong, just that there is evidence for creation. 2 Bees and flowers "As well as that, current studies suggest that the bee lived BEFROE the flower, and that the bee did not originally need the flower to live" Same here as with the termite. If bees really did evolve and where getting better, then why did they become dependent on the flower. This is, yet again, a contradiction. The bees should have also died out according to natural selection just like the termites should have. This proves that this evidence supports creation, and not evolution. 3.Morals "Here, Pro assumes that there exists an objective morality. When we look at claims of "right" and "wrong", they are different between different people." Everybody thinks what they are doing is right. If we follow what we think is right then there would be no need for laws. Nobody would follow them. Nobody does something that is wrong and say to themselves, " You know, I shouldn't be doing this." Or when they are confronted while doing wrong, they don't hang their head in shame and say "you're right, I'll try to do better next time." You do what you do because it is right in your own mind. Even the Bible states this, Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." How can you discern right from wrong, when the person deciding that is you. The Bible however teaches exactly what is right and what is wrong. That is why we have these laws in our country. Our founding Fathers knew of our sinful nature, and that what we do we think is right. So they founded this country off of the Bible, the ultimate authority. 4. Soft tissue I will divide this into 2 parts. In defense of the fossil and rock dating. Fossil "The tissue was not soft when found, it was rehydrated. It is also unknown if the tissue that was rehydrated was the original tissue or not." Here con states a contradiction. First they state that the original tissue was rehydrated. But then they said that the tissue that was rehydrated, might not be the soft tissue that was found. This discredits con's argument and makes it still plausible that the tissue that was found was found soft. But besides this, if scientists weren't really worried about soft tissue being found in a dinosaur bone, then why did they fire someone for finding soft tissue. If the tissue wasn't an issue then this person would still have their job. And finally, what does DNA have anything to do with soft tissue being found in bones. Here con strayed of topic. Dating Ah, so now we get into dating methods. In the Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate Ken Ham brought up something very startling. He brought up that there was a piece of wood encased in a basalt. When it was sent to a lab to find the date of it, the wood was found to be 45 thousand years old and the basalt it was encased in was 45 million years old. How could these dates be so far apart. How can we trust a system that makes such great mistakes. This is the system that scientists use to find the age of the earth. But besides this the dating method has other flaws. Scientists say that they can't learn the date of a rock if it is earlier than 2 million years old. How can we know that this method is reliable, if we can't even test it for the age of rocks we obviously know the age of. If it is reliable then we should be able to test it by things that are recently made, like the dried lava from Mount St. Helens. We can't rely on the accuracy of these methods. There is no way we can prove that they actually work. We can't rely on these methods to find the age of fossils, or how old the earth is. The only other method we have is History. And evolutions history all depends on the rock dating systems. Con's arguments For con's arguments, I got a little confused, so please clarify in the chat if I got anything wrong. 1. There must be a cause I think that con got this completely right. If the universe was created then there must be a purpose. The purpose of that is to give glory to God. That is the reason we were created. So we could give glory to the Creator. Not to do that would be rebellious. That may seem harsh but let me clarify this with an illustration. Let's say that God is a potter and you are clay. When the potter says to you that you will be a jar, you say to Him "No, I want to be a bowl. The clay is rebelling against the person who created it. That is what we do when we sin. When we sin we don't give any glory to God. We are being selfish and are fulfilling our sinful desire. We are disobeying His wishes, yet He is merciful to us and let's us go by for the moment. But one day He will punish those that disobey, just like a potter will get fed up with rebellious clay. His patience will run out. Although we do sin, this isn't what we were created for. We weren"t created so we could sin. We were created to give God glory and not to say He doesn't exist. This is our purpose in life. And when you die, then how much money you had, how famous you were, how many good things you did in life are not even going to matter. The only thing that will matter is where you will spend eternity. That is what matters in the end. Now I don't really understand the arguments after premise 1. If you would clarify them that would be very helpful. In conclusion then it all depends on how you look at a piece of evidences I may look at a piece of evidence and see that it supports creation. But another might look at the same evidence and see that it supports evolution. It's all in the way that you look at it. I have now listed only five pieces of evidence but there much evidence for it if you only look for it. I hope that you will not dismiss my evidence, but will think about it, and really study if they are true. Also that you will really thoroughly study both creation and evolution and decide which is truly right. http://www.icr.org... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com...