Creation is the only logical explanation

I will now, as said in the rules, present my arguments without offering a rebuttal to his, since rebuttals will be given in round 3. However, I must address the matter of the burden of proof. Unfortunately, it seems my opponent doesn't understand how debating works. He set forth a resolution (representing a certain belief concerning the existence of life), setting it above all other explanations. Thus, he must offer evidence and explanation defending his resolution and backing up his stance that the belief he set forth is superior to all others. The task of the con side in this debate is simply to disprove that creation is the only logical explanation for the existence of life. Disbelief and disproving need not be proven. Beliefs from the pro side do. Now, on to my arguments. The question posed here is whether creation is the only logical explanation for the existence of life. As the con side, I answer: no, it isn't. Why is it not? The answer will be given in my arguments. LACK OF EVIDENCEOn one side we have theories supported by science that are constantly examined, tested and refined; and on the other we have a stance originating from an ancient book. The latter is dogmatic; it has never been proven nor has anyone ever tried to prove it - indeed, according to religion, one shouldn't, for to do so might affect the religion itself. It [a dogma] serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. [1]To prove a certain idea is logical, one must offer reasons why. Creationism doesn't - it is based on blind faith without questioning. The answer why creationism is not the most logical explanation for the existence of life is merely the fact that is an assumption made without evidence. Evolutionism, quantum physics, biology etc. have presented (and still do so) evidence supporting the theory of evolution; and that evidence and those hypotheses have been examined and analyzed - that, by itself, makes evolution a much more plausible explanation as to why life exists. Any hypothesis made by science can either be true or false; and that must be provable. All scientific explanations must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. [2]Something which is faith; a belief, and refuses to offer proof to its existence cannot be, and is not, more logical than any scientific explanation, for science is based on logic. Faith refuses to subject itself to logic. In the same way as my opponent, creationism fails to accept its burden of proof, instead relying on subjective interpretation of a religious book and clinging to an allegation without evidence. Unfortunately for creationism, as Christopher Hitchens once correctly remarked, what is asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof. [3]INCOMPATIBILITY WITH FACTS AND INCONSISTENCYTo begin with, one of the main reasons why creationism is illogical is the fact that it is incompatible with scientific facts. As an illustration, let us take the "young Earth theory". This theory forms one of the pillars of creationism, asserting that the Earth is between 5700 and 10000 years old [4]. Yet, carbon dating (and other methods) have dated the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. This is a scientific fact; tested through more than one method of dating and proven to be correct. The only counter-theory is the one offered by the Bible, and even there does creationism display inconsistency. When confronted with the argument about the Earth's age being a scientific fact, many a creationist will simply remark that the Bible is not to be taken literally concerning this matter. How is it, then, that the Bible is taken literally when it aids the creationist cause in an argument or debate; yet not when it doesn't do so? How do creationists know how to correctly interpret each part of the Bible? And if they do - why do they disagree on the matter? This very well proves that creationism is inconsistent in the interpretation of its only source of so-called "evidence". It is not only interpretation, however, where creationism shows inconsistency. Throughout the course of history, creationism has adapted its teachings multiple times simply so it wouldn't be rendered obsolete. So-called "common sense and intuition" (which my opponent also mentions) have led creationists to believe the Earth is flat, and that all planets revolve around the Earth (the geocentric system). When certain thinkers attempted to prove differently, they were prosecuted; and if all else failed, creationist teachings were adapted to incorporate the new scientific evidenceven though said evidence absolutely contradicted the creationist theory itself. A belief or theory that never attempts to prove its beliefs and simply tries to adapt to scientific evidence (refuting itself in the process) cannot be taken as a widely accepted explanation for a matter as grand as the existence of life. To summarize, as long as creationism has no evidence or reliable source of evidence, disagrees on the different interpretations of the basis of its teachings, subjects itself to inconsistency, and offers no facts (being incompatible with scientific facts at the same time), it cannot be taken as the most logical explanation for the existence of life. As long as no proof is offered, or as long no attempts are made to prove creationism correct, it cannot be placed into the same sentence with logic. SOURCES:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.ebonmusings.org...[3] . http://en.wikiquote.org...[4] . http://www.universetoday.com...