Creation

I'm afraid my opponent has not addressed the scientific arguments I proposed in round 2. I will attempt to answer as many of my opponents questions, concerns, arguments and rebuttals as space permits in this last round. First off, in round two you posted a timeline of "hominid evolution." This timeline proves nothing. All of the australopithecines, paranthropines, kenyanthropines, ardipthecines, sahelanthropines, and orrorines are apes whilst most of the skulls classified as "homo" are humans ( http://creation.com...) (http://creation.com...). There is no evidence of evolution having taken place when these skeletons are studied in detail. Posting pictures without explaining how they show evolution has taken place is tantamount to propaganda. You say, "My opponent begins by describing cells and other structures. What he fails to do is explain how these structures originate from a Creator. He fails to explain how Evolution cannot accomplish the formation of these structures." How thy originate? Irreducible complexity, by its very definition, implies that and intelligent, sentient being must have created these cellular structures (which in turn means every "kind" of animal must have first been created). We don't say that the Creator keeps creating as we understand reproduction, at least once they cells are in place and all of the basic "kinds" of animals are in existence. To ask me to explain how evolution "cannot accomplish the formation of these structures" is ridiculous. I would not ask you to tell me how God could not have created as this would be impossible for you to do. This debate is concerning the validity/logicality of either creation or evolution. I have provided two examples of structures which require a designer, you have provided nothing. You say, "Not only must my opponent address the origin of cells in order to prove the existence of a Creator, but he must also address the historical and scientific evidence that indicates the direct opposite, which is Evolution. He must consider the fossil and DNA evidence. He must acknowledge the facts I presented." I have addressed the origin of cells with my two examples. I have addressed evolution, but I will only address what you provide as your evidence. It is ridiculous to ask me to address the "historical and scientific evidence that indicates. . . evolution" when you have provided none. Fossil and DNA evidence? What fossil and DNA evidence? I'm not saying I am unaware of what evolutionists claim as evidence for evolution, but you cannot expect me to address things you have not used in your argument. In fact I was the only one to provide a somewhat detailed argument concerning DNA, you provided nothing but cotton candy claims (claims which are just fluff, no substance). You say, "If Creation were the true story of our origin, did the dinosaurs coexist with humans, and if yes, does this correspond with the fossil and DNA evidence present? " If by fossil evidence you mean the geologic column, then no. The geologic column does not exist (http://creation.com...). The fossil record fits much better within the creation/flood model than it does with the evolution/geologic column model. Often I will here evolutionary dissenters say that if humans and dinosaurs coexisted then we should find fossils of both together. This is unreasonable as human fossils are exceedingly rare, and the chances of finding these buried alongside dinosaurs (if they existed together) would be extremely unlikely as most dinosaurs and humans would have kept there distance from each other just as most alligators and humans keep their distance today. Also, coelacanths have coexisted with whales for millions of years (in the evolutionary view) yet we have not found a single example of these creatures having been fossilized together, and they live in the same environment! If by DNA evidence you mean genetic homology, then no. Homologous genes are just as much evidence for a common designer, but besides this, DNA has nothing to do with scientifically testing whether or not humans and dinosaurs coexisted. You say, "If God is truly an all-powerful, all-loving being, why does crime occur? Why do innocent individuals become the victims of harsh diseases such as cancer or have devastating accidents? How does this relate to the debate? Why are you bickering about a God you don't believe exists? The common theological question of "if God exists and is a loving God, then why do bad things happen" is rooted in a lack of understanding of sin. People are given the will to choose God or to reject Him, to live righteously or to live unrighteously, to follow God's commandments or to break them. This mortal life is only temporary. God allows people to be murdered, suffer diseases, etc. because He loves us. Now I know that the knee-jerk reaction for most atheists to what I just said would be to dismiss me as illogical and blinded by religion, but let me explain. To have God come into the world and make an end of sin would mean that He would have to judge and condemn all sinners as they stand and pardon those who have trusted in His salvation. I say that He loves you for not yet doing this because as you read (whoever you are that is reading), God is extending His merciful hand to you. When we die (or when Messiah comes) it will be too late (Isaiah 55:6). If God were to intervene in a crime, He would be unjust to not do so for everyone. What you would then have is a Edenic situation where there is no harm or suffering and no sin, but this is exactly what we fell from. When Adam and Eve sinned they brought death into the world (Romans 5:12). This death was the curse God placed on mankind for their disobedience. You may wish to argue that this is unfair, but consider a drug baby who is born into a situation which is seemingly unfair, though the baby was not at fault, nevertheless he is born in a "fallen" state. I don't believe in the aspect of original sin which says that we all are made guilty by Adam's sin because not only is this not found in scripture, but it would be unjust of God to condemn someone for the actions of another, and in fact, the scriptures teach quite differently, that when one sins, they, by their own actions, corrupt themselves and bring to themselves God's judgment; people are guilty sinners because of the sins they commit, not because of Adam and Eve. With that said, no injustice goes unnoticed by God (Matthew 25:34-45, Luke 12:6-7). God will bring justice and recompense in the end, but what He is ultimately concerned with is our eternal destiny. God wants us to be with Him, to have salvation and live forever with Him in His kingdom, but He cannot allow corruption in His new heavens and new Earth (where Eden will be restored). God in His love has provided the atonement, the propitiatory sacrifice for our sins ---Jesus Christ. In Him we can be reconciled to God, having our sins paid for by the blood of the Lamb who is without spot or blemish (without sin). God loves us and does not want to see us perish (Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). You say, "How can Creation be explained without contradicting or rejecting the solid evidence, which most religious people attempt to do?" You have provided no "solid evidence." If there was such solid evidence, surely you would included it in this debate. Creation is explained using facts about what we do know (observational science), evolution is explained using suppositions and inferences (hypothetical science) based many times on things which we know don't happen (i.e. abiogenesis, information-adding mutations, ontogenic recapitulation, etc.). You say, "Notice how my opponent utilizes the Bible as an often recurring source in his round two responses." Well most of my response to your round 2 arguments were due to the theological nature of your questions. If you ask Bible questions, then it is reasonable that I would respond with Bible answers. Your claim about the Bible's unreliability is unsubstantiated in this debate. Your other debate which you cite is riddled with erroneous claims which space does not permit me to address. Notice how my opponent, in his final round, skips over my scientific arguments and address only my response to his question concerning the length of time God took to create (which is a Bible question, and begs a Bible answer) which he deems "excessively religious." You say, "My opponent's argument, again, uses a pro-Creation source in order to "prove" his point. I wonder why he cannot simply use sources that are all about science." Whether a site is pro-creation, pro-evolution or pro-aliens does not negate the science claims proposed. To say that these sources are not scientific because they believe in creation shows your level of duplicity. It would be like me saying, "why do you keep quoting Science and Nature, they are all pro-evolution so they cannot be scientific;" preposterous! Look beyond the team jersey and address the science claims. Your quoted "source" concerning fossils exhibits inaccuracies derived mainly from his (hers?) erroneous belief that the geologic column exists, it does not (http://creation.com...). There are many out of sequence fossils (http://creation.com...). The claim that no modern animals are found in "dinosaur layers" is demonstrably false. There are many "out of sequence fossils" to cite, but here are just a few which should not have existed alongside dinosaurs: ducks ("Cretaceous Duck Ruffles Feathers," BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk, 20 January 2005), squirrels ("Mesozoic Squirrel," Nature 444:889-893, 2006), platypus ("Swimming with Dinos," www.museumvictoria.com.au, 24 January 2008) beaver-like creatures and ("Early Aquatic Mammal," Science 311 (5764): 1068, 24 February 2006), et al. NMS. Remember the resolution when voting.