Creationism is a viable theory

Round 4 ResponseCon states, "I fairly clearly laid out several proofs. . ." All Con has done is make bald assertions. He has not given any reasons or explanations, for example, why the appendix should be considered evidence for evolution. Rather Con has merely asserted that his claims were evidence. I will not waste my limited space to rebut that which is unsubstantiated. Con states, "So in opening, he completely dismisses and avoids the entirety of my biological proofs, then has the chutzpah to tell me to focus on evolutionary proofs." I asked Con to focus on his evolutionary evidence because his arguments against the integrity of the Bible were unsupportive, especially in the way in which he presented them, of his case. I have not avoided Con's "biological proofs" as their was nothing to avoid. How can one call a bald assertion proof? "Chutzpah," I like that. lolAgain, similarities do not prove common ancestry or plagiarism. Both stories can reasonably be describing the same events, where one is the true and accurate account, being God's word, and the other a distortion of oral tradition. In either case, one cannot prove or disprove which is true based on antiquity alone.Con states, 'The bible contains bizarre contradictions, so we created a system that makes them all make sense.' This is a non-answer. Con has not substantiated his claim that such a system was created by man as opposed to being derived from a straightforward consistent reading of scripture, and has certainly not supported his claim of contradictions.Con states, "If you want to believe that three or four scribes over different periods of history had the wisdom or 'foresight. . .'" First of all, the claim of scripture is that it is inspired by God, and as a Christian, I am certain, by confirmation of the Holy Spirit, that Genesis was inspired and preserved by God Himself. So I am not trusting in the "foresight" or wit of men. Second, there is no contradiction, as introducing God's name does not negate His Trinitarian nature. The text in Genesis 2 in Hebrew says Yehovah Elohim, or LORD God (http://thekingsbible.com...). Con states, "Having debated many a creationist both online and of course in-person, any time I see that admission I know I have shaken my opponent." If I was shaken by such a poor argument, then I would surely have a feeble faith in God. On the contrary, I stated my position as Christian to denote what I am accepting on faith, a faith based on God's word which in turn is based in demonstrable reality. My claims concerning the inspiration and preservation of scripture are faith-based claims, so I would certainly never argue such on an empirically evidential level, but this is not to say I do not have evidence. The Holy Spirit, which indwells every believer in Jesus gives us the confirmation of the truth of the word of God and His promises. To disregard this is a philosophical choice, not a reasoning based on anything empirical. I am not including such statements as evidence for my case, but rather I am simply stating the biblical position, regardless of the validity of Con's argument.Con states, "He reminds me a bit of a creationist. Desperately trying to mash some religious nonsense with science and reason. It simply doesn’t work. We need to stop using this book for science. It’s utter madness." The Bible is clear that the water above the heavens is above the firmament of outer-space since this is where the stars and planets are placed on day 4 of creation. Regardless, Con's arguments have degenerated into ad hominem attacks and red herring fallacies.For certain, Con has failed to support his arguments and rebut mine in Round 4 Round 5 ResponseCon states, ". . .you can’t prove that and I can’t prove you wrong." Con fails to understand the evidence and argument for God based on genetic information. It is because of what we do know about genetic function that we can make a solid case for God's existence. Con's usage of the word "prove" is unhelpful as no one can prove anything outside of pure mathematics. What we can do is demonstrate the processes involved in genetic function within a cell and rigorously compare this to the process of information generation, usage and purpose within known intelligently designed codes, such as that which we find in computers. Con fails to understand this.Con states, "It annoys me that I bring up vestigial legs on whales or the human appendix (now for the third round in a row) you still do not refute the actual direct proof that I can prove exists…that strikes me as god of the gaps." Merely stating you can "prove" something does not equate to providing actual compelling arguments for it. I will not address the erroneous claims of vestigial cetacean legs or the human appendix which both have well known, essential functions within said organisms, as Con has not made an argument for these beyond bald assertion.Con states, "When a majority of well-educated scholars working in modern science say that something probably happened there is a very good chance that it did indeed happen." Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority are logical fallacies. The scientific authorities who held the most accepted view of cosmology during the day of Galileo asserted that the solar system was geocentric based on observable evidence and the enforcement of scientific authority. Galileo disproved this with observations of his own and was certainly in the minority with his heliocentric view, yet today most accept the heliocentric nature of our solar system. Scientific majority and authority were wrong. Case and point.Con states, "What seems more logical: That we were made by a god who used the all the same codes when he ‘coded us’ like computers in a divine heavenly factory…or: that we evolved on the earth from a common ancestor. Sure both theories ‘work’ as answers, but one is based in reality and the other is based on a book of recyclable myths." A common designer is more logical based on information science and the known properties and function of genetic code. Calling the Bible a book of recyclable myths is a red herring fallacy.Con's claims concerning ICR and Creation.com are irrelevant. I could just as easily say, "you should not use sources like humanorigins.si.edu since they are clearly evolutionist. What you accept about origins is irrelevant to the science claims being made. Again, Con seems to be chock full of red herrings.Con's claims concerning Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins are erroneous. Firstly, Dr. Tomkins has been published in peer review journals, both secular and creationist. Second, even if he did not have work published in secular journals, his claims would not be any less true. Since such secular journals are controlled by overtly naturalistic people, it would make sense that most creationist work is not published in such journals. Thirdly, merely asserting Dr. Jeffrey's findings have been refuted does not equate to providing evidence showing this actually being the case. Con's arguments again degenerate into red herring, ad hominem, and many other fallacies of logic and argumentation.Con's claims concerning Dr. Humphrey's model demonstrate his misunderstanding. I have never said that Humphrey's model does not match palaeomagnetic data; quite the opposite really. His model makes sense of the data whereas dynamo models do not. If one cares enough to look through the papers I referenced, one will find the integration of such data within the model.Con states, "I’ve spent the debate doing exactly that." No, I'm afraid Con has spent the majority of the debate attacking the validity of my case, and supporting his, using logical fallacies and bald assertions. I have provided evidences of both God's existence and a young Earth which are both consistent and directly supportive of the biblical creation model. I have given reasons and explained why these evidences support my case. Thanks for your time! * Speed Round? Shotgun argument?