Evolution is an unjustified axiom of faith

Thank you WallStreet, my name is Miles Rationality and Assumptions: Right off the bat my opponent both makes it a point to say that of assuming natural causality, and that in that framework we are to interpret the evidence as such making the arguments circular. That is, he has typically junxtapositioned natural causation alongside supernatural causation saying, "Let the best evidence win." Inherently he has set the audience up to determine evolution based on a widely accepted philosophy (natural causation) in hopes to win the debate on those grounds. He sets out to prove the natural on purely naturalistic assumptions.. Creationists must have an origin to their supernatural beliefs such as scripture to derive their supernaturalistic and short-term naturalistic assumptions for the pure fact that creationists cannot prove the supernatural with naturalistic assumptions, but can only go as far as to play along with the naturalists and watch the logic fall away from any conclusion. I want to make it clear in this round that both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, but simply interpret them much different. I contend this is a debate on whose interpretation of the evidence is more justifiable-even if it is a little more justifiable. I know that my opponent will not be able to justify the long-term natural causation assumption by any speck of evidence, so I will kindly compare it to the supernaturalistic causation assumption. a)Increasing diversity and (complexity?). "Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." [6] The fossil record is a great demonstration of handy-work, however the naturalist's paradigm was strong rooted much before the interpretation of the fossil record. What does the fossil record show us? 1.Distinct species, virtually no gradualism 2.Trees and polystrate fossils sticking straight up through several layers like at the cliffs of Jogins, Nova Scotia and at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park just a few of the abundant examples of this phenomena. 3.Many distinct areas of massive fossil graveyards around the globe like the most popular Dinosaur National Monument. These can be found along mountain basins or in one huge group fifty feet below the surface. These large-scale deaths had been contributed to a quick oxygen deprived burial or else scavengers and bacteria would quickly decompose the organisms rendering them invisible to the fossil record. 4.Thousands of species that are still alive today which supposedly lived hundreds of thousands of years ago like the coelacanth, wasps, dragonflies, stromatolites, ginkgoes, clams, and Wollemi pine to name a few. The species either stays the same or rapidly changes into another species over millions of years. 5.The presents of fossils form marine and terrestrial organisms in graveyards around the world. For example, the green River Formation, a fossil-rich formation in Wyoming includes birds, fish, insects, and many plant species all buried together. Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyons another example of the many sites around the world like this. Each of these presents a point of detriment to the Evolutionary world-view. [1] In a lot of ways, when the fossil record was first starting to be interpreted, the fossil recorded guided the complexity distinctions-not the other way around. For example, birds were above dinosaurs and dinosaurs above reptiles. We do not even see species above species with gradualism in the fossil record, we see kingdoms above kingdoms. [1] Several researchers have tried looking at the fossils of spiral-shelled creatures called ammonoids, to see if apparently related types get more complex as one goes higher in the layers. Another evolutionist, Dan McShea of the University of Michigan, approached the same question using detailed measurements on the backbones of many creatures which evolutionists believe represent ancestor-descendant pairs. His aim was to see if the ‘descendant' was more complex than the ‘ancestor' on the average for each case. [2] Through creationist's world-view, the two fossil creatures believed to be an ancestor-descendant pair and would most likely be of the same created kind, laid down at different times. And this is precisely what was reported in these studies by evolutionists—no trend at all. b)Transitions? My opponent gave me three distinct species in order to support a genetically gradual process. This is the ultimate example of clinging for straws to avoid the philosophically unappealing God whom creationists would interpret it as the One whom made homologous structures. There is no mathematic appeal to punctuated equilibrium. c)Genetic Material For God could be an infinite God with only one best way of doing things. The important distinction that needs to be made here is that these "similarities" arise from similar structures found in the organism. You need practically the same information to code for a certain protein and if that protein is important than you will find it over and over again. [4] The best way of interpreting this data is to notice the vivid and astonishing similarities, but to not forget that there is no mechanism to get there with naturalistic assumptions. [5] [4] This is by far the best "lack of evidence" supporting a creator. My opponent has yet to give a way to increase in complexity, without that-rational must lead us to a supernatural creator and allow us to interpret the fossil record and distinct species transitions as such. Conclusion: The burden of proof to establish the foundation of not only long-term naturalism and then evolution in that order falls on the Con because he was the one to agree to the title. The lack of a logical interpretation for a naturalistic conclusion is the support needed for a supernatural design so for the Con to win, it must be established that not only is naturalism the best way to interpret the evidence, but also that when interpreting with naturalism one can come to a sound conclusion. As of so far, the naturalist' interpretation AND the interpretation of evidence with evolution are way behind in this debate and need to be deftly handled on my opponent's next speech. References: 1) Roger Patterson, 2008; Evolution Exposed: Earth Science 145-164 2) L. Oliwenstein, ‘Onward and Upward?', Discover magazine, June 1993, p. 22 3) Yet Another 'Missing Link' Fails to Qualify by Andrew A. SnellingJune 1, 1993 4) Genetic Entropy: & the Mystery of the Genome 2005 Dr. J.C. Sanford 5) Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626 6) Shreeve, J., 1990. Argument over a woman. Discover, vol. 11(8), p. 58