Creationism is not a logical alternitave to Evolution.

Burden of ProofWhat caused the foofaraw in the comments section was a debate on whether or not I should prove creationism to be a logical alternative to evolution. It turns out I need not. Pro never stated that the BoP is shared, and Pro is the one making the positive claim. Pro is trying to affirm the resolution's veracity to fulfill his BoP. If I show that he has not affirmed the resolution (refute his arguments) then the resolution has not been deductively proven, hence we have no reason to believe it (Occam's Razor) - hence I negate the resolution. Hopefully this can be left here. I was also intrigued by the resolution, as creationism tries to explain the origin of everything, while evolution only describes the change of already living organisms. I thought abiogenesis would of been more fitting but this will do. AffIn my opponents arguments he does two things: Provides rectitude for evolution Says that there isn't any evidence for creationism But this does not affirm the resolution. Why does it? My opponent missed a piece. His argument is depicted by this syllogism: P1: Evolution is most likely true P2: Creationism is most likely false C: Ergo, evolution is a more logical theory For the argument to actually affirm the resolution, it should assume this form: P1: Evolution is most likely true P2: Creationism is most likely false P3: If evolution is more likely to be true, then it is more logical than creationism C: Ergo, evolution is a more logical theory When did Pro profess premise three? He didn't - I assume his response to this would be: "It's pretty obvious" but this is an ipse dixit. I commend Pro to provide rectitude of the third premise, otherwise there is no correlation between the premises and the conclusion - a non-sequitur. I will now contend that my opponent can't properly prove its cogency. Pro uses a wholly arbitrary, subjective model of logic which he uses to compare both theories; logic is defined as "a particular method of reasoning or argumentation". (1) His acumen is that if something is more likely to be true, it is more logical to believe that rather than the contrary. Why is this? Why is it not just as logical to believe a doctrine with less proof? Non-cognitivism - Pro must provide objective evidence why something with more proof is more logical than something that isn't; "because it is" entails special pleading and will not suffice. Creationism My opponent utilizes a lot of "they" and "I have never found evidence". I might of not ever seen a koala, but that isn't valid evidence to conclude that they don't exist. Just because some creationists don't provide evidence, doesn't mean that there isn't an opious of evidence as a whole. "Gravity is a theory" Gravity is not a theory; it's a law. Quantum gravity is a theory. "Creationism does not show any models or evidence. " Unsourced. "Creationist believe that the earth is only 10000 to 6000 years old. " Not all creationists need to take the bible literally. They could see metaphors behind it - who is to tell them wrong? There are too many interpretations of the bible to conclude that it is wholly objective. We cannot ask the authors what the original intentions were. Bible literalism isn't necessarily a requisite for creationists - it is for young earth creationists. That fulfills your definition of creationism that you provided - if he then states "why do many not believe in evolution then? " They could very well do, as your definition only relates evolution to the origin of life - evolution did not provide the origin of life; abiogenesis did. "It is not logic to follow something because it's written in a really old book. " Why is it not logical? Conclusion I have demonstrated that my opponent has not provided adequate rectitude of the required logical argument needed to fulfill his onus. Using non-cognitivism I have shown that he must postulate an objective comparison of the theories which results in one being objectively more logical than the other. Completely Irrelevant Since Pro has repeatedly stated that he hasn't found evidence for the contrary of the resolution, I will give him one to play with - he need not, but if he can't refute it, then he kind of concedes that a God most likely exists. I don't myself believe this argument is true, but I don't think Pro has ever stumbled across this popular argument: Kalam Cosmological Argument P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence Premise One This premise is normally justified by "ex nihilo nihil fit" viz. out of nothing comes nothing. How can it? How can something pop out of nowhere with no inherent cause? If we were to extrapolate how we have never seen anything pop out of nowhere, we have no reason to believe the contrary. Premise Two I doubt my opponent contends the Big Bang Theory, but it is postulated that the universe was once at a hot, dense singularity 13.8 billion years ago, then rapidly expanded - known as rapid inflation. (2) Hence, if the universe is defined as: "all space-time, matter and energy"(3) the cause of it must be transcendent. And the only fathomable entity able to create all space-time matter and energy is God. This is a very perfunctory justification of the argument. I didn't want to make it that elaborate as it is completely irrelevant to the debate. Voters please neglect this argument entirely, this is just for my opponent. Reference from comments section intended for comedic purposes Sorry Pro, I would have provided a better argument only if I had more than half a brain to work with. ;) (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) . http://www.big-bang-theory.com... (3) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...