There are no sound arguments for creationism

"There are no sound arguments for creationism. Con has burden of proof." Based on the resolution presented by the pro side, the debate is over whether or not there are sound arguments for creationism. Since con has the burden of proof it is logical that if con can prove that there is at least 1 sound argument in favor of creationism then con should win this debate round. The argument is not over whether creationism happened, it is an argument over if there is a sound argument for it. When you consider creationism consider a Rube Goldberg machine. In a Rube Goldberg machine a domino or a ball is pushed by the creator which creates a brilliant chain reaction which leads to the completion of a simple task such as filling a cup with water or knocking over a block of some kind. Creationism is much the same way, with the creator setting everything into motion with the big bang and then uses evolution to continue the task, all leading to the completed task of humanity. Many believe that creationism is in direct conflict with evolution, however they go hand in hand, the reason is that there is no explanation for what sparked the big bang, it can"t be explained in any scientific way and thus creationism is an explanation for it. Like a Rube Goldberg machine following the big bang the sun arrives in the Milky Way galaxy and thus the earth is as well. This sparks evolution and leads down to the creation of humanity. In all reality there is no explanation for something to spark the big bang, because something can never come out of nothing, and the big bang could not have existed without something to spark it and create it. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness." It is possible that when God said this he was sparking the big bang, when he says let there be light he sparks the big bang, and when he separates the light from the darkness the planets and stars are falling into there solar systems. Although many would consider creationism as the belief that the universe was created in 7 days, the translation of day in the Hebrew language could mean 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year. In the story of creation it states that it was 7 days, which could mean a general, vague time. He also states in the bible: "5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."" This shows that not every single day has to mean when the sun comes up and when the sun goes down, it simply has to mean darkness and light. This also supports evolution because it would take millions of years to complete evolution. Throughout the story of how God created the universe it follows the pattern that had to be followed for evolution to take place. The first thing that happens is the water is separated from the sky, the atmosphere must be created before oxygen can safely exist on planet earth. It also states that plants came before animals, which coincides with evolution because the animal life forms would have to come before the more complicated forms of animals, it also coincides because the earth had to be filled with oxygen before the life forms could exist. Now that I have presented my case I will take some time to address my opponents arguments. My opponent presented a case that states that "the only arguments creationists can use are arguments based on empirical evidence" however he has not presented any examples of any kind. Consider a debater opens a debate round by stating that he has a dog, and shows a picture of the dog. His opponent stands up and states that the evidence is not sound because the dog could belong to anyone and is not necessarily his dog. However if the opponent can not present any counter evidence proving that the dog does not belong to him then according to the laws of debate the argument is in favor of the first speaker. It is the same way with this debate round, my opponent has stated that the arguments for creationism are not sound, yet no counter evidence has been presented and thus until counter evidence is presented those arguments fall in favor of my side. I have presented 3 separate arguments that support creationism, all are logical and coincide with science. Because the debate is whether there are logical arguments to creationism and not whether creationism actually happened I should win the round by default because I have presented sound and logical arguments in favor of creation. Through these arguments I stand beside my claim that creationism not only is possible but is a probable explanation for the beginning of the universe.