The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

My opponent is a clever one, for he has cleverly shifted outside of our original topic of debate. We are supposed to be debating that "the theory of extraterrestrially seeded life is EQUALLY plausible with creationism." However, my opponent decided to change the debate. He says in his first paragraph that "by "equally plausible" [he] simply mean[s] that they are possible, and not logically incoherent... [He] just [needs] to demonstrate that they are each viable alternatives. " There is a very clear flaw in my opponents advocacy. He has totally scrapped the implications of the word "equally". To say they are each viable is by no means to say that they are equally viable – this is clearly different from what we are supposed to be discussing. Seeing that he had lost the original topic of debate, he has conveniently simplified the debate for himself. This enough seems reason to vote CON: my opponent has totally strayed from our original topic and, instead, has proved a totally different topic. However, I suppose out of the spirit of the season, I will debate the new topic. (I would ask that he sticks to his new interpretation) My opponent said he must "demonstrate that [creationism and seeded life] are each viable alternatives". This means that if I prove that either one, either creationism or seeded life, is inviable, then I win the round. First off. My opponent has done nothing to prove any of that whatsoever. In fact, he says in the fourth paragraph of his last argument that "not trying to PROVE the resolution". I am not sure how anyone would think he is winning a round without trying to prove anything. Further, creationism is illogical if God is illogical. If I prove that creationism is flawed, then Two. Occam's razor makes God illogical. Occam's razor says one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Adding something superfluous like God to proving everything is illogical because, since it is not necessary for proof, he cannot be from the facts. Everything can be explained without God. Hence, God is superfluous and an illogical assertion. Three. Logic is based on proofs. Faith is based on the lack of proof. Hence, if the existence of God could be proven, faith would be eliminated. Logic and faith are thus opposing. It would be a contradiction to believe God is logical. Four. There is no logic in turning water to wine, raising the dead, walking on water, burning bushes, parting seas, talking beaver felt hats, floating gold laws, or spaceships flying in the tails of comets. The notions surrounding God defy logic. They are greater, above and beyond logic. Five. The notion of an omnipotent being is self-refuting. 1.Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift. 2.If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question). 3.If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question). 4.Therefore God is not omnipotent. However, God is defined as omnipotent. Meaning if omnipotence is impossible, then God is at best incoherent. Thus, creationism is not logically coherent, so my opponent cannot meet the new burden he establishes for himself.