Creation

Further ArgumentsIn this round, I will refute my opponent's points and continue my arguments, which I will expand on using scientific facts. I simply provided an overview of why I oppose Creation, but I will now go into depth. Before I refute anything, I will respond to this statement: "Unless you can provide evidence of a viable, logical and natural process by which these structures developed, effectively answering the chicken-and-egg problem, then I believe the creation hypothesis is much more logical." I intend to respond to this challenge and address his concerns fully in my final arguments. I will begin by posting a simple timeline of human evolution: My first source begins by describing the two kinds of cells. The source then continues with this statement: "In spite of these differences, the same basic molecular mechanisms govern the lives of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, indicating that all present-day cells are descended from a single primordial ancestor." The key-word to this statement is "ancestor". According to Creation, God made everything himself. Why would cells have ancestors instead of them being their own entity? The source continues with, "It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process." I will provide this Figure 1.1 to you below: The source continues to state, "It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids...The next step in evolution was the formation of macromolecules. The monomeric building blocks of macromolecules have been demonstrated to polymerize spontaneously under plausible prebiotic conditions. Heating dry mixtures of amino acids, for example, results in their polymerization to form polypeptides. But the critical characteristic of the macromolecule from which life evolved must have been the ability to replicate itself. Only a macromolecule capable of directing the synthesis of new copies of itself would have been capable of reproduction and further evolution." As you can see, organic cells can be produced under the right circumstances. The ability to reproduce itself must have evolved as well. None of this evidence supports Creation, a Creator, or any of the notions present in the Bible. My second source states the following, which my opponent should consider: "When confronted with fossils that clearly suggest that new species have emerged over time, many of the early opponents of evolution argued that God has continued to create life on earth over time. However, the problem with this theory is that it renders other parts of creationism nonsensical; in particular, it makes the efforts of Noah and his Ark entirely unnecessary. If God can continue to create over time, it would not have been necessary to get a male and female of every species on to Noah’s Ark for safe keeping during the flood. Instead, God could simply have recreated every species anew after the flood. If God does not continue to create over time, then new species can emerge within the course of life on our planet, and creationists would find themselves affirming the core position of evolution. This is not an inconsequential dilemma, as it calls into question the coherence of creationism." My opponent needs to look at the above image closely. Does it make sense for an all-powerful God to have created this? It is nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. Of course, my opponent describes the sheer complexity of cells and their respective structures, but he fails to realize that these do not require Creation. They can evolve and they have evolved. Rebuttals My opponent begins by describing cells and other structures. What he fails to do is explain how these structures originate from a Creator. He fails to explain how Evolution cannot accomplish the formation of these structures. I believe he is unaware of how Evolution actually works. My opponent's argument is largely impressive and valid, but the following paragraph upsets me: "A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP."My opponent refuses to acknowledge that a Creator is not needed. As I have shown, organic cells can evolve in the right circumstances, fully independent of a Creator. Not only must my opponent address the origin of cells in order to prove the existence of a Creator, but he must also address the historical and scientific evidence that indicates the direct opposite, which is Evolution. He must consider the fossil and DNA evidence. He must acknowledge the facts I presented. I would like for my opponent to answer a few crucial questions to clear things up:1. If Creation were the true story of our origin, did the dinosaurs coexist with humans, and if yes, does this correspond with the fossil and DNA evidence present? 2. If God is truly an all-powerful, all-loving being, why does crime occur? Why do innocent individuals become the victims of harsh diseases such as cancer or have devastating accidents? 3. How can Creation be explained without contradicting or rejecting the solid evidence, which most religious people attempt to do? I must concede, I rushed this argument. If there is anything I forgot to mention that I should have, or if attacked my opponent incorrectly, I please urge my opponent and the viewers to remain friendly. I rushed this argument and I may just have forgotten a few things. It happens. Works Cited1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2. http://www.notsodeepthoughts.org...