Creationism (Pro) v.s. Darwinism (Con).

REFUTING DARWINISM:1) Darwinism's reliance upon abiogenesis is faulty.Seeing how Con has not taken issue with this statement, I have meet my burden of proof on this issue. The only other explanation other than abiogenesis is Creationism (someone assembling life, rather than it combining on it's own). 2) Darwinism's explanation of mutation and natural selection has it's limits, and the science the belief relies upon shows this contradiction.Since Darwinism concludes for all life to have originated from a single common ancestor, it relies on mutation and natural selection to continue infinitely. This theory, however, is shown to be invalid by both modern genetics and by irreducible complexity.First, we should look to modern advances in the study of genetics to see if it allows for this infinite mutation cycle, as the belief in macro-evolution relies upon. The answer is clear: instead of mutation giving certain organisms an advantage, it does the opposite. "The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: 'First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement (1).'" Second, one should look to irreducible complexity. To be clear, I am not arguing for infinite complexity, but irreducible complexity. The difference is key, while one claims that it is impossible to know everything about an organism, the other makes a more rational claim, that is, the organism must have had all their parts created (or evolved) all at once. "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex (2)."Based on this information, it is clear that1) Mutation cannot continue forever, and2) Mutation cannot create irreducibly complex mechanics gradually. 3) Darwinism's attempt at showing history of macro-evolution are unreliable.I will focus on two areas which are heralded to be proof of macro-evolution occurring: a) the fossil record, andb) structural homology (similar structures in different organisms).First, I will rebut the "evidence" for Darwinism found in the fossil record. Specifically, that there is none! For those unfamiliar, Darwin claimed that there would be evidence of "intermediate links" in the fossil record. This would show how an organism would slowly evolve into a different organism altogether. For example, an intermediate link between a monkey and a human would show that macro-evolution transformed a monkey into a human. However, through scrutinous search, none of these supposed intermediate links were found! Dr. David Raup, the curation of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and an expert on the fossil record stated, "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information (3)." If Con has what he believes to be an intermediate link, I'd ask that he post the scientific name of it and which two organisms it "links," so that I may refute it being an intermediate link at all.Secondly, many macro-evolutionists have claimed that structural homology, or similalar structures found in different organisms, shows that they evolved from a common ancestor. After all, it makes sense to assume that if you find similar structures in different organisms those organisms are related, right? Wrong. Once again, evidence that Darwin didn't have refutes this theory. Genetics show that related organisms have portions of related DNA that gives them these structural similarities, however, we don't see these related genes. Dr. Michael Denton states, "The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species... With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology on of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value as evidence for evolution is greatly diminished (4)."I am willing to rebut any other evidence that Con offers as proof for Darwinism.DEFENDING CREATIONISM:1) Irreducible ComplexitySee above argument.2) Universal lawsIn the universe, there are specific laws that govern everything. Gravity doesn't disappear once you leave the earth, it affects every celestial body. Electricity, motion, and magnetism's relationship don't go away once you leave the earth, it is still in affect everywhere in the universe. These scientific laws are evident everywhere. However, it is improbable to state that an undirected, random explosion created all of these logical, scientific laws. I would recommend to read an article on the subject (5), it does a better job at explaining these phenomena than I do.3) Cause and EffectIt is well known that every effect has a cause. "The law of cause and effect states that every cause has an effect and every effect becomes the cause of something else. This law suggests that the universe is always in motion and progressed from a chain of events (6)." Then, we are to ask ourselves one question: what caused the universe? Some say the Big Bang caused the universe, but then we must ask what caused that much energy to be stored in such a small area? The Centre for Intelligent Design writes, "William Lane Craig, the philosopher, has in the past few years revived an old argument known as ‘The Kalam Cosmological Argument’. Kalamis in fact an Arabic word meaning ‘speech’. It is an argument about the possibility of infinite causes which was developed by medieval Islamic and Jewish theologians. Craig sets out 3 premises as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (7)."We see that science cannot explain this cause of the universe, and Darwinism relies fully on science. Only theology offers a clear explanation for the cause of the universe coming into existence. The site referenced discusses these beliefs in further detail.To answer Con's 4th point, I am arguing as an Agnostic Theist, as this is a direct contradiction to Darwinism. If, however, Con would like to go into a detailed anyalisis of the Catholic Bible, I would not take issue. In my personal opinion, the creation story (Genesis 1-2) probobly didn't happen in a mere six 24 hour days, and the flood did not cover the entire earth, but was a catastrophic reginoal flood. Does this answer your questions?I await Con's rebuttal. Sources:(1) http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...(2) http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...(3) David Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 1979(4) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985(5) http://www.everystudent.com...(6) http://lawsoftheuniverse.weebly.com...(7)https://www.c4id.org.uk...