Creationism is not a logical alternitave to Evolution.

I do not once say that evolution is more likely to be true. That's been wrongfully assumed by the Con. I say evolution is more logical than Creationism, because I cannot find a single piece of real evidence to support Creationism. I would not have any problem fallowing Creationism if there were real logical evidence to support it. I do not have the BoP for I have shown evidence and will show more in a bit. Con seems confused by what I have argued in parts one and two. He says I don't know the difference between proof and "theory". I do understand proof and theory. And I have shown proof of the evidence to support Evolution. Gravity is a theory, yes its considered a law but it is also theory. Newton's theory of Gravitation, or The theory of relativity. And the law only describe how Gravity affects matter. It does not give any insight to what gravity is or what causes it. Theory is used to help with that. . https://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl..., These are all reference on the "theory" of Gravity. Or you can look at every topic about it and it will probably tell the same. I thank you Con for confirming that there is not any evidence for creationism. If there is no evidence to be found as I have said. There can't really be a source. In this case I actually am the source explaining that I can not find any real evidence. Just because we know there are Koalas Does not validate a logic of Creation. Is Con suggesting that Creation is real by this statement. He has not shown any evidence to the side of the debate he willing chose. Yes we could argue all day about any thing we want. But since the topic has to two sides to be argued it seems it should be easy to understand what this debate is about. I also never once say evolution is about the origin's of life. Con is creating argument I have not ever said. The two are incompatible because Creationism says that everything was Created for a purpose. Evolution says things adapt to survive off the changing environment therefore their "purpose" would have to change also. And if Con says abiogenesis provides the origin of life. Why then does he think Creationism is logic. Its one or the other. You ask why its not logical to believe something because its written in an old book. Okay I ask you, do you believe the Egyptian religion, or Greek, or Romans religion, or the Koran? How about Satanism? That's an old book, do you believe in that? My guess would be probably no. My logic is people tend to stick with the one religion taught to them by there guardian or parent, which learned from theirs, and so on. Have any of the people ever stopped and tried to find proof for the these things they were taught? Con says not all Creationist take the Bible literally, that they see it as metaphors. That's because that percent of people probably see it not logical to fallow certain things written in an old book. A book Religion says is the word of God. But why doesn't this "God" with his all powerful, all wise, and all knowing fallibility. forget to include things in this really old book like, don't rape, don't torture, don't molest or abuse children. If this being "God" couldn't think of these horrible things as "sin" Why would it be logical to fallow his ideas? "We can't ask the author" because he is dead. But if that's your view then you are saying the Bible is not the word of God. So if the Bible is written by man why is it logical to believe in God. Or Divine Creator. Saying there is a God because it's an easy way to explain something, not understood, is not logic. It's just an excuse to not try to understand it. No this is not ipse dixit because I don't expect the reader to except my statement as valid. I expect them to look at evidence shown and make their own decision. I have shown method of reasoning for Evolution being more logical through evidence. I have not seen any argumentation for that. To clear up confusion, what I'm saying is, because of the abundance of research and evidence to support evolution it is a more logical theory than Creationism which has lack of research or evidence that supports it. That is the my objective comparison. Con's so called evidence is "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" These are opinionated and non-factual statements. Just because a cause started something does not mean God is responsible. There is no evidence to prove any of this. Con can't use opinion as fact. As for the big bang theory it has logic for assumption, also before the big bang it's been speculated that our whole universe could have possible passed through a giant black hole, causing the singularity that exploded, after the black hole decomposed enough. Which could suggest its always been around. This came straight from the National Science teachers of America The most important scientific explanations are called "theories. " In science a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses (NAS 1998). Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence; are logically consistent with other well-established principles; have been tested in diverse settings and against diverse data; explain more than rival theories; and have the potential to lead to new knowledge. The word creationism has many meanings. In its broadest meaning, creationism is the idea that the universe is the consequence of something transcendent. Thus to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God created; to the Navajo, the Hero Twins created; for Hindu Shaivites, the universe comes to exist as Shiva dances. In a narrower sense creationism has come to mean "special creation": the doctrine that the universe and all that is in it was created by God in essentially its present form, at one time. The most common variety of special creationism asserts that the Earth is very young; life was created by God; life appeared suddenly; kinds of organisms have not changed since the creation; and different life forms were designed to function in particular settings. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 [ED Ark. 1982] the judge ruled that "creation science"did not qualify as scientific theory. . http://goo.gl... . http://goo.gl... In Soviet Russia around 1948 a scientist named Dmitri Belyaev started studying the Silver Fox in captivity. He found this from domesticated foxes:"Morphological changes: These changes were perhaps the most surprising (and gave the best support to Belyaev"s predictions). A much higher proportion of experimental foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their "musky fox smell. ". . http://goo.gl... This shows change without doubt. In conclusion Con has not shown any logic for Creationism. He has not even seemed to notice the evidence I've provided. He has failed to provide concrete evidence for his argument. I again have looked for evidence for Creation. I still have not had any luck. Actually I find it harder and harder to be a logical theory the more I look.