Evolution is a superior explanation for the origin of man and the universe as compared to creationis

Hello, BDPerishing, Here is my rebuttal speech, this has been an interesting match and I thank you for accepting my challenge. May the better debater prosper.Let's begin...Black holes Response to your black holes theory: this evidence is very recent, the article just came out December 19 2014 and finds that black holes cannot exist. Black Holes Don’t exists Thania Benios, Dec-19-2014, "Researcher shows that black holes do not exist," No Publication, http://phys.org... “Black holes….don't exist.”…….….“For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity.”……” By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. [END quotes] The theories that you used to get your responses to my argument really just demonstrate a few of my points. The first of which is that scientists have no idea what happened before the universe began, because it came out of “nothing”. I got this quote from your source: ““For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo” All that scientists have is absurd theories which can never be proven, such as the multiverse theory. The belief in this theory isn’t based on substantiated science and If someone believes in that, or a related, theory they are doing so based off of ‘faith in science’, Blind and Unsubstantiated faith. Which eliminates that from any attack you want to impose on religious explanations. So overall we can see that the scientific atheist solution is accepted but based on no proof. This lack of proof is something that my opponent often throws at me, yet my argument makes a bit more sense. There has to be a creator to spring things forth from nothingness. A being which resides outside of time and was not created. This eternal creator Must exist in either scenario, except the atheist’s version is unintelligent. Argument on truth Here you make the classic statement that Truth is Subjective. Which basically means that truth changes for every person and there is no set truth. Here is why that can’t possibly be true: The statement ‘truth is subjective’, means that no single truth exists in everybody’s world. That statement collapses on itself inevitably because You Are Making That Statement As a universally true claim, which makes this belief a logical fallacy because according to that very sentence, no universally true claim is real. The idea that truth is subjective is often derived from the fact that morality is subjective and that beauty is subjective. This is undoubtedly true, because each person will view a crime in a different way, concerning wrong and right. However truth is not subjective which means that the ‘argument from eternal truths’ is still in play RecapYou seem to harbor misconceptions about what I mean when I explain my arguments. For instance I do not think, and most Christians do not think, that God is nothing and everything. I would encourage you to re-read my arguments that I have made, especially in my last response because many points were not considered. Just because god exists outside of time and space does not mean that he is nothing. This goes back to the idea that some are stuck in mental cages and can't see anything beyond material qualities."creationists think the dimension is god."Divine ExperiencesYou relate my arguments on this matter to nothing more than: "some trippy experiences", and ""tingles" is the brain releasing "feel good" brain chemicals."According to Wikipedia there are around 4,200 different religions. That is what I mean by divine consensus. Not being high, intoxicated through drugs or social conduct, but inner and deeper knowledge arising from a common unknown divine essence. God. I believe you are unable to account for this fact in the world we live in today.Hypocritical lack of evidence and existence of faithThroughout this round, I appear to be the only one who has provided clear and consistent evidence, my opponent has used unsubstantiated theories as well as a hoard of assumptions to construct his case, all while denying the very possibility of a creator because he cannot be shown true with physical evidence. The purpose of debate is to expand one's mind by evaluating and accepting opposing ideas, not by dismissing them, and in this case we can see that his very own claims of lacking evidence applies to the very arguments he promotes.EternityPSALMS "Before the mountains were born or you gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." 2"For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night."To restate my points I would simply like to state the following. 1.) Science agrees that the universe had to have come from nothing at some point after some cause (see infinite regression)2.) Science cannot explain and will never be able to explain the existence of the universe based on infinite causes or an atheist ultimate cause. On the other hand, since the bible's creation, it has been know that God is eternal and is not constrained by earthly bounds.3.) Therefore when evaluating evidence and reason, the theory of creationist origin is superior to that of the atheistic evolutionary origin of man and the universe. Clarificationsa.) I could most accurately classify my holdings as Day-Theory creationism.b.)About evolution jumping, see my last arguent and search for "cambiran" in f3, I give examples there.c.) Life spawning- I don't think that life spawned anywhere, that would be evolution. What must be true is deliberate panspermiaAffirmative Negligence Through this round, I appear to be the only one who has presented evidence against evolution, while the affirmative has not done his job of showing that evolution is a superior theory for the origin of man and the universe than creationism. In any round the burden of proof is on the affirmative team, and he has failed at upholding this burden by not providing a single piece of evidence from a credible source, promoting evolution, or evolution as better than creationism. For this reason alone the affirmative must lose the debate round, but I believe that even beyond this fact, my evidence and arguments has been systematically superior. I would like to remind my opponent that this is the rebuttal so no new arguments can be made.Why the Round Flows my Way 1.) The affirmative has not fulfilled his burden of proof2.) The affirmative has not shown sufficient evidence beyond unsubstantiated analytical argumentation3.) The affirmative has been unsuccesful in taking down any of my arguments supporting creationism, See: infinite regression, time scale of evolution, logical proofs supporting the existence of god, and divine consensus.4.) I have responded to all arguments made, have been consistent grammatically and have provided, in my opinion, more logical answers than the Affirmative team For the reasons provided throughout this rebuttal and the speeches past, I can only see a Negative leaning vote. I would like to thank everyone who has read through this whole debate as well as my opponent BDPerishing for accepting the challenge and finishing the debate. I would like to also thank anyone who takes the chance to voice their opinion on this matter so that we may determine the victor and strengthen our skills in this art. -TheJunioVarsityNovice