Evolution and Creationism can coexist for now.

I extend all of my unaddressed arguments from the previous round. My opponent’s arguments 1. My opponent is incorrect, “for now” means that they can coexist for the moment, it is not a reference to the fact that both evolution and creationism deal with matters of the past. It means simply that evolution has not yet disproven all of the branches of creationism, but that perhaps it might at some point in the future. Example: “for now” creationism has not been entirely disproven by the theory of evolution alone. 2. BOP is shared. It was stated in round 1. My opponent agreed to the terms and cannot shift the burden to me now. 3. I agree that my opponent does not have to disprove the existence of God. 4. I agree that my opponent does not have to prove creationism is false. In the case of 3 and 4 it makes no impact on the resolution. My opponent agreed to the debate, it is irrelevant that it is impossible for him to win. Biblical creationism My opponent has made an excellent case against creationism based on a strict interpretation of the bible being able to coexist with the theory of evolution. However, I would like to note that I did not limit this debate to creationism based on a strict interpretation of the bible. My opponent has failed to address: (1) non-Christian religions and their versions of creationism, (2) versions of creationism that might have occurred that are beyond the explanations provided by any known religion; and even (3) potential non-human[1] versions of creationism in my last round; (4) To that I would add Christian religions that are not based on a strict interpretation of the bible, but that basically say some variation of “God did whatever science cannot prove otherwise. ” That creationism might not be able to coexist with science is not the subject of this debate (even though some of the forms of creationism mentioned in my last round can clearly coexist with science, for example “god may have had a hand on something at some point in time”). This is a debate about whether creationism and evolution can coexist. It is a debate that involves science, but it does not turn on creationism’s ability to be able to coexist with all of science. That being said, in science, parts of a complex theory or hypothesis can be removed without the entire theory or hypothesis being disproven. An example is the theory of evolution itself, which has gone through many revisions since the days of Darwin. For example the simple evolutionary tree used by Darwin and in early studies of evolution has given way to a much more complex picture when confronted with horizontal gene transfer,[2] hybridization between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridization takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences. That parts of the “theory of evolution” might be invalidated by later science doesn’t mean that the entirety of evolution is wrong. It follows then that if parts of the hypothesis of creationism might be invalidated by science, it doesn’t mean that the entire concept has been disproven. Separate branches of creationism can still survive and not be in conflict with evolution. To help illustrate this discussion, observe the following diagram: The above diagram shows some possible variations on the interaction between creationism and evolution as explanations for how life came to be. The black line represents time. The black dots represent points in time. The period of time covered by evolution is shown in blue. The periods of time covered by various versions of creationism is shown in red (the reddish color). Line A shows the period of history that is covered by the theory of evolution. Line B represents those versions of creationism that deal more with the creation of the universe rather than trying to explain how life evolved on Earth, and could be considered not based on a strict interpretation of the bible. This includes non-Christian religions, Christian religions that do not use a strict interpretation of the bible, and any potential non-human religion. To this would be added any version of God that might pre-date time and the universe themselves that may have set the universe in motion. Line C represents a version of creationism based on a biblical interpretation. Line D represents a possible situation in which God has been involved on multiple parts of the development of the universe, up to and including the manipulation of the evolution of life on Earth. The argument that I make is that in certain cases, creationism and evolution do not overlap, as shown in line B of the diagram, where creationism is mostly concerned with events that happened before the beginning of life on Earth. That might have set the stage for life to take place. In those cases creationism and evolution can clearly coexist. Since they are not trying to explain the same phenomena. One is concerned with the development of life, and the other is concerned with the existence of the universe. Included in line B are those versions of creationism that say that God may have set events in motion before life existed, such as creating the laws of physics, that makes it possible for evolution to take place. In most of the versions of creationism represented by line B, there is no conflict with evolution, and therefore creationism and evolution can coexist in those cases. As long as one version of creationism is able to coexist with the theory of evolution, I have proved my case. Other versions of creationism My opponent has also not addressed the possibility that God may have simply faked the evolutionary record and all evidence of evolution for some unknown reason. In that case, although creationism and evolution might overlap, such as in lines C and D, there would be no conflict with evolution, since it would be impossible to tell if evolution is even real. In that case, even strict-biblical creationism could coexist with the theory of evolution. Conclusion Creationism and evolution, in some cases, cover different spans of time and/or branches of science entirely. In those cases, there is no conflict between them at all since they do not overlap (see Line B of the diagram above). It’s also possible for evolution and creationism to overlap without being in conflict as noted in the above examples. Regardless, as long as some version of creationism can coexist with evolution, the resolution is valid. My opponent has yet to make an argument against any version of creationism that isn't based on a strict interpretation of the bible, and as such concedes that the resolution is valid. It is possible to believe in evolution and creationism simultaneously without contradiction. They can both coexist or live “in peace with each other” at least for now. The simple creationist statement "God may have had a hand on something at some point" is not in conflict with evolution. Therefore, the resolution is proven. Thank you for reading, please vote Pro! [1] By non-human I mean possible animal or alien religions (you never know, maybe there’s something to those whale songs… maybe ET has a temple, maybe there is some alien species that has had more direct contact with God than the human race). I'm being serious. [2] “HGT is one of two keys to understanding cellular evolution. The phenomenon has long been known, but the HGT we thought we knew is not the HGT that genomics reveals. Only a decade ago HGT was generally considered a relatively benign force, which had sporadic and restricted evolutionary impact. However, the HGT that genomics reveals is not of this nature. It would seem to have the capacity to affect the entire genome, and given enough time could, therefore, completely erase an organismal genealogical trace. This is an evolutionary force to be reckoned with, comparable in power and consequence to classical vertical evolutionary mechanisms. ” . http://tinyurl.com...