Evolution vs creationism

Road Map of my arguments in this speech: Macro v. Micro Evo, Your ethics Citations plus other links, Atheist Evolutionist morality, Concessions (LINKS) "However, I will provide links to several sources about secular ethics. Elaborate on exactly what you mean in your second body paragraph? The one about microbes to man? Then I shall address it." a.)As the negative opposition is it not my responsibility to visit links you provide, I can only evaluate evidence and assertions that you provide. If it were not this way then one could simply post an argument full of website links as their rebuttal and would never be required to actually make their own arguments. Links are provided for the affirmative or negative to delve deeper into an argument to prepare for the next and to give credibility to statements asserted. For that reason if you wish to make an argument on ethics then you will have to assert and warrant it in your next speech. I have provided assertions and warrants for you to evaluate and I believe them to be sufficient, if you do not, simply make a claim that my warrant is invalid for any reason that you may think, and I will elaborate from there. (T) "This is not a debate about the existenCe of god" a.)This debate is 100% about god there is no escaping that truth. Creationism implies that a creator (God) created all life, Therefore I Must assert that god is a real being, moreover, you have not stated whether you believe god is real and evolution is real. I interpret the resolution to mean that either god is real and evolution does not exist Or god is not real and evolution does exist. One could also deduce you mean this "either or" type resolution because you have stated atheism as your religion. If you would like to say that god and evolution are both real than make that claim, otherwise it is pretty much your obligation to defend that God is Not real. Incorrect? (T) "You also bring up the big bang, and talk about atheism in general. This is 100% irrelevant so I shall not address it. Stay on topic please. " a.)As I said. I believe that the resolution you have provided means that either evolution is not real and god is OR god is not real and evolution Is real. This means I must advocate that god is real. Also for creationism to actually mean anything, God must be there to have created life, that is the entire premise of creationism so based on that alone I have to defend that god is real and provide evidence that says so, one way of doing this is showing why I believe that atheism is not real, leaving god as the only other option. b.) I also want to claim that if god is real then creationism is real as well so if I "win" on that argument then the round must automatically flow my direction. (Morality) "You talk about how a creation worldview is necessary for morality. This, although not true is completely and totally irrelevant. This is not a debate about ethics. This is a debate about whether evolution is true or not." a.)The morality argument is relevant, it is a method to show that god is real which is what I must defend and therefore that atheism is something that is not real based on the simple premises of the arguments provided by most evos. Even Richard Dawkins admits that an objective moral truth cannot exist in the evolutionary model at least without god in it. This is not to say that without the belief in god we lose morality and everyone will start murdering each other, it is to say that from the atheists" point of view we cannot claim that something is Really Truly wrong or right, it just depends on how you feel, or what would be best for your evolutionary survival. (Evolution) "There really is no micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution, change over time. Saying that micro is valid but macro is invalid is like saying that you can walk two feet but you can't walk 10. The only difference is the amount of time." a.)I disagree, Micro evolution is found in experiments such as the Fruit Fly experiment where generations upon generations of fly"s were hit with low level radiation and after 60 years the only differences found were useless sets of wings and strange colors in their eyes and skin. They never became structurally different, we have never seen structural changes in organisms since we have been on this Earth only slight slight changes in resistance ect. Scientists have failed to show that the Primordial Soup which all life came from exists and have never been able to create on of their own. That is why evolution only works on a micro but not macro scale. Macro has no concrete proof. (Concessions by NEG) "You have made a plethora of fallacies. The first was calling both evolution and creationism theories. Theories are not merely assertions. In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world That is acquired through the scientific method And repeatedly tested and Confirmed through observation and experimentation. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory." a.)Neg concedes that evolution is a theory and creationism is not. However It's not just black and white like that. Although a "theory" in science is something that has experimental verification, in principle, a "theory" can't be 100% truth. The goal of formulating a theory is to get as close to the truth as possible For instance, the Newtonian theory of gravity and the theory of gravity using vector fields is a good enough theory for engineers to use when they want to send a satellite into outer space. So this theory of gravity is "true", but it has some problems. General relativity is a better theory of gravity because it fixes the problems in Newtonian gravity. So even though Newtonian gravity can be considered as a "fact" because it makes accurate predictions, general relativity makes even more accurate predictions than Newtonian gravity. And even general relativity has it's problems (ie, it can't explain gravity at very small scales), which is why a lot of theoretical physicists today are working on a theory of quantum gravity in order to understand gravity at the center of a black hole or gravity in the very, very early universe. b.)What I believe is that evolution is a Very flawed theory which need major revisions and also that creationism accounts for the origin of man better than Evolution. Concessions by the affirmative. Pro has currently not responded to the following, which means that they have admitted that to be true as of now. The rule in debate is almost always that "silence is compliance". 1.that evolution doesn"t have enough time to happen 2.d. The argument from truth 3.e. The origin of the idea of god 4.f. The worldwide general consensus 5.g. Pascal's Wager 6.That current atheist and scientific views cannot account for the orgin of the universe but creationism can I"m having a great time and I look forward to our next round roark555 :P -TheJuniorVarsityNovice