(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)Atheist evolution vs Christian Creationism. I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the Christian creationism side.Definition of Creationism via wikipedia."CreationismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1]Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5]Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]"StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am the instigator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.This debate is almost identical to a previous debate I lost. [1] I think the main flaw with my debate last time, is I left Creationism too open. My opponent won at this juncture, which I didn't expect my opponent to take this turn. "The main problem with that sort of argument is simple: The Bible does not have to be correct for creationism to exist. It is perfectly possible that perhaps the entire Bible, or at least the majority of it, is mistaken, and that it has no place in the field, of science, as my opponent appears to believe." Kescarte_DeJudicaThat by allowing my opponent to take a deism approach to creationism, most of my argument fell flat. Since, creationism could still be correct according to another religion or no religion at at all. That being said my opponent must take a literal Christian approach to creationism. Sources0. https://en.wikipedia.org...1. http://www.debate.org...