Creationism should be Recognized as another Explanation for Life on Earth
Debate Rounds (3)
Seeing as how you never specified any of the following, I am just going to assume (A) You have the burden of proof since you are affirming the resolution, (B) You have yet to post any of your arguments, and (C) First round is acceptance only, so... I accept. Good luck.
1) Evolution is just as logical or illogical as Creationism in origin
The word science means "knowledge." Science is the study of what we know. In order for something to be truly scientific in the strict sense of the word, it must be observable, testable, and demonstrable. The entire subject of origins (both creation and evolution) is actually outside the field of science. (1).
If you found a very old box, and inside it was a golden locket, and someone asked you "how did that get there?". You would most likely respond, "Well, someone put it in there". Lets first look at the fact that Evolution does ignore this logic and instead replace it with a different type of logic. With Evolution we must understand that the locket must have come from materials inside the box that developed over time.
2) No instance of Macro Evolution has ever been proven
Macro Evolution being considered the adaptation of a species that is completely assumed, like an adaptation from a non-flying organism to a organism with wings. Micro Evolution is adaptation within its kind, such as thicker fur on wolves living in colder regions. Evolutionists will quote instances of Micro Evolution as if that proves Evolution (4), when in reality, even the bible says "bring forth after their kind." (Genesis 1) (3). Which allows for Micro Evolution under a previously designed genetic code.
3) The Origin of Life cannot be explained by Evolution
Next I want to explore the fact that Evolutionists have not actually proven that life could have formed from amino acids and salts in a body of water somewhere. School textbooks will read that Scientists Miller and Urey "proved" the origin of life from inorganic compounds possible. The truth is far from that, there experiment failed to create life. (1). For life to have been created, the Earth would have had to have no Oxygen at the time, because the organism would be oxidized quickly and killed. Although, without Oxygen you have no ozone layer to protect earth from the sun, therefore the Suns powerful rays would have destroyed it as well. (2).
3) The Bible http://www.biblegateway.com...
4) Dutko, Bob. Top Ten Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible. Book.
My opponent is right in saying he needs to use arguments to explain why creationism is just as valid as evolution. You'd think he'd do so by providing some evidence, any evidence at all, that would support the plausibility of creationism. But by the end of round 2, we are left with none.
Instead of trying to convince us of the validity of creationism, he tries to convince us of the invalidity of evolution, like both are little more than just guesses based on imaginative speculation. Unfortunately for my opponent, though, the theory of evolution is much more than that.
Before I continue, however, I'd like to define what evolution is, because I'm sure there is some confusion here. Evolution is "the process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection".  In no way does the theory of evolution attempt to explain the origins of life on Earth. That phenomenon would be abiogenesis, not evolution.
Now, to look at Dane's arguments:
1) Evolution is just as invalid as creationism because we weren't around to actually witness the evolution of apes thousands of years ago.
The mere fact we weren't around to physically witness an event doesn't mean we cannot determine how that event transpired. If you disagree, perhaps you think we should release the populations of every prison in the nation? After all, what good are trivial things like evidence in a court of law when we can't be 100 percent sure a crime occurred or not unless we were there?
The fact is, we can be confident how an event transpired (even if we weren't there) as long as we have sufficient evidence. And in the battle of evolution versus creationism, all the evidence seems to point toward evolution. Everything from vestigial organs  to DNA similarities (particularly Chromosome 2 in reference to human evolution)  to the fossil record  all suggest we, and every other species on the planet, evolve, and have evolved from earlier species. I mean, why do you think we need to get a new flu shot every year? Because the virus strand evolves that quickly.
What evidence is there that creationism is true?
2) Macro-evolution has never been proven.
The mere fact you make a point to distinguish between micro and macro evolution is a bit telling. Evolution is the genetic change populations undergo from generation to generation. Eventually, the genetic change becomes great enough to where long-past separated populations can no longer interbreed (known as speciation).
This has been observed in multiple instances, both in the lab (including Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky's fruit flies) and in nature (including ring species, such as the salamanders of the United State's Pacific coast). 
3) Evolution can't explain the origins of life on Earth.
This is like saying marine biology can't explain the ion density necessary for a deuterium-tritium fusion, so therefore marine biology is invalid. This argument is entirely nonsensical and should be discarded as such.
Dane20 forfeited this round.
Vote for a real eduction for our children. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: FF, arguments and sources. Obvious win is obvious.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.