Evolution is better than creationism

"No observable evidence for evolution" The fossil record, genetics, observed speciation, antibiotic/vaccine resistant diseases (the reason you need a flu shot every year, and that your immune system doesn't become immune to the common cold after the first time). "It takes faith to believe in evolution" A couple of things, first, what do you mean by faith? If you mean some form of trust, yeah it could be analogous. But there is verifiable empirical data that shows it is the best explanation of our origins. "There is so much evidence for a creator god" If that was the case, it wouldn't be the oldest unanswered philosophical question, that has been insufficiently answered for millennia. The room cleaning analogy is not really the best way to think about it, chemistry is a very complex thing, and therefore biology is also. Biological evolution does not break any law of thermodynamics. As for the first, energy can't be created or destroyed I agree, but nor does the charge of the universe. The energy and mass in the universe adds up to 0. This is to do with negative energy. So in the same way a neutron can break down into an electron and proton, and charges of 1+ and 1- come into existence, the same could ebb the case for energy in the early universe. Evolution doesn't deal with that anyway. That's for cosmology to do. As for the second law, I really don't see how it affects that law. The second law of thermodynamics states that after any process, a portion of energy becomes useless ambient heat called entropy. How does this affect evolution? Because a closed system's entropy increases over time? The earth isn't a closed system, the enropy is able to leave the earth and the sun's radiation enters. The overall entropy of the universe is increasing, of which calculations determine a zero entropy around 13.7 billion years ago. Things easily go from simple to complex in evolution. It happens all of the time. It's to do with the self-replicating nature of proteins, and the fact that they can catalyse other reactions. Okay, defending blind faith. That's a new one. The story of Abraham is horrible. Asked to kill his own son, to test his unshakeable loyalty? That doesn't sound like a nice god to me. It sounds like a petty tyrant, a psychopath. Trust me, the only "holes" in evolution are gaps in understanding. What, because we don't yet have a theory of quantum gravity does that mean gravity isn't true? The only "disproven" elements of evolution are those that don't even make sense. Laymen like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron have no clue what they're talking about. This reminds me of a joke I saw once. There were two men, a scientist and a priest. On the board there was a game of hangman with the letters EVOLU-ION already revealed. The scientist looks and says "I'm going to predict T as the last letter" and the priest looks and says "no, the word's obviously creation!" The holes that have been found in evolution are not really there. They are based on a lack of understanding of evolution and its implications. As for evidence of creation, well you have been lied to. I can't put it less bluntly than that. Creation science is pseudoscience, along with astrology, phrenology, and homeopathy. What you must not understand is how the scientific method works. Scientific method Observed phenomenon -> hypothesis -> experiment/observation -> theory -> more testing until incorrect hypothesis from theory -> theory altered to explain and predict... Creation "scientist" method Observed phenomenon -> story -> denial of evidence against story -> censorship of evidence to reduce number of dissenters who discover such evidence. As for evolution being a religion, and science being its god, is called a fallacy of equivocation, by using broad meanings of the words "religion" and "god" Evolution is the reason that you need different vaccines, and why there is a diversity of dog breeds. It is the foundation of biology. Also, I am going to give you a helping hand. As for what evidence you would accept, there is a slight problem normally. I call this the crockoduck principle. "If ever a creationist asks for a specific piece of evidence of evolution, they will most likely be asking for something that would disprove it." The most well-known occurrence of this law is when Kirk Cameron claimed he would accept evolution if he saw a fossil of a duck with the head of a crocodile. It has also spawned the phrase "go full crockoduck" which is when a creationist asks for some ridiculous evidence of evolution, or when they make a ridiculous claim about its implications. So my question is what would convince you evolution happened? Show me how DNA evidence supports creation. I have yet to see anything more than rhetoric I have heard before many times over. If there are so many holes you see in evolution, name some of them, and I may be able to explain how it works. However, I can point out several holes in creationism. It can't explain how we can see things further away than 6000 light years. It can't explain how the human population grew at the rate it must have in the 2000 years between Jesus and the flood, as our population went from 300 million from 0 AD to 6 billion in 2000 AD, a growth factor of 20, while the population must have grown from six to 300 million in the same amount of time, a growth factor of 50 million! And take into account recent advancements in medical science and food production, and it seems even less likely. It doesn't explain why we have vestigial organs that exist in our ancestors (not the apes today, we broke off long before). It can't explain how magic makes life, but chemistry can't. There really is no evidence of magic in the body, and therefore can be explained purely in terms of natural causes. Claiming chemistry can't create life is like electricity alone can't power machines.