Creationism is a better model than evolution

The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino-acids. These, while "organic" in nature, are not life. As I showed in round 1, for amino acids to become proteins they have to be arranged and bonded in a particular order and then folded in a particular way for them to be effective in their designated function. If they are folded wrong, they don't work. If they are arranged wrong, they don't fold right, and cannot work. There has never been an experiment where a functional protein was created outside of a living being, because it takes a living mitochondria to fold the amino acid chain properly. God indicates in the Bible, which I sometimes refer to as the users manual for life written by the manufacturer, that He wants us to follow Him of our own will. There is a reason for God to be mysterious. He wants us to seek Him out. In human terms (and this won't be a perfect analogy, but it will get the point across I hope), it is like Rey from Star Wars Episode 7. Luke (who I believe is her father) left her on a planet in the hands of a cruel man. Then he leaves clues all across the galaxy for her to follow that lead her to him, if she is willing to search. For a long time, she expected him to come to her and prove he loved her. But that is not what he wants. He wants her to prove that she loves him by seeking him out. He doesn't want another Kylo Ren, who was forced to become his student and then rebelled (just like Satan). The harder the journey to get to the teacher, the more sure the teacher is of the student's desire and willingness to learn. This, I believe, is one of the reasons that God made Himself so mysterious, as my opponent called Him. My worthy opponent assumes that evolution made us the way we are and then says that because we are the way we are, evolution got it right. He says that " we have more food on land and the way our eyes work we are better suited for land." OK, but there is vastly more space in the seas (as my opponent pointed out in round 2). There is vastly more nutrients in the seas. There are fewer natural dangers and threats to creatures that live in the seas. So where is the evolutionary imperative that drove us from the seas however many years ago? What caused our eyes to work better in the air than in the water? Why the change? And why didn't every creature in the seas leave the sea and come onto land as well (if it was so much better on land)? Cosmogenic dating must then presuppose a uniform level of radiation over time and a zero isotope baseline. But we know that solar radiation changes dramatically from year to year. It also changes as the sun ages. The theory also does not take into account the preexistence of these isotopes in the quartz, or the creation of those isotopes in response to other radiologic effects. Your professor got it wrong. A lot of the time, that drunk either reaches the wrong destination, or he doesn't reach any destination at all (he dies). Science is the same way. Science has taught us many things over the last 2 or 3 hundred years that we were certain were true that turned out to be false. And I will admit that a lot of people who hold religious belief don't want to hear things that would seem to contradict their beliefs. Religion can be a terrible thing, and many terrible things are done in the name of religion. But God is not a religion. Jesus Himself taught against religiosity throughout His ministry. Your source references mathematical estimation of the probability of species in a given environment. This goes a little too far for credibility's sake. According to the BBC (1) there are about 8.7 million species on the planet. This includes, "animals ... fungi, plants, protozoa ... and chromists". They say that of the 8.7 million species, 7.77 million are animals. But I would submit that this is counting as separate species animals that are genetically similar but with different appearance. These are not separate species. They are the same species that have adapted to different environments, but have not changed genetically. Also, this takes into account all the animals on land and sea. The Ark only took land animals. I would submit that the Ark very easily could have contained all the animals sent by God to ride in it. I would challenge the assertion that kangaroo fossils should be found all over the world. That is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible that the two kangaroos off the Ark journeyed to a particular area of the super continent before it split up. Elephants are not native to Australia, and there are no fossils of elephants there. Which can be explained the same way. There were no elephants in the part of the super continent that became Australia when it split apart. Neither the sun nor lightning is an organizing source that would cause a violation of the second law of thermodynamics as applied to the puddle in which the first life supposedly formed. For that first life to form, it would have had to violate this law by spontaneously growing in complexity. Not only has that never happened, but it cannot happen under any circumstances. There is no time when energy spontaneously grows in complexity. There is never a time when anything spontaneously combines with something else to make a more complex thing. It just doesn't happen. (2, 3) For order to increase, not only energy must be input, but that energy must be intelligently input. Random energy does not account for increased complexity, especially to the level of complexity required for life (again I give you the protein). That being the case, there had to be some kind of intelligence that directed the input into that system to have created life. That input had to have come from an intelligent, powerful, organized, thoughtful, rational being. That being is God. References: 1. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161 2. http://www.christiananswers.net... 3. https://www.quora.com...