Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

Unfortunately I have just 1 hour to write my response. I will elaborate more in future rounds. My opponent begins by pointing out that the "criteria of scientific theory" does not prove evolution. In the next round, I would like Pro to tell us what criteria he has for establishing the proof of anything. Pro says he will prove that science points to a creator. Per the opening round, he will have the burden of not only proving a creator, but proving the existence of a Judeo-Christian creator as described in the biblical account. Whereas Pro says many scientists say there is no definitively no God, that is primarily false. More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious [1]. Many scientists are agnostic, or advocate for different concepts of God than the Abrahamic view. For example Einstein believed in God, but not the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible [2]. Deism is a view that the universe obeying natural laws is an expression of a sort of absent creator -- but that's not what the biblical account of creationism describes. The point here is that science is not inherently hostile to religion. Pro has the burden of scientifically making his case, without relying on the supposition that science is simply biased against creationism. My opponent suggests the overwhelming evidence for evolution relies on appealing to the authority of other scientists. For one thing, appealing to the authority of experts is not the same as simply appealing to a majority of the population. Nonetheless the consensus stems from the presented evidence. If you asked every citizen if Donald Trump were the president, and everyone acknowledged it to be true, one wouldn't necessarily be "appealing to their majority" in noting that everyone acknowledged the facts. My opponent hasn't explained (nor proven) how creationists endure discrimination. Moreover, even when a consensus is established, scientists adjust theories to the revelation of new evidence. For example, prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant. Even Einstein accepted this theory. Then Edwin Hubble"s discovered the relationship between red shift (the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us) and distance, which showed that the universe was not constant but expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the "biggest blunder" of his career [3]. This is just one of many examples throughout history where scientists revised their consensus in the face of new information. The fact is, there is no evidence (that withstands scrutiny) to support creationism at all, which is why nobody has come forth and collected their Nobel Prize for the groundbreaking discovery of such evidence. Whereas I have presented a scientific method to validate scientific theories, Pro has given us no legitimate proof at all to validate the tenants of creationism. Now I will give a brief critique on his misguided criticisms of evolution. He says that just because some animals have the same number of legs doesn't prove a common ancestor. Of course, that is not the argument for proving a common ancestor. There is GENETIC proof of common ancestry [4, 5, 6]. Furthermore, functional biological similarity is explained by common design just as well as it"s explained by common descent [7]. There are literally thousands of transitional fossils " ones that show features in common with distinct later species [8]. I can go into more detail, but I don't have to yet since Pro isn't offering any scientific scrutiny; he simply mentions something irrelevant about legs. My opponent then suggests that the commonality does not discredit creationism, but of course it does. After all, Pro is advocating for the BIBLICAL account, which says nothing about common ancestors or anything of the sort. The biblical account is essentially a tall tale, describing such mythological events like great floods and other far fetched stories with no realistic proof. According to the Bible, the entire human race was derived of two people that were created out of each other's bodies... but I'll get into the completely asinine, bizarre and outright preposterous claims of the Bible in the next round. I don't have the time now (sorry!). Moving on, Pro mentions a completely random tangent on vestigial organs. He seems to be implying that I deny the existence of vestigial organs, but I don't as I explained last round. These structures are strong and direct evidence for proving common descent [9]. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Thus I do not deny these exist; they help prove evolution to be true. Pro misrepresents my argument on embryos; I did not say anything in advocacy of "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" so please drop this argument. What I was referring to was embryos developing different characteristics through comparative embryology [10]. I have no idea who or what Pro is talking about regarding fake drawings, but it has nothing to do with my argument. Pro asks for proof that macro-evolution is possible. I've explained this at length in round 1. I will refer Pro back to sources 7 through 11 from last round, since he claims he can not find any evidence for evolution on his own. Those sources (as I explained last round) indicate where evolution has been observed in nature. * * * Pro says the Earth is 7,000 years old and was created in 6 days. Take note that he offers no evidence for this at all whatsoever. Meanwhile, we have radiometric dating and radiocarbon dating, which measures the ratio between the number of carbon-14 and carbon-12 isotopes in any once-living being. This ratio indicates how long it's been since that being was alive. Through this process and others, the Earth has been measured to be over 4.374 billion years old, though it could be older [11]. I can expand in the next round on the plethora of evidence proving the Earth is without a doubt more than 7,000 years old. I invite Pro to present any evidence he can in his favor. I will address his point on diamonds, comets and seashells in the next round as I have just a few minutes to submit this. We can leave off here for now. [1] https://phys.org... [2] http://physics.ucsc.edu... [3] http://www.toptenz.net... [4] https://www.scientificamerican.com... [5] http://www.stat.cmu.edu... [6] http://humanorigins.si.edu... [7] https://www.evolutionnews.org... [8] http://www.livescience.com... [9] http://www.darwinwasright.org... [10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.theguardian.com...