Creationism should be Recognized as another Explanation for Life on Earth

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". [1] 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 [2] to DNA similarities (particularly Chromosome 2 in reference to human evolution) [3] to the fossil record [4] 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). [5][6]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.Sources:[1] http://science.yourdictionary.com...[2] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...[3] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...[6] http://www.pbs.org...