Evolution vs Creationism

Rebuttals:1. "Pro says that the presence of useless or harmful organs in our bodies contradicts the idea of an intelligent designer. But Pro goes on to demonstrate that these "vestigial body parts" were once extremely useful. Vomeronasal organs detected chemicals..."As we can see from Con's statements, Con agrees that vestigial body parts used to be extremely useful for our ancestors. Is it too far to say that maybe our "ancestors," were sapiens, or other supposed early versions of man? However, he continues by saying that vomeronasal organs detected chemicals. Perhaps it was my wording, or Con did not read my argument thoroughly enough, but I clarified that the vomeronasal organs are currently non-functioning in humans, but formerly were used by our ancestors to detect pheromones and chemicals. The fact that vomeronasal organs became non-functioning, or obsolete, demonstrates that, if we were created by Intelligent Design, what purpose would there be of possessing vomeronasal organs if they don't function? 2. "Pro says that fossils show species changing over time. No doubt this is true."This statement alone shows that species can develop and change, and likely evolve.3. "The fact that DNA is code is an insurmountable hurdle for evolution." Again, Con uses the argument that "Life is too complex to be created by chance." Regardless, I shall address Con's statement. Con states that DNA code is too complex for evolution to be created. I believe Con suggests that man's genetic code is very different from other species. Con assumes that there was a dynamic shift from an ape to man. However, as I have clarified in my previous arguments, evolution is not a fast process. It takes millions, of years to cultivate different species such as man. It's a long process were small mutations are made in DNA. 4. "This carries into Pro's point about prebiotic molecules. No doubt many molecules can form under natural conditions, even organic ones. But this does not get you to code, this does not get you to DNA. Pro casually says with a hand wave: "I can conclude that these prebiotic molecules found on the meteorites were deposited on Earth, and formed the very first living cells." But that is a HUGE jump! There is exactly zero scientific evidence"Firstly, let me apologize. It was ridiculous to not clarify on this. To support the theory that prebiotic molecules may be the sources of organic life on Earth, I would like to introduce the Miller-Urey Experiment and a brief description of abiotic synthesis. Abiotic Synthesis: making compounds using non-living molecules (S1)The Miller-Urey Experiment was an experiment conducted by biochemists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The experiment demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere. In the website, Windows to the Universe, the experiment is described as "an apparatus which held a mix ofgasses similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates," (S2). The Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated that substances, such as prebiotic molecules, had the potential to create organic life, given the conditions on Earth's early atmosphere, as demonstrated by amino acids (organic molecules) that were created as a result of reactions between abiotic, or nonliving, molecules. s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Image result for miller urey experiment" />Questions for Con:Con's main argument relies on rebutting my claims. However, Con has not even started to make arguments and points of his own that prove that Intelligent Design has more "scientific proof" behind it. Con's "evidence is instead a barrage of rebuttals and questions on evolution with a lack of reasoning other than simply saying that evolution is "too complex" to exist, and saying that because modern science may not currently answer all the questions we have to our existence, that means that evolution is automatically a terrible theory. With that logic, because Democritus, the Greek scientist to come up with the theory atoms, didn't have enough evidence or answers to explain the theory of atoms, his theory is deemed to be false.Also, Con has asked "how can something come out of nothing," likely forgetting that God presumably came from "nothing," and so did man (Adam and Eve). What reason is there for an unquestionably complex being like God to be created? What possibility is there of such an omnificent being existing?Sources: S1) http://study.com...S2) http://www.windows2universe.org...