Intelligent design ( pro ) vs evolution ( con ) with regards to the origin and diversity of life

No worries about the reliability of my statements as i will have listed my sources after my arguments. I disagree with con on her statement that "evolution is way better to" for 3 main reasons. I believe that Intelligent design theory does a way better job at explaining the complexity of life and is better than the evolutionary theory at accounting for the origin of life. Moreover, I would like to expose the commonly-held lie that Evolution is rife with scientific evidence. The evolutionary worldview relies on chance to create complex life. While Intelligent design relies on a supernatural force. Firstly, I would like to argue that the complexity of life is an undeniable fact and I will argue that Intelligent design does a much better job at accounting for the complexity of life. There are so many examples which demonstrate the complexity of life, but for the sake of time, I will only talk about the main 2. First off, the human brain is an extremely complex organ which could not have evolved, in other words , it is irreducibly complex. The brain is indeed the most complex structure in the universe. We each have something approaching 100 billion nerve cells " neurons " in the human brain (more than the number of stars in the Milky Way). Each of them can be connected directly with maybe 10,000 others, totaling some 100 trillion nerve connections. If each neuron of a single human brain were laid end to end they could be wrapped around the Earth twice over. The brain is just too complex to have evolved by chance. Secondly, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions. What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long. If any of those letters did not exist, the whole code fails and our existence fails. The DNA is yet again too complex to have evolved by chance. all in all, Our bodies are just too complex to have evolved the way they are right now. as Sir Fred Hoyle once said to the Nature magazine "The chance that higher life evolved that way is like a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials. " Dear humans, life is just way too complex and too fine -tuned for its surrounding to claim that it just evolved from some bacteria in water. Secondly, I would like to argue that intelligent design better explains the origin of life than the theory of evolution. The intelligent design theory has a very concise explanation about the origin of life which is the intervention of a supernatural force. In the evolutionary worldview, God can not be the answer since God is supernatural and can not be part of the evolutionary naturalistic worldview. So the evolutionist must rely on the chance that life came from non-life as stated by abiogenesis. However, the theory of abiogenesis is a direct contradiction to the law of biogenesis. The theory of abiogenesis states that life came spontaneously from non-life which relates to the theory of spontaneous generation. The irrationality of the theory of abiogenesis which states that life can just pop out of nowhere has been struck down with the introduction of the law of biogenesis which states that life can ONLY come from preexisting life and that life can not come from non-life. Since abiogenesis is just a theory while biogenesis is a law, abiogenesis and its irrationality that life can spontaneously form out of nowhere has been dissolved among the scientific community. Life can only come from life which poses a dilemma for the evolutionist as to who created the first life that started this cycle of life. The follower of intelligent design does not have this problem since he will go with the intervention of a supernatural force. While the evolutionist does not have a sound explanation for the origin of life. But what if the law of biogenesis did not exist, could the evolutionist still rely on chance? ? No. according to the french mathematician Emile Borel "anything with the probability of 1 in 10^50 will not happen". So if the origin of life was to rely on chance what would be its probability? ? Just to get the simplest form of cell that can barely survive, "simplest form of cell to evolve by chance is 1 in 10^119,841, to demonstrate how many zeros that is bring a paper and write 1 then bring thin pieces of paper to write that amount of zeros, you would fill up the entire universe with paper before finishing the number. " Both the calculation and the anology to how many zeros were provided by Dr. James Coppedge. Emile Borel comes up with an approximation of 1 in 10^119,000. all in all, intelligent design does a better job at accounting for the origin of life. Moreover, I would like to expose the lie that evolution is backed up with scientific evidence. Firstly, I will establish the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is small changes between species in physical characteristics. For instance, different beak sizes for birds. It should be noted that microevolution does not the theory of evolution in anyway since it establishes variations between the same species and not between different species, the theory of evolution needs support for the latter. However, microevolution like different beak sizes of birds on the Gal"pagos Islands was used by Darwin. I believe that is not proof of evolution since the theory of evolution is variation between different species while microeveoltion is variation between the same species. I do admit to the fact of microevolution and the variation between the same species which i think is brilliace by God to allow different animals to adapt. However, I do not believe in macroevolution nor in the theory of evolution due to the lack of evidence. In Darwin's book all the evidence used was microevolution and does not show variation with DIFFERENT species. Rather Darwin shows variation within the same species by showing that the same species (birds) had different beak sizes. Secondly, evolutionist point to the fossil record as proof that simpler life evolved into more complex life. Darwin said : "But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ". a century later and evolutionist Lyall Watson said : " The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! " The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record without any evolution from simpler life is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it""It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history". Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record" "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. " So since evolution can not be verified that it happened in the past. Lastly, Evolutionists point to similarities among the DNA that we all evolved from each other but couldn't that also be proof of intelligent design as we all have a common creator who gave us similar DNA. all in all there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution except microevolution which does not really support variation between DIFFERENT species. I will post my bibliography in one of the upcoming rounds as I ran out of space. Looking forward to hearing from you.