Evolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical Creationism

I will follow a similar format to my opponent. I will be bringing up evidence that combats his point of view and supports mine. First I would like to point out that both Creationists and Evolutionists are looking at the exact same pieces of evidence. The only difference is our interpretation of the evidence. Here is some different interpretations of the same evidence my opponent showed you. Common Descent It is my contention that we do not have a common descent. Similar Biochemistry. "Of course, God is the ultimate programmer, and the genetic code He developed will produce the best possible protein needed for the system in which it works. If another organism has a similar physiology, one can expect many of the same genes to be present in its genome. There are a finite number of ways to accomplish the same task in cells. Thus, the genes that are used to accomplish that task will usually be quite similar, with minor key variations. These slight differences exist because the Creator has optimized the genes for that particular kind of creature and its biochemistry." (http://www.icr.org...) Vestigial Structures This whole article explains how these vestigial structure do not prove evolution, but at one point he says "When I sought to gain a broader perspective about these vestigial organs, I discovered at one time as many as 180 vestigial organs were claimed to exist (Wiedersheim 1895). Dr. Jerry Bergman offers some insight concerning the original 180 specimens. Dr. Bergman has two earned PhD’s. One in human biology, from Columbia Pacific University 1992 and one in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University 1976. He has a M.A. in Social Psychology from Bowling Green State University and another M.Ed. from Wayne State University. In his paper entitled “Do Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans,” Dr. Bergman claims that the original list published in 1890 had shrunk down to 0 by 1999 (Bergman 2000)." (http://www.creationstudies.org...) Problems with the idea of vestigial organs. "1. It is not possible, theoretically, for us to prove the uselessness of a given organ 2. Some organs, although apparently functionless, are clearly not derived from evolutionary ancestors in which the structures had a function. 3. Organs exhibiting reduced function or no function provide poor evidence for a process supposed to generate organs with new functions 4. Functions have been discovered for most, if not all, of the allegedly "useless" structures suggested by Darwin and other evolutionists." (http://www.creationbc.org...) Homologous Structures "That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: ‘Does the similarity that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?’ The simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs." (https://answersingenesis.org...) Current evolution. First, an observation. The evolution that is going on in the current system given by pro is only micro evolution, or small changes to adapt to surroundings. However, we have so far seen no proof of macro evolution. An example of macro evolution is a dinosaur changing into a bird. "The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. " (http://www.icr.org...) Thermodynamics. "Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world. " (http://www.christiananswers.net...) I invite my opponent to explain how Creationists misunderstand this. Transitional fossils. "In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed. " (http://www.icr.org...) Where is the myriad of fossils that Pro was talking about? Archaeopteryx, a popular poster-board transitional fossil, is actually not genuine. "Is Archaeopteryx a forgery? Honest disagreements were possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser-grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphous paste” also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found. Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence." (http://www.creationscience.com...) Mutations "As has been said many times on this site, duplications and mutations do not add new information to the genome. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information." And then, in the same context, "That is not to say that sometimes mutations can’t have beneficial outcomes, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but this is not an example of new information being added. Mutations alter a current functional system (i.e., nutrient transport) in the bacteria that is the target of the antibiotic such that the bacteria are no longer affected by the antibiotic. It has come at the cost of that functional system performing its original function inefficiently or not at all. To get from bacteria to man, there must be a mechanism to add genetic information such as genes to make arms, legs, and brains. Thus, in reality “tweaking” the genome of a bacterium through duplication and mutation will not result in a human genome." (https://answersingenesis.org...) As you can see, there are arguments for Creation that are also supported by evidence. Creation has just as much evidence as Evolution to back it up.