Evolution is better supported by evidence than creationism.

I would like to point out to my opponent and to the voters that "creation.com" and "answersingenesis.org" are hardly unbiased sources of information. They use misleading arguments and half-truths in an attempt to push their agenda. Below I will show that the arguments mined from these websites are faulty at best.RebuttalCon states, "The point of my analogy was to demonstrate the importance of scientists to never cling to assert only one theory and reject all others, because there is always the possibility of being wrong, which has been demonstrably shown in the past." Science is built around evidence and knowledge. It is also built around the idea that it is always possible to find evidence contrary to current understanding. I was only pointing out the low probability of evolution being debunked because of the massive evidence that points to it and continues to be found for it. Researchers are always looking for other possible explanations for a theory. However, one of the most important cornerstones of scientific research is peer review. Peer review requires that the hypothesis be observable and repeatable. While many scientists look into alternative hypothesis to evolution, none have ever passed the test of peer review as there is no observational evidence to the contrary.New InformationMy opponent says that gene duplication is not adding new functions, but rather reproducing old functions that were lost over time. He cites a source "answersingenesis.org". This website has no scientific relevance and makes outlandish claims without citing any of its own sources for the claims. The cited source relays the analogy of the television that was repeated by my opponent. This analogy of the DDC model is inaccurate.A more accurate analogy of the DDC model is thus:You have a TV that works perfectly fine. You decide to buy a second TV because two is better than one, these two televisions are compatible with each other and it's possible for them to work in tandem. There are three possible outcomes of your new televisions. 1. After a while your second TV stops working, but the first continues to work perfectly. 2. After a while your second TV loses its picture, and your original TV loses its sound, still resulting in the same capabilities altogether, but spread across two TVs. 3. After a while first TV gets an update to allow you to watch Netflix, but you lose your sound. The second TV doesn't gain the ability to watch Netflix and also loses its picture but still has sound.Therefore, worst case scenario is that you preserve all capabilities, but it is also possible that you now overall have gained the ability to watch Netflix, and have lost only the functions you don't need from the second TV. (1)Transitional FormsArchaeopteryx: My opponent says that birds were found that date to before archaeopteryx and provides a source from "creation.com", the website only refers to a find by Dr. James Jenson. The website states that Jenson classified this fossil as that of a bird. This is only partially true. While Dr. Jenson did initially identify it as that of a bird, he later reclassified it as a theropod dinosaur upon further inspection.(2)Tiktaalik: My opponent refers to footprints that have been dated to 380 million years ago. It is true that these footprints are dated to be older than Tiktaalik. However, this doesn't mean that Tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil. It simply means that Tiktaalik may be a branch from the first species that did become the tetrapods.Eupodophis: I didn't see any fossils that were from the listed source that were older than Eupodophis.And again, you claim there aren't many transitional fossils. The website I originally sourced only had a select few of the transitional fossils. Here is a more complete list: http://tinyurl.com...We still don't have a complete list of transitional fossils, this much is true. It requires extreme circumstances to make a fossil, and even then, the older the fossils are the less likely they are to have survived until now. And there are many fossils that we just plain haven't found yet. This doesn't suggest that they don't exist."We should still be seeing half fish and half amphibian creatures."If that is how you define transitional forms today, then you are in for a shock. Here are some creatures that bear a striking resemblance to the parameters you put forth:The northern snakehead fish: This fish is capable of breathing air and surviving out of water for up to four days. It crawls across land using its fins to seek out other water sources(3)Mudskipper: The mudskipper is an amphibious fish that has both gills and the amphibian ability to breath air through its skin. It crawls on land with its front fins. (4)These are only a couple of many known species to exhibit behavior like this.Noah's FloodMy opponent continues to argue for the worldwide flood despite there being no evidence for it, and in fact, there being much evidence to the contrary.He states that the mountains being formed at the fault lines is somehow a result of the flood, but provides no mechanism for this. He then states that the world was once flat, and again, provides no evidence of any kind. My opponent then states that the polystrate fossils do not have any roots, and that this is evidence that they were dislodged. He then states that volcanic activity alone couldn't explain this. However this is already covered in the source I provided in my last argument. It states as follows:"Their upright position was usually interpreted as a sign they were buried in their growth position by volcanic ash. This was called into question though after the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980. Uprooted trees floating in Spirit Lake were found to settle root first as they became water logged, at first floating vertically with the roots down and then settling in what could be mistaken as growth position on the lake bottom. This too has been suggested as the mode of preservation for the Fossil Forest of the Yellowstone." (5)While this is only an explanation for Yellowstone, it does clearly demonstrate that the flood is not the only possible explanation for this.My opponent also states that he disagrees that the flood would have created a single layer. Let's assume for a moment that it would have created multiple layers. There is still much evidence in the strata layers that the flood cannot account for. For instance: The discovery of river channels, glacial deposits, burrows, footprints, and meteor/meteorite craters. (6)Furthermore, the flood does not account for the clear appearance of older fossils being found in lower layers of strata while more 'modern' fossils are found in upper layers or strata.ClosingI believe that I have made my case fairly well for the evidence of evolution, while my opponent has failed to give even a shred of legitimate evidence for creationism. I've shown that we can see the lineage of ancient creatures from bacteria to man with the fossil record. I've shown that we have, and do continue to see, evolution in action. I've shown the mechanisms at play that makes it work. I've shown that we can find ancestors with our very DNA. The science community remains dedicated to finding the truth of our world and the universe. They study all possibilities and all evidence. The fact that there is no scientific consensus that creation ever happened is a testament to the failure of both researchers and creationists alike to finding any evidence of its existence. Evolution, it seems, is here to stay.I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic with me, it has been a great debate. Vote Pro.Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...