Evolution is impossible to prove.

The kinds. All animals retain features from earlier forms, and so show evidence of common descent. For example, what is a human? A human can be described as being a hominid, an ape, a primate, a placental, a mammal, a synapsid, an amniote, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a chordate, a deuterostome, and a eukaryote, among other labels. At every step, as our ancestors became more derived from the earlier forms, while additional traits were added on, there were many traits which were retained (those features which distinguish each of these "kinds" from the other "kinds") because evolution takes what is there and adds to it; it doesn't do radical redesigns. Then there's embryology. When you look at a human embryo, it resembles a fish embryo. In fact, all vertebrates start out similar to embryonic fish. Then it resembles an amphibian embryo. And then a reptile embryo. And then it gains a thick coat of hair which is retained in the young of other apes but not humans. And then it is born. This is also the course of our ancestry; from fish to humans through all of these various forms. Why the correlation? Because, again, evolution takes what's already there (and already works) and adds to it. Some things do change, sometimes to the point where you cannot recognize the shared ancestry of those traits (hence this debate over evolution), but many features are retained. What passes for logic among Creationists. Does the assertion that this divine being created the first life, in the form of single-celled organisms, more than 3.5 billion years ago, then waited about 3 billion years before creating the first chordates, then another 300 million years before creating the first mammals, and then another 200 million years before creating the first humans, seem tenable? Does the assertion that life as it exists now came about as a result of multiple successive waves of extinction and creation, wherein the design of these new animals show obvious signs of having been derived from those earlier forms, launched by a "benevolent" and "intelligent" creator (Why design millions of doomed animal species over billions of years? They are designed and then allowed (or even made) to go extinct, only to be replaced them with new animals?), seem reasonable? Closing statements. As judge John Jones, a conservative, churchgoing republican put it when passing down his ruling in favor of evolution in the case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, "the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy."[1] Judge Jones understood. Creationism can put forward NO testable hypotheses, whereas evolution can put forth innumerable testable hypotheses, many of which have already been validated. Creationism cannot provide a compelling explanation for any of the points I have brought up. Evolution does. Evolution provides answers to questions. Religion provides an answer that you're not supposed to question. The Theory of Evolution is a well-established scientific theory, and it is a fact that evolution occurs. I hope that I can, at some point, have a proper debate with Con. I would be interested to see what arguments he would make. [1] https://www.bu.edu...