Evolutionism Vs. Creationism

My Opponent: "He contradicted himself by then saying "to be a scientific theory, it has to be peer reviewed by scientists and proved to have the same outcome using different methods." You can't do that if it's falsifiable."Um, yes you can. If I say gravity makes all things fall to Earth, the scientists would be able to prove it by dropping all things and see that they fell. Was it POSSIBLE that something may not have fallen when let go? Yes, but none did, so gravity is a fact and a theory, just like evolution. Creationism can't be proved either way. You can't prove it right and you can't prove it wrong. So it can't be a theory. Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for a further investigation. BASED ON LIMITED EVIDENCE. Creationism has no valid evidence. I never said evolution was a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory.1. Believing something doesn't make it true. The world flood never happened. There is no scientific evidence for it.2. That's abiogenesis, not evolution.3. In cosmology, evidence suggest that the universe was once a singularity which is eternal and self-existing.4. Wrong. Life is finely tuned to fit in the Universe. That's why it evolves.5. Doubt by whom? Creationists? 6. Richard Lewontin was right to urge that, since there is no evidence for anything supernatural.7. Mouse traps are man-made, not naturally occurring. You can't compare something man-made to something naturally occurring.8. Show me the numbers of this probability and where you got them from. Define "fitness".9 The world flood is scientifically impossible. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...If a website isn't based on science, it's not worth looking at as scientific evidence.My opponent: "Changes DO occur in in kinds of plants and animals, but ONLY within fixed limits. This is all that has been proved, this is all I believe."Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. If you admit changes do occur, you admit evolution is a fact. My opponent "what we should do is ridicule/debunk the other theory cause that goes under the category of figuring which theory is most logical."Creationism is not a theory because it is unfalsefiable.My opponent: "You still haven't tried to debunk the Book of Genesis."OK here you gohttp://wiki.ironchariots.org...Debunked.My opponent: "If it's not an atheist's job to define who God is than don't say 'God' would make you believe in God. And you didn't state your case for why and how God is the reason that would make you believe in God. This is silly unless you can have a guess at who God is."Define god anyway you want and I'll still say that the god you defined would be the only thing that could make me believe in that god. My opponent: "Yes, everything has information. Are they intelligently designed? Let's think about that, because the alternative is to say it ALL happened by chance."That's a false dichotomy. Evolution consists of natural selection which is NOT chance.My opponent: "By saying 'no, not everything is/was created,' you're instead saying that EVERYTHING which is physically in the Universe formed from ONE single life cell. And you don't even know where that life cell came from! "Once again, my opponent keeps bringing up abiogenesis when we are talking about evolution.Those are two different things.My opponent: "For another example, the Miller-Urey Experiment, conducted in the 1950s, was where scientists tried to prove that a living cell could form from non-living matter. It worked. But there was a problem that wasn't addressed to the public: they got the environment wrong." LOL It worked! All this time my opponent has been saying it's impossible to get life from non-life...and now he said it worked! My opponent: '"Lots of people believe what's in the science text-books because most do not think Creationism has nearly as much evidence therefore the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang have to be correct." Once again. Believing something doesn't make it true. Creationism has no valid scientific evidence.A broken thermometer that says it's 150 degrees outside may be evidence that it's that hot out, but that evidence doesn't prove that it is. It's not valid evidence."First of all, what wasn't scientific about it?"Everything. It was just a dentist giving his opinion."Second, I believe Dr. Martin made great points, even though some spectators question/doubt his time he said he was an Evolutionist."So? The points were not scientific and not backed by evidence."Third, how can you trust an Evolutionist's own website, written by someone who's just trying to defend his theory and make Creationism look bad, and how do you know Dr. Jobe Martin DIDN'T study Evolution?"Isn't that third AND fourth? The evolution website is backed by scientific research.Dr. Jobe Martin studied to be a dentist, not a biologist. He may have taken evolution 101 many years ago. So what? He's no expert on the topic."I ask you, who IS an evolutionist if you don't consider 'someone who studied the subject' one?"If I study Mother Goose stories does that make me a mother goosist? It yes, so what? Mother Goose stories are not proved facts, just like creationism."Who are you to say who is or is not someone who maybe once believed in the Theory of Evolution?"Evolution is a fact. It's not something you believe in, like a fairy tale. It's backed by valid scientific evidence. "And because of the information that got across through the video, it doesn't matter who said it because WHAT was said, is true."Prove it with valid scientific evidence. Not by a dentist talking BS."You're calling me ignorant when you say Creationism has zero evidence."Yes, I am."There are many people who have proved Creationism and found scientific facts that fit perfectly with it."I'm still waiting to see any of that."Besides, who wants to give out Nobel Prizes to scientists who nobody wants to see prove their theory true? In other words people don't like the thought of there being a God who created us, so why would they want to give a prize to them? You know what I mean, don't try to rebut that. I gave you "evidence" for Creationism so don't be a fool and say there is none."People don't like the thought of there being a God? LOL...then why do BILLIONS believe in one?You give Nobel Prizes in science to people who can use the scientific method to prove something real.Yes, you did give me faulty "evidence" for Creationism, now how about you give me demonstrable, testable, scientific evidence?My opponent failed miserably at this debate.