creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

Yes, the ICR is a creationist website that is based upon A-priori belief in god. Instead of basing their "theories" on evidence they base the evidence upon their previously held beliefs, and anything to the contrary is ignored or dropped. Why should I contact them? You do realize this is a debate between me and you and not every creationist website that has ever existed right? I don't want more links to people claiming dinosaurs exist, I want links DEMONSTRATING that they exist. Personal experience and vague pictures with horrible quality are not evidence of anything other than personal experience and horrible pictures. Once again lets examine the first link you give http://www.lightningshock.com... The greatest part about you linking this is that one of the tags is SATIRE. You posted a link of someone making fun of you....Thanks for helping my point. "if you still want more, ask away. okay, so a few might be faulty. so?" I would like this statement to be used to vote conduct on my behalf. He's admitting that his sources are not credible yet...is still linking them as credible to support his point. Instead of giving an argument my opponent once again links a site to debate for him rather than supporting his points. In order to show that this site is not credible I will debunk a few of the claims, from this we can conclude the site is not credible. If there is something specific you think is evidence and want it addressed then you yourself can bring it up. http://www.icr.org... "Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man." Creationism is not a scientific model nor are public schools allowed to teach it. Implying that both theories are in public school curriculum is a deceptive way of trying to give them equal footing or make them appear equal. This brings the credibility of the site immediately into question. This will be the last point I address from this website because I believe it will demonstrate that they are not supporting their claims that creationism is backed by evidence "II. Life Was Suddenly Created." Here is their support "Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record" No it doesn't, The earliest forms of life according to the fossil record are single celled organism, these moved on to multicellular, then on and on. No where does the fossil record demonstrate that rabbits and single celled organisms appeared at a relatively similar time, nor does this page do anything to support that claim. "and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds." Duh, this isn't evidence against evolution. In order for their to be no gaps every single species that ever existed would have had to be fossilized, this is not reasonable to expect, fossilization is does not occur at a rate high enough for such a thing to happen. This is not evidence for creationism nor against evolution. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed." According to this reasoning snowflakes can not exist, obviously they do...this is because the law pertains to closed systems, contrary to what they claim. At this point it's clear that the site you have given is not scientific nor is it credible. "the sickle cell was a hoax. I'm not going to give a link, because it's common knowledge. or it better be! I stooped reading that link, because it's out of date. the moth's illustrate micro-evolution, not macro. I Goggled MRSA, and I don't see how that is good evidence, or evidence at all. a boil?" This is actually the first time I've ever heard a person claim that Sickle Cell is a hoax. No doctor on the planet believes such a thing, as evidence for it's existence I will provide the link to credible medical sites as well as university sites. http://www.webmd.com... http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... http://www.childrenshospital.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.sicklecell.howard.edu... http://www.bu.edu... http://www.chg.duke.edu... I would like to illustrate that by admitting micro evolution happens my opponent has conceded his point about there being no beneficial mutations, micro evolution is adaptation due to natural selection and random beneficial mutations. Macro evolution is the same exact thing over a longer period of time. In order for one to deny macro evolution they would have to demonstrate a young earth, unless that's done Macro evolution is just micro over a longer period. Mrsa is a form of staph that is immune to Methicillin due to a mutation. It wasn't around until mid 2000's. This is another example of a benificial mutation. I would also like to point out that my opponent did not address my point about human chromosome 2 and it's significance. From this we can conclude that it is clearly evidence for evolution. While the burden is not on me, I have given evidence for evolution being true while my opponent has not given any evidence for creation being true nor has he provided any evidence against evolution. I would just like to remind everyone that my opponent thinks Sickle Cell is a hoax.