Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

I will start out by addressing a few things that Con said. In round two Con said "In the next round, I would like Pro to tell us what criteria he has for establishing the proof of anything." I'm not really sure what this means, but I know that I do provide scientific proof to back my claims. Con also said "Whereas Pro says many scientists say there is no definitively no God, that is primarily false. More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious" but I did not say that, and I don't see how it's relevant. "Pro has the burden of scientifically making his case, without relying on the supposition that science is simply biased against creationism." This is actually true and the only reason I brought it up was because of Con's appeal to authority in the last round. "My opponent hasn't explained (nor proven) how creationists endure discrimination." I did provide some links that show examples of creationists being discriminated against, but that's not the point of the debate. The only reason I even brought it up was because you indicated in your last round that because creationists were in the minority they were wrong. I keep hearing about the genetic proof of common ancestry. Genetics don't prove anything. God created every living thing with DNA and RNA so of course we are going to have some commonalities with every other living thing on earth. Similarity is not proof of evolution. You mentioned transitional fossils. I have a game to go to so I can't sit and refute each example given on the link individually, but every example I've ever seen has later been proven to be a fraud or just a regular animal. If you have some examples I would be glad to explain what they really are, but I don"t have the time right now to research your link. [1] Con said "I can go into more detail, but I don't have to yet since Pro isn't offering any scientific scrutiny; he simply mentions something irrelevant about legs." I don't need to offer any scrutiny because similarities in genes prove nothing. If you think genetic similarities proves evolution, explain to me how. How do similarities in certain genes prove a common descent? Also I never said that Con denied the existence of vestigial organs. I said that they don't exist and Con should deny the existence of them. If you study Health or Anatomy you would realize that there are no vestigial organs. For example one of the three most popular examples of vestigial organs are the Appendix, Wisdom teeth, and the Tailbone. None of these are vestigial. The Appendix helps the immune system and plays a big role in protecting good bacteria. Wisdom Teeth are extremely useful to humans. Until recently they played a very important role in eating. People today have a different diet which has caused our jaw bones to become smaller. In the past people didn"t have problems with wisdom teeth because their jaw bones were shaped different. The Tailbone: six very important muscles are attached to this bone, and without it you would have real problems. These are just three examples of organs that scientists claimed were vestigial, but turned out to be important. There are many more examples so if you do believe in vestigial organs just know that they are not scientific and provides no proof for evolution. [2] What about the bacteria found alive in "ancient" layers. Bacteria can only survive for so long meaning that these layers couldn't really be millions or billions of years old. Scientists are scrambling to find some way of proving that bacteria can somehow survive this long, but the obvious and logical explanation is that these layers aren't very old. One kind of bacteria was found alive in a rock layer dated at 250 million years old. Everything that scientists know about bacteria says that they couldn't even come close to surviving this long. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that bacteria could live this long. [3] When it comes to radiometric and radioisotope dating I don't think that Con knows what she's talking about because I am aware of no scientist that will claim Carbon 14 dating proves a old earth. It's almost completely undetectable after 50,000 years under our atmosphere, and it's arguably proof of a young earth. I know that there are some other kinds of radioisotope dating, but I will cover that in a later round as I'm leaving for my game in a few minutes. Evolutionists base their entire theory on the idea that rock layers take millions of years to form, but polystrate fossils prove otherwise. There are hundreds of examples of trees sticking through multiple layers of sediment. There is no way those layers are millions of years old. [4] Con said "Take note that he offers no evidence for this at all whatsoever." this is a flat out lie. My last couple paragraphs in round two were spent giving evidence of a young earth. You may not like my evidence, but don't lie and say that I didn't offer any. I think the real question is, where's all the evidence for evolution? I've offered scientific explanations for the few claims that Con tried to make; I'm still waiting for some good evidence, and I stand by my claim that creationism is more logical than evolution. Thank you. [1]http://www.icr.org... [2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... https://answersingenesis.org... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.reasons.org... [3]http://www.livescience.com... https://answersingenesis.org... http://www.its.caltech.edu... http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org...