Evolution is more scientific than Creationism

Just to clarify:I mean the structure of Evolution and Creationism, not the only evidence that we have for either side. Just the actual theory. Evidence may be used to prove some points, but not overused. Remember, this is not a debate about which theory is correct. Only which one is more scientific.Good luck to you too. Thank you for accepting. First, I would like to dissect the main points of Evolution and Creationism.Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth (1).Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution (2).May I point out that creationism says "rather than natural processes." Natural science is indeed a type of science. It even has multiple museums (3).(1) https://www.google.com...(2) https://www.google.com...(3) http://www.hmns.org...-Argument I: Laws of the Universe.-My first argument in why Evolution is more scientific than Creationism is the very scientific structure of Evolution.First, I would like to turn to the laws of the universe to help the scientific theory of Evolution. The first law, the law of vibration, states:"The Law of Vibration states that everything vibrates and nothing rests. Vibrations of the same frequency resonate with each other, so like attracts like energy. Everything is energy, including your thoughts. Consistently focusing on a particular thought or idea attracts its vibrational match.(4) "P1, R2: Why Creationism doesn't follow this:However, in the theory of Creationism, it says that God rested on the seventh day (5). How could he rest if literally nothing, as said by the laws of the universe, can rest? Humans use "rest" as a figure of speech for sleep. However, God is not human. So had the the theory of Creationism really have been scientific, it must follow the laws of the universe. You may argue that God rested in the way humans do, but that would mean the Bible is not literal. Had the Bible been taken literally, it means God literally rested. And nothing can do that. If the Bible is not literal, the theory of Creation can not be taken literally, making the exact theory false. If the Bible is taken literally, then God could not have rested, causing a universal paradox that goes on and on.P2, R2: Why Evolution follows this:However, Evolution is a much different story. In the theory of Evolution, all life evolved from one cell (6). The cell then divided, making more complex life forms. At no point did Evolution ever stop, as proved by a Nat Geo test (7). Since it never stopped, it followed this law of the universe.Another law of the universe states this:The Law of Gestation states that everything takes time to manifest. All things have a beginning and grow into form as more energy is added to it. P3, R2: Why Creationism doesn't follow this:In Creationism, God created vegetation without allowing it any time to grow. He created Adam in full grown-up form without any time to grow. This does not follow the laws of the universe. Had God actually created life, as Creationism says, he would've had to let life grow. Plus, he created the stars in a day. And he created all of them in the adult form. Stars would've taken MILLIONS if not billions of years to properly form (8).P4 R2:Why Evolution follows this:Evolution, on the other hand, does follow this. Evolution started 4.6 BYA (9). Over time, life started to develop, getting greater and bigger as more energy from cells were transmitted, which follows the law of the universe PERFECTLY. The beginning of the theory of Evolution is clearly shown when the Earth formed.(4) http://gittefalkenberg.wordpress.com...(5) http://biblehub.com...(6) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...(7) http://www.npr.org...(8) http://www.ask.com...(9) http://www.talkorigins.org...--Argument 2: How deep we can go--For my second argument, I will turn to something that most evolutionists do not say: how far science has to go to prove this.In Creationism, you don't hear about fossils proving it or using carbon dating to trace back fossils, or even discovering skeletons! However, Evolution requires all of these things... scientific things that Creationism does not need. However, I have to go deeper into the theory for my first point.P5 R2: In the theory of the Great Flood, fossils were laid down beneath the Earth. However, if fossils had been laid down by a great flood such as the Genesis flood, as Creationists argue, then complex and simple life forms should be mixed together, with no clear order or progression, just things scattered all about. But the fossil record shows a clear progression in complexity. The science of Evolution shows that there should be a progression, which there is, while science of Creationism shows that there should not be.P6 R2: For this point, I will show you just how 'scientific' Creationism is.If you have looked closely at Creationists, you see that they try to prove Creationism because of the "faults" with Evolution and have no real, rock solid evidence for themselves. For example, this is a main Creationist argument: "Huge gaps in the Evolution model shows that Creationism is true." In that statement, they have no evidence for themselves [10]. Same with many other statements. There is one more statement I would like to make that further proves that Evolution is more scientific. Apparently, most people think that Creationism is not scientific enough to be taught in schools, including the government, while Evolution is [11]. If you want to argue against this, you are arguing against our educators and government alike.[10] http://www.geosociety.org...[11] http://ncse.com...