creationism is not backed by science like evolution

"Creationism is not backed by science like evolution." This is the title of the debate. I'm sorry for Pro's frustration that there are views of creationism that include evolution as a vehicle for creation, but he/she should have defined the topic better. If he meant something else, then he should have stated something like this, "Young earth creationism is not backed by science like evolutionary models." Creationism can encompass many views. What of the views of deists, Muslims, Hindus, and many other religions that have views on creation? Creationism is a broad term. I feel that I have provided evidence to support that creationism can include evolution. Since Pro likes to use wikipedia as a source and is still claiming that I provide no evidence that evolution is included in creation theories, see the following source for a description/definition of creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In a debate like this one where my opponent has chosen an ill constructed topic to defend, all I needed to do was give an example of a creationist view that uses evolution to show that this position cannot be defended. In my previous arguments, I believe to have demonstrated that creationism and evolution are not opposites. Therefore, I will let my address of this topic rest there. In my opening argument, I said that I will not only address the topic of the debate, but I will address what I believed that Pro was trying to argue. If we are going to talk about debate etiquette, then I should say that whether you meant the topic to mean more than was said or not, you have to stick with the topic you stated. With my first argument I addressed creationism in general. You provided nothing but the topic in your first argument. You should have developed your argument. That is why it was your first argument. You simply stated an ill constructed topic in your first argument, thus wasting the first round. In the second round I showed that even if Pro were to prove that evolution and creation where incompatible (and he wasn't), there are some severe problems with evolution that call into question whether evolution is the method for life. Notice that I did not say origins. There are no even relatively agreed upon theories that account for the origin of the universe. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. This is not me changing definitions. "ism" means a practice, system, philosophy, or belief and "creation" we know. Thus, belief in creation. As far as scientific evidence for creationism, I pointed in round two to the fine tuning argument. This argument states that the conditions necessary for life to form are so astronomically improbable, that it appears impossible for it to happen by randomness. The opposite for creationism (theism and creationism go hand in hand) is atheism, which implies that the universe was caused by nothing at all and then developed into it's current state with all of the complexities necessary for life to exist. The complexity of the universe points to a designer. With creationism you have a designer to initiate and develop the universe. With atheism you have nothing (not anything, not properties). I don't mean only space or energy. I mean absolutely nothing. This belief is worse than magic. At least with magic, you have a magician. With atheism there is not anything that can explain how the universe arose. So the scientific evidence that creationism has is the entire universe and all of the complexities that have been discovered about it. Not only is creationism the most plausible, its the only game in town. Atheism offers literally nothing. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether the universe was created or not. The fine tuning and all the factors cannot be even a little different or life would not exist. This points to the universe being created. In his/her last argument, Pro threatened to scold you if you choose to vote for me because he/she then will accuse you of promoting bad debate practices. As far as debate etiquette goes, a initiating debater must stick with his initial topic and all that it entails, whether he likes the reply or not. The first round was wasted by determining what Pro actually meant in the topic. And I wrote my limit in the second round. Ultimately I would like to ask that you vote for me for two reasons. Firstly, Pro stated a topic that does not have two logical opposites. The universe can be created by means of evolution. Secondly, I would ask that you consider a vote for Con because of the overwhelming complexity and unlikelihood that life could form in the universe, but it did. If someone won the lottery one time you might say he got lucky. If someone won the lottery 50 times. You would conclude that the lottery was rigged. That is the type of probability that we are looking at against life existing in the universe. And yet here we are.