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

The link provided says this about the evidence for the existence of the so called "Dinosaur found the in the stomach of a whale" "Despite the fact that Caddy has resisted capture, more than enough evidence suggests that the creature does exist. The number of sightings tends to prove his existence, and the list of people who have spotted him include civic dignitaries and respected citizens." Under this line of reasoning there is evidence for the existence of the following mythological creatures and monster: the lochness monster, the chupacabra, the Jewpacabra, Bigfoot, Vampires, mothman, Batboy, etc, etc(But after reading the site further, they probably believe all of those things do exist). If you're going to claim that a dinosaur was found in the whale of a stomach you need to provide actual evidence, not some goofy website making spectacular claims without providing evidence other than some black and white pictures of gook. "DNA prevents evolution because there is no way that an animal could have gotten DNA plans for, say, lungs instead of gills or vica versa. without DNA plans for something, the organism has no way to create it." Blanket, unsupported assertion. "I didn't quite understand what you said at the end there, so could you clarify?" Using the theory of evolution it was predicted that one of our chromosomes had to be the result of a fusion of two. The reasoning behind this prediction was that the other great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have 23, if we truly share a common ancestor then somewhere along the line there had to have been a fusion, if not...there was something the theory of evolution couldn't account for. Sure enough, the fusion was found. Here's a short video explaining such http://www.youtube.com... Under the creationist "model", how do you explain this prediction? Do you just explain it as "well he made it that way just because!"? "mutations, if you mean what I think you mean, doesn't hold water. mutations are almost always negative, and also usually make the organism sterile." This is simply not true, the majority of mutations are neutral. If mutations almost always make an organism sterile then almost every single being on earth would be sterile because every time reproduction occurs, mutation occurs. Every time... Beneficial mutations are constantly observed, for instance bacteria that can digest Nylon, the emergence of MRSA, sickle cell in humans as well as immunities to HIV. "there is very little if not no evidence for evolution" The prediction of the fusion in human chromosome 2, The nested hierarchy demonstrated by both the fossil record and genetic evidence, the fact we've observed speciation, endogenous retroviral patterns that demonstrate the same nested hierarchy. "which is a little evidence for creation, since it is the only "creditable" theory for hoe the world began besides creation." You haven't demonstrated that it's credible nor have you demonstrated that it's an actual scientific theory. "God is the only way that anything could be alive right now. because of...dirt. you're laughing, admit it. it sound absurd, yes, but it is actually a valid point. for any organism to survive, you must have dirt with dead things already in it to provide the nutrients." You're right, I'm laughing. Instead of making blanket statements, could you know....try to actually support them? Just saying something is true doesn't mean it is. Many organisms can survive without "dirt", not all organisms feed off of other organisms. Even if every single creature required dirt, all that means is every creature needs dirt, this in no way suggests god is responsible. "6 you didn't explain very well. I think I know what you mean about nested hierarchy, but to avoid making a fool of myself could you explain it in a little further detail?" I think I explained 6 really well. Moral codes exist because they're beneficial, things such as love, empathy, and culture are responsible for the arrival of moral systems. Here's an explanation of nested hierarchy "Common ancestry is conspicuous. Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies"rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below. In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits. Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life"s hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."-http://evolution.berkeley.edu... I would like to illustrate that my opponent has only made statements of pure conjecture that are not supported by evidence. He has not shown one piece of evidence for creationism nor has he provided any against evolution.