Creationist is true

Well what a turn of events. My opponent has ENTIRELY skipped his entire argument, and all my rebuttals thereof. He has failed to answer my only contention, and instead turns to posting two videos from Youtube, ones he didn't even create. As of now, I urge for a STRONG reason to vote CON, but for the heck of it, I will rebuttal the infamous VenomFangX's videos. This youtube weirdo is famous for posting up usually ludicrous-Kent Hovind inspired - Young Earth Creationism videos. He's been refuted COUNTLESS of times, most notably by Thunderf00t, but oh well I'll just do my share here. Oh and by the way, I can't wait for him to be prosecuted for perjury because of those falsely filed DMCA copyright infringements :D So let's go through the first video, and all the junk he says inside: 1. Ugh, what a horrible analogy VFX makes about Darwin's finches. First of all, Darwin didn't even KNOW they were finches before John Gould identified them. From here on, Darwin was starting to be suspicious. Yes, people have different size arms and such, but these finches had relatively the same size of beak WITHIN their SPECIES. Darwin found around 12 species of finches, and each had different characteristics from each other and the ones on the mainland. He didn't come to this stipulation by individual analysis of one finch to another, he came to this conclusion from the analysis of each finch's ENTIRE species compared to the other. This is called simple comparative anatomy, they teach it in biology in high school. 2. Now onto his "philosophical ramifications of evolution", what a way to use the logical fallacy, argument from consequences? First off, just because we are evolved does not exclude the notion that life has an objective purpose. I know many Christians who are theistic evolutionists, they believe God used evolution to create the diverse life on this planet. He can still have a purpose for you, and in the eyes of those Christians, they still have an objective purpose to life. Besides, what's so bad about a subjective purpose anyway? You don't have to have morality from only moral absolutism. But I am digressing, this is pointless. Whatever the "ramifications" of evolution may be, it has NO MERIT ON ITS TRUTH VALUE. Einstein's theory led to the creation of nuclear bombs which led to the death of millions of people, so does that mean it's wrong? Heck no. It's kind of funny. He always this notion that the vast majority of the scientific community is in some kind of "conspiracy" to deceive everyone about evolution. WHY in the world would they do this?! Because they don't like the "alternative"? As I have stated before, CREATIONISM is not the only alternative to evolution! And even if it was so, why would scientists want to deny God if they he was real? Why would they rather burn in hell for eternity rather than go to heaven? Now onto the second video: 1. Yeah, I've always hated this cartoon anyway. Two fundamental mistakes: this blatant misunderstanding of what a fact and a theory is, and supposing that creationism is the only alternative. I have already addressed these points, and going over them again is tedious, so I'll just copy paste from my previous rounds, the ones YOU HAVEN'T REFUTED YET. A scientific theory is a model based on a collection of facts that can make predictions and explain natural phenomena. The THEORY of gravity explains why objects of mass attract each other. Scientific laws are analytic statements and are universal facts of the world. In fact, a theory can contain a SET of laws in it. And so, you are committing the informal fallacy of a false dilemma. Even if evolution AND the big bang failed to explain their respective fields, this doesn't give Creationism any merit. Creationism isn't the only alternative. 2. Wow, VFX just gets more and more ridiculous every moment. Scientific experiments in the context of "making life" try to get what possible components were in the world back then, and if they could create life or not. If they could show that a possible combination of components that were available billions of years ago could create life, then they are on the right path. 3. Now VFX talks about the Big Bang. Matter, energy, and the four primary forces of the universe have always existed. The Big Bang doesn't "create" these components. VFX goes into this list of what could possibly make these components...how in the world can he come to these conclusions? Can't I say a super powerful ultra mega super saiyan level alien made matter and such? God isn't the only answer, once again the fallacy of false dilemma. 4. Wasn't an explosion. Actually it was 13.7 billion years ago, you probably got this information wrong because it wasn't from a secular source, but the twisted Kent Hovind. The singularity isn't "nothing", but an area of zero volume and infinite density. We CAN get evidence for the big bang, such as observations and physics. I already have shown this from my previous round, something you have YET to refute. 5. The archaeological evidence says humans weren't here more than 5,000 years? What textbook says this? OH YEAH, he's using creationist crap. Tell me, then how do you explain the Neolithic Revolution? This is the first agricultural revolution from hunting, and it shows evidence from 10,000 BCE or earlier. [1] Hmm why don't we have remnant of human civilization dating millions of years back? MAYBE CAUSE WE DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE CIVILIZATIONS. The reason why the human population increases so much now is because of science and civilization. We are much more capable now of living longer lives than back then, and thus that means more babies and more people. Mortality rates change as societies benefit the longevity of its people, duh. 6. The past is "untestable, unrepeatable, and unobservable"?! It's funny how VFX attempts to use history to prove Creationism, and in the same breath says we can't use it as evidence. Ever heard of HISTORIANS? ARCHAEOLOGISTS? GEOLOGY? ANTHROPOLOGY? PALEONTOLOGY? 7. "The bible mentions dinosaurs many, many times and that would be impossible if dinosaurs went extinct..." I beg of you to show me where the bible talks about dinosaurs. If dinosaurs went extinct because of the worldwide flood, we would find dinosaur bones mixed up with human remnants of civilization, but the fossil record clearly shows nothing of this. 8. Oh yeah, you record the human lifespan in history from the Bible, GEE that's historically accurate! 9. Animals were big back then because there were double the amount of oxygen? WHAT THE HECK. Should I even address this?! Animals don't grow bigger because there is more oxygen, and theres no canopy of water in the atmosphere. Such huge concentrations of water molecules would've led to humans suffocating due to their lungs collapsing. Unless of course, humans were much "bigger" like all the dinosaurs. So how come they didn't "suffocate" after the flood like the rest of the dinosaurs? Or better yet, why don't we find giant human bones? *Conclusion* My opponent has failed to address the point I made about the false dilemma fallacy he is repeatedly committing, and he doesn't address my points about the Big Bang or evolution. Instead, he brings up various different points from a video he didn't even create. I have refuted them all and my original points still stand. I will be expecting his rebuttal.