Evolution is more credible than Creationism

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."The eye is an amazing organ. But there are some things, as large as the human body or as small as the cell, that are so complex that there is no conceivable way that they could have been formed by natural selection.This quote actually came from Charles Darwin, the author of "On the Origin of Species". (http://www.searchquotes.com...)Because I agree with his statement, I stand as the Pro, that Evolution is more credible than Creationism.In this second round of the debate, I would like to go over and refute the arguments brought up by the Con in his last speech.POINT 1: ON THE TOPIC OF HOMO SAPIENSIn his last speech, my opponent brought up, as an example of macro evolution, the evolution from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens. I noted that he did not cite any evidence for this example. I would now like to do so for him.Taking from the Wikipedia page on Australopithecus, "The skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, supporting the debated view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) What is fascinating is that the only pin that they can put on the connection to humans is the ability to walk upright. This is a trait shown in common monkeys. So this example is... a monkey.As for Homo habilis, Archaeologyinfo.com wrote an article about it, but I noticed that the only difference between it and a monkey is a bit larger skull and a few missing teeth. This is hardly evidence for a new species. (http://archaeologyinfo.com...)The Smithsonian website has a bit on Homo erectus, but what they say about these fossils is quite interesting: "Although he had a disability which hindered his movement, his body shows long legs and narrow shoulders typical of humans who live in hot, dry climate today." (http://humanorigins.si.edu...). Interesting. So the only difference between Homo erectus and Homo Sapiens is... absolutely nothing.So we see from these examples that all these "evolutionary stages" from monkey to man are actually just monkeys and men. There is no "intermediate stages".All of this means that, so far, there are no good examples of macro evolution. And, therefore, for the purpose of this debate, evolution is not credible.POINT 2: ON THE TOPIC OF CREATIONISMMy opponent (and a few commenters) pointed out that although I showed how evolution was not credible in my last speech, I did nothing to show how creationism was credible.I admit my mistake. My fault. I will now take some time to show this point.Creationism, as I defined and my opponent agreed, is "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation." So what I must show is evidence of a designer. I can do this in three sub-points, and, at the same time, show another flaw in the evolutionary theory. SUBPOINT 1: The Formation of the EarthAllow me to, quickly, review the creationist and evolutionary view on the formation of the earth.Creationist: God formed earth on Day one of creation, and then He populated it during the next five days. (The Bible, Genesis)Evolutionary: After the big bang, blobs of matter came together to form the earth, which was molten, and over millions of years, it cooled down and became rocky. Then it rained for millions of years and the oceans formed. Somewhere along the way, cells with DNA came about and life evolved. (http://warrensburg.k12.mo.us...) SUBPOINT 2: Evidence against the Evolutionary StandpointFirst off, there have been studies showing that planetesimals cannot form planets. It"s too long to write down here, so, here's the URL: http://creation.com... (I know that it's a creation-based study, but nonetheless, it has outside sources. I urge readers to at least glance over it.) Second, it"s impossible for it to "rain for millions of years to fill up the oceans" if I understood the water cycle correctly in biology. That water had to be there to begin with. Lastly, the second law of thermodynamics states that things are in a state of constant decay. No new information can be added, only taken away. Due to this, life cannot evolve from a lower form to a higher form. SUBPOINT 3: Evidence for The Creationist StandpointIn addition to the fact that creation and a designer deity would solve all the problems brought up in Subpoint 2, there is also a point that warrants mentioning. That point is: All design needs a designer.Think about this logically for a moment. No one looks at Mount Rushmore and says "amazing that years of eroding would do that". No, everything that has intelligent design must, by definition, have an intelligent designer behind it.When we look at our universe, from things large as a planet to small as a cell, we see intelligent design.The cell is actually an excellent example of this intelligent design.I urge viewers to watch this video: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu...Dr. Antony Flew was an atheist until 2004, when he wrote: "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so...The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that"s the best argument you have, then the game is over." (http://www.tothesource.org...)In conclusion, whereas Creationism has many examples to back it, evolution does not. Evolution is an unproved theory. Because of this, I stand as the Pro, that Evolution is more credible than Creationism.