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

I would like to point out that this was supposed to be a debate between me and pro, not a debate between me and unsupported Creationist websites. My problem with your claim that "Dino's" currently exist is not that it is irrelevant but that it is completely unsupported and is contrary to all current evidence we have. Instead of directly disputing every single claim the website makes I'm going to link a few and illustrate how they are not credible. I feel this will shed light on the reliability of the websites and how much Pro actually cares about giving correct information. I'll let the viewers be the judge. First link given " http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org...; This website has articles for all of the following, supporting their existence or validity "UFO-Fasterwalkers" "Ancient Aliens" "Aliens living among us" "Hollow Earth Theory" "Aliens and Demons" "Moon Rising: The nasa cover up" and the worst.....two flying dinosaur species in papua new guinea..... I would suggest everyone goes and watches the video if you want a good chuckle. "http://www.livescience.com...; The next linked article lists the Lochness monster as evidence that dinosaurs still exist. Lets keep in mind vast sweeps of lake Lochness have been done and not one shred of evidence for the Lochness monster has been found. I feel because of the Pro's history of linking sites that aren't credible it would unfair for me to have to go through every site and dissect every claim....so I'm not going to do that. "some of these other links suport what i said about DNA. others are just scientific evidence against evolution. your "proof" about fusion doesn't seem to be much profe at all. to i look like an ape, (: and i have chromosomes like an ape. so? you didn't give a link to provide evidence for what you said about mutations. my source for what i said is it couldn't just happen." If you wish, you can quote the website for specific things you wish for me to address. Because of your history of posting sources that aren't credible, I'm not going to address every single one. Keep in mind this was supposed to be a debate between me and you, not me and every creationist website that has ever existed. Sources are supposed to be used to support your argument not make them for you. The finding of the fusion illustrates the prediction power of evolution. Just explaining the prediction power away as "that's not proof" is not a proper rebuttle. It's not proof, it's a piece of evidence. I gave real examples of beneficial mutations, do you really not know about the existence of MRSA and sickle cell? This site has the source studies for the claim that mutations are neutral, at the bottom. I suggest giving it a read all of the way through for your sake http://www.talkorigins.org... "just because something looks like another thing doesn't mean evolution is true. say a builder wanted to make two houses. would they look the same? partaly. are they? are they desended from each other? no. it's a silly analigy, but think about it all living things look a little bit alike. some more than others. so? i think i have given evidence against evolution in this." I have never claimed that because other things look like each other that means evolution is true, It's the unique combination of character traits that create a predictable nested hierarchy. Houses can't reproduce so they can't descend from each other. The analogy isn't just silly, it's horrible. You still have not given one shred of evidence against evolution.