creationism is not backed by science like evolution

The topic for this debate is titled, "Creationism is not backed by science like evolution." In the topic, I take creation to mean all or any theories of creation with the following definition to encompass all. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. The dictionary definitions shared by Pro only point out that there are indeed creation views that object to evolution being the process for creation. I need only to mention current creation views that include evolution to show that there are creationism views that include evolution. And Pro has already done some of the work for me in his wikipedia link. In that link the article discusses theistic evolution. Which is exactly my point. There are evolutionary views of creationism. I am unsure about what Pro means by a theistic revolution. Theistic evolution is the link that he/she provided. Again, this illustrates that there are views of creation held and well established and even defended by well known Christian debaters (William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, etc.) that claim that evolution is the vehicle that God used to create the universe. Pro claims that evolution and creationism cannot coexist. My question to Pro is, why can't they coexist? What is it about evolution and creationism that makes them incompatible? Creationism concerns itself with the origin of the universe. There is an entire branch of science called cosmogony that concerns itself with finding the origin of the universe, which means that how the universe originated is still unknown according to scientists. Science does not currently have an answer for how the universe arose. According to scientific research, neither theistic evolution, non-evolutionary theism, nor some other view that does not involve theism has the full support of science to determine the origin of the universe. So in response to the topic title, currently science does not definitively back any view of origins. We are left with models that have a lot of problems. This is fine. It does not discard science. It is our current state. However, we can look at which theories are more plausible. The origin of the universe had to come from something that exists out of necessity of itself (meaning it is impossible for it not to exist). Since everything that we know about the universe is contingent on something else, there is no reason that the universe exists out of necessity of itself. Therefore, a transcendent cause is needed to cause the universe. As for the singularity, my question is, where did the singularity come from? First of all most physicists believe that the singularity is a mathematical idealization rather than a physical entity. Even if you do take the singularity to be a real physical entity, the next logical question is, where did the singularity come from? It isn't eternal in the past. It hasn't always existed. It ceases to exist as soon as it comes into being. So, my question for Pro is, How did you explain the origin of the singularity? The singularity, if it were real is considered to have properties. That is not nothing. Nothing has no properties. Why would it just pop into being from nothing? As for my earlier comments about abiogenesis, the origin of celestial bodies, an gaps in molecules to man evolution, I'll take the time here to expound on my previous comments. In current scientific study, there is no unified agreement on how non-living matter produced living matter. This is widely known in the scientific community, just as there is no unified agreement on the origin of the universe. The fact is that we simply don't know how non-living matter transitioned into living matter. There are several theories, but currently all of them have problems. Maybe an answer will be found out in the future, but currently Darwinian evolution is stuck at this juncture, as evidenced in the scientific journal Nature (http://www.nature.com...). If there is any unified answer in the future then great, but currently evolution is faced with a big problem before it can be considered fact instead of a theory. Secondly, I mentioned that according to evolutionary theory, we do not know where many of the celestial bodies originate. See the following quotes from several secular astrophysicists: "The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics." (Lada, Charles J. and Shu, Frank H. 4 May 1990. "The Formation of Sunlike Stars." Science 248:564) "If none of us knew in advance that stars exist, frontline research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form." (Tyson, Neil DeGrasse, 2007. Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries. New York:W.W, Norton and Co., P 187) I could quote more. The only recent attempt at an explanation of the formation of the first stars is dark matter. However, scientists do not know what dark matter really is. So, how could it explain star formation?" In order for the big bang model to work, evolutionists need dark matter and dark energy. However, they don't even know what dark matter and energy is or how it works. Many claim that dark matter does all of these amazing things. However, if its makeup is unknown and no one knows how it works, how can it be a trustworthy component of which the evolutionary model depends? They don't have a solid basis in physics. New York Times Magazine said this in an article on dark matter and energy "What is dark energy? The difficulty in answering that question has led some cosmologists to ask an even deeper question: Does dark energy even exist? Or is it perhaps an inference too far? Cosmologists have another saying they like to cite: 'You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,' meaning dark matter, 'but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,' meaning dark energy." ("Out There," New York Times Magazine, March 11, 2007). Without dark matter and energy the big bang model doesn't even get to planet formation, much less all that comprises planet earth. I could provide quotes from reputable secular scientists in reputable journals and magazines about macroevolution's difficulties in galaxy formation. "Nearly a Century after the true nature of galaxies...was established, their origin and evolution remain great unsolved problems of modern astrophysics." (West, M.J., Cote, P., Marzke R.D., and Jordan. A. 1 January 2004, "Reconstructing Galaxy Histories from Globular Clusters." Nature 427:31-45.) Lastly, there are problems with molecules-to-man evolution. There are no occasions in observable science where one type of animal transitions into another. Bacteria is still bacteria, fish are still fish, etc. I challenge Pro to name one of these transitions (one type of animal into another, a fish into something else)? First of all, Pro's claim that neanderthal man is an evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, there is a certain portion of scientists that believe that neanderthal is simply a form of human (http://www.icr.org...). Currently we don't know how the universe originated, we don't know how the first stars formed, we don't know how galaxies formed, we don't know how planets formed, we don't know how non-living matter became living matter, and we don't know how that living matter transitioned from that of a molecule to ourselves. Evolution is largely inconclusive. My point in these gaps in evolution is not that evolution is impossible. It may very well be the method that God used in creating the universe, as theistic evolutionists claim. My point is that there are many gaps in evolution to definitively conclude that evolution is the process that brought about the universe. In my next argument, I would like to show scientific evidences that indicate that it is more plausible than not that creationism is the best explanation for how the universe arose. Namely, the fine tuning argument and other evidences.