Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

First of I would like to apologize for violating the debate structure. It was mostly a translation error on my part. I am not a native English speaker and while I am experienced in both English writing and debating, I haven't done much formalized debate in English yet. To me the word "argument" was always a word to describe any statement made in a debate. Because of that I was unaware that your structure required an explicit opening without reaction to your opponent. Again, sorry.Now to your points.Introduction of new informationI have to admit that you gave an explanation for the Lenski experiment and the MDR germs that I had previously not considered, namely that the genes to make the change in question possible have always been there, but were limited to too few individuals in the population, or were put dormant by other mutations.I don't think that that is actually the case, however I haven't found the time to properly overthink my reasoning why, due to recent family issues that kept my time. Therefore I' like to postpone my answer to that to my next argument.This however doesn't change the fact that there is still no reason for beneficial mutations not to happen. If mutations are random (which you yourself said they are) and there is room for improvement in an animal's DNA (since no animal is perfect that is always the case),then there will always be cases of beneficial mutations. True chance means that there is always a small chance for something unexpectedly positive to arise. You repeated several times that you think beneficial mutations are impossible. You never really gave a reason why you think so, except that you didn't observe any, which can very well also be explained by he fact that they are unlikely and therefore rare.Living fossilsClimate over last millions of years has of course not been consistent. However, if you take a look at the list of living fossils, you will notice that most of them have a lot in common.First of all, over half of them are deep sea animals. Of all the bioms on earth the deep sea is the one least affected by climate changes and has thus remained relatively unchanged over the course of history.Secondly they are well rounded and little specialized species. I would not expect animals such as the anteater or the brachiosaurus to ever become living fossils, as they are heavily dependent on their primary food source and thus are very bad at adapting to a different environment.By comparison alligators and crocodiles are highly versatile. They can hunt almost any animal smaller than them and if they catch it they can eat and disgest almost animal smaller than them. You can nowadays find them on most continents in a number of different surroundings. [1] Their living conditions 200 million years ago where relatively similar to the ones today. Why should they be affected by mass extinctions?If you think that the existence of crocodiles today poses a problem to evolution, please give my a reason why they should have needed to evolve majorly at over the last 320 million years.Early human descriptions/paintings of DinosaursThe existence of dragon mythology in different parts of the world is no real evidence for a human-dinosaur coexistence, as the descriptions of what a dragon is and looks like differ quite a lot and are not exactly accurate.Are you seriously trying to tell me that a Chinese dragon (for example here: https://upload.wikimedia.org...) might be an interpretation of someone who has seen a living dinosaur?A far more likely interpretation is that the dragon myths originated from unearthed dinosaur bones. There are documented cases where such a thing has happened. [2]The book "The Dragons of Eden" is also not about dragon myths, but about the evolution of the human intelligence. I haven't read the book and thus don't know whether or not her ever speculates that dinosaurs are the origin of dragon stories, but if it is, it is just one speculation among others, as, to quote Wikipedia:"The title "The Dragons of Eden" is borrowed from the notion that man's early struggle for survival in the face of predators, and in particular a fear of reptiles, may have led to cultural beliefs and myths about dragons and snakes." [3]Soft tissue found in Dinosaur bonesI didn't say that the scientists didn't do their job during the study, but as it is completely impossible to test all affecting outside influences. Perhaps the reason the tissue survived is the high pressure it was put under. Perhaps there are surrounding chemicals that prevented the degeneration. I don't know. All I know is that the scientific debate following the discovery of those bones has not yet come to a conclusion. As such the results of studies regarding the subject have to be seen with caution.I also find it a bit ironic that you are willing to trust lab results regarding the degeneration of matter over millions of years, but not for example carbon dating, which is based on similar lab results (except that it's way more secure as carbon decay unlike chemical degeneration is almost unaffected by outside factors.)Now you said you wanted evidence for the idea that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? Well, for example there is the carbon dating I just mentioned. [4] While carbon dating doesn't go back far enough to correctly date dinosaurs, it does show that they are way older than 6000 years. Other dating methods provide more useful results. While yes, sometimes the results of those methods can diverge from one another not, a single one has ever dated a dinosaur to be younger than 6000 (or even 60000) years.Another piece of evidence is the placement of fossils. If history happened as described by the bible one would expect to find all kinds of fossils in the deeper layers. Upwards from that point you'd find less and less kinds of fossils until only nowadays animals are left in the top layers. This is clearly not the case. Instead the fossils are layered on top of each other with newer species only going down to a certain level, where they disappear. Transitional formsThe argument I made was in no way circular. I admit that I could formed the sentence a bit better to make this more obvious, but the second transitional was meant in the sense of temporary and passing. The point I was trying to make is, that the phases of development in evolution are way shorter than the relatively static phases. It often takes millions, if not milliards of years for a rudimentary form of for example a wing, lung or eye to develop. However, once that rudimentary form exists the development to a fully formed organ will happen way faster. Thus fossils from "transitional" forms are naturally way rarer than fossils of "semi-static" forms.I agree that in order to properly discuss transitional fossils we need pick out some examples. I propose: The class of Lungfish as a transition between fish and tetrapods - The Tiktaalik as a specific example of fish-to-tetrapod development - The Microraptor as an example of dinosaur-to-bird development - The Morganucodon as part of the development from reptiles to mammals - The Homo Erectus as part of the human development from apes If you want to add anything, or focus on a particular item of the list, feel free to do so. __________________________________________________________________[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.c14dating.com...