Creationism (Pro) v.s. Darwinism (Con).

Openings. Remember, no evidence yet, just a road map for future arguments.Creationism explains things that Darwinism cannot.Simply put, Darwinism's attempts to explain all life on earth are highly illogical, extremely unlikely, and shown to be false by modern science Darwin didn't have access to in the past. In other words, his view is outdated and unsupported by the very thing it depends upon: science. I will argue these following points in my round 3 argument, showing how :1) Darwinism's reliance upon abiogensis is faulty.Recognising that this is a new term, I will define it now.Abiogenesis: the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substancesWe can see it is quite similar to another idea of how life came about, but the wording is changed. Spontaneous Generation: the supposed production of living organisms from nonliving matter.Darwinism relies upon life coming into existence without someone to assemble it together. Darwinists (and anyone who disbelieves in a creator) must believe in some form of life spontaneously generating. This theory of spontaneous generation asks us to believe that if we are to place all of the elements necessary for life into a box, then after a period of time, be it eons or years, we will find life has "generated" inside the box. I will show how not only is this not only extremely unlikely, but cannot be reproduced by intelligent beings such as us humans in a lab, much less by accident. 2) Darwinism's explanation of mutation and natural selection has limits, and the science the belief relies upon shows this contradiction.Darwin thought that mutation and natural selection could continue forever, and his belief relies on it. It relies on mutation being able to continue to refine and evolve into new organisms. In other words, it relies on macro-evolution. However, modern science contradicts this claim. I'll show the limits of natural selection and mutation in my round 3 argument.3) Darwinism's attempt at showing history of macro-evolution (the fossil record, structural homology, etc.) are unreliable.After Darwin published his study, "The Origin of Species," scientists discovered ways to prove that macro-evolution had occurred. Some looked for intermediate links in the fossil record, and some looked for animals that were designed similarly. However, all of these "proofs" for macro-evolution are unreliable, as scientists have found too many contradictions to these theories. I'll go in more depth in my next arguments. Then, the question becomes, "What should we believe in, if not Darwinism? How did life arise?" The answer is obvious: someone must have created life. Let's say I see a flower bed. Something as rudimentary as 15 or so of the same flower together, no weeds or other flowers around. Would you say it is more likely than not that someone planted those flowers? Of course, it could happen this way by accident, but the chances of that are low. Now, let's say I see a flower bed, except it forms a letter. What are the chances of this producing randomly? What if it spelled out a name? What if it spelled out the name of a president? And remember, once the seeds of the flowers fall, they can't move and spell out a name through mutation and natural selection. This is a simple analogy, but it explains my point. You don't have to see a creator to look at creation and believe in one. To fulfill my burden, I will show three things to be true:1) Some things in biology are irreducibly complex, meaning that they will not operate if it is missing a part, and therefore does not give any survival advantage to the organism with the incomplete structure. They must be created in "one fell swoop."2) We see laws that govern the universe all around us. Gravity, electricity, atomic bonds, and so many more laws must have an instigator. 3) Cause and effect. One of science's basic laws is that everything is an effect, and each effect has a cause. Then, what caused the universe? I'll argue this point based on Con's answer.In short, Darwinism is faulty because1) Belief in abiogenesis is faulty,2) Belief that mutation and natural selection have no limits is faulty, and3) The evidence for these beliefs are faulty.Creationism is more likely because of:1) Irreducible complexity in biology,2) Laws that govern the universe, and3) Cause and effect asks for the cause of the universe, which is something that only creationism can explain.I await Con's opening statement.