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

I guess we're doing this debate in a format I'm not used to, so I'll post my opening arguments now without responding to all of his.IMPORTANT NOTE: We have agreed not to pursue a discussion on the origin of life, as it falls outside of the purview of evolutionary theory. Because it is therefore inconsequential to the topic (and quite honestly much too complex and new as a field to be discussed intelligently by two laymen), I have not taken issue with his claims regarding it. Definition: Evolution - change in the heritable traits (or allele frequencies) of biological populations over successive generations.*also included are parts that are important to the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, such as common descent [1]. Arguments: 1) My first argument will be based on the evidence found for the evolution of birds from among (although not necessarily from) the theropod dinosaurs. I will discuss the various degrees of intermediate fossils, as well as the wealth of evidence we have the confirms the feathered status of many, even non-avian, dinosaurs. I will also discuss the evidence that many of these dinosaurs were different than is thought by the popular view of them as basically giant lizards, including how some of these differences hint at a link with modern birds.2) My second argument will concern the predictions that can be drawn directly from evolutionary theory. I will bring up the many ways that evolution could be falsified, which is a key part of any scientific theory, and the observations we see that are directly predicted by evolution. In this way, I will touch both predictions that could be disproven to hurt evolution as well as the predictions that have been confirmed and help evolution. 3) Although my third argument could technically fit within the previous one, I'm going to give it its own section so I can attempt to explain it thoroughly enough to make it easy to understand not only what it is, but why it's predicted and why it hints at evolutionary processes over intelligent design. The topic of my third argument will be nested hierarchies in the taxonomy of life. Organisms can easily be organized into nested hierachies without violation, which is an observation that seems to be wholly unnecessary under any creationist theory, but it absolutely crucial to evolution's modern synthesis. 4) Finally, I will try to spend some time discussing some of the flaws in the belief of Biblical-literalism. Assuming my opponent is a believer in literal young Earth creationism, I do not believe it's difficult at all to give plenty of reasons that such a belief is not only unscientific, directly violates many scientific principles. I will be arguing that belief in Biblical literalism and/or young-earth creationism (henceforth referred to as YEC) often implies a deity who is hell-bent on convincing us that life evolved. I won't be arguing that these necessarily disprove YEC, but that such facts make it significantly more based on blind faith than any alternatives. If Pro is not a YEC, then I will ask here for him to present some of his beliefs about how literal the Bible is to be taken, and the specific events therein that he believes in. The most important two stories to this topic are Noah's Ark and the story of Adam and Eve. Note: Since I will be focusing on the scientifically-testable claims of the Bible, with a focus on claims that go against evolutionary principles, and not simply theological issues (so-called contradictions or the problem of evil, for example), I believe that an analysis of the Bible is relevant to the discussion. If Pro wants to take issue with this, I will be willing to let go of my fourth argument and either replace it or do away with a fourth argument altogether depending on what the character count decides. I look forward to an enjoyable debate. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;