Evolution (pro) vs. Creation (con)

My opponent begins this debate by bringing forth what he feels are three strong evidences that evolution is true. I shall begin by refuting these points and then show evidence for Creation if space permit. Rebuttal to Phylogenetic Tree of Life First off, an evolutionary tree is NOT evidence for evolution. It's based on inference and supposition. It does not provide you with any fossil record or scientific facts of one organism evolving into another. It ONLY provides you with taxonomy and then INFERS the common ancestors. It does not provide you with solid fact at all. Second, evolutionists admit themselves tha there are gaps between EVERY phyletic series. Observe: ï¿½€œGiven the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.ï¿½€ï¿½ Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), What Evolution Is, 2001, p. 14. ï¿½€œ . . . instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and the remaining unchanged patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation.ï¿½€ï¿½ Pagel M., ï¿½€œHappy accidents?,ï¿½€ï¿½ Nature, Vol 397, pg. 665 (February 25, 1999). Pro makes a rather interesting statement saying, "This Tree of Life and the line of evidence can easily be falsified if we find an organism that cannot fit into any known taxonomy or hierarchy on such a tree." Indeed Pro is absolutely correct. The problem is what is an evolutionist going to do when they find a new species. Then the "Tree of Life" is revised over and over, meaning it was false all the times before. Would you really trust such evidence? Here is an example of a new species: http://www.theblaze.com... The phylogenetic tree provides no real evidence at all. Rebuttal to evidence from bodies Vestigial Structures My opponent is confused, Creationists believe vestigial organs are FULLY FUNCTIONAL. Goosebumps are useful for humans even now. The hairs on our body stand up to trap heat when were cold. Ostrich wings are useful. They help them keep balance and change direction while running. Thus, the wings do have a purpose. The evidence doesn't end there. Observe: Appendix- Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food spleen-kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomenï¿½€"helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. Pro said, "The most striking (at least to me) atavism is the formation of humans with a true tail. Occasionally, human infants are born with a small tail that persists into adulthood if it is not surgically removed. More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported. Less than 1/3 of these are ï¿½€œpseudo-tailsï¿½€ï¿½ [1] (Dao and Netsky)." This is supposed to represent a reversion to our animal ancestry. However, more detailed studies have shown that this caudal appendage, as it is known, contains no bone and is not connected to the vertebral column. It may be nothing more than excess tissue covering the lower end of the spinal column. This abnormality is no more a reversion than other birth defects such as spina bifida (see Gish, 1983). Rebuttal to evidence for genome First off, isn't malaria "evolving" rather contradictory of "survival of the fittest? Pseudogenes have no real function, and these mutations contradict evolution. Second, animals have a stronger immune system than humans so their malaria would be less severe naturally. A serious problem with evolution is some pseudogenes are thought to have originated over a hundred million years ago and maintaining DNA that serves no purpose over such a time is a waste of energy. A component in a mechanism like a cell that wastes energy is a disadvantage and natural selection should over time remove it. So before science told us that these genes were in fact not at all junk DNA the premise put out by evolutionists of non-useful components being proof of evolution was false. In the study of pseudogenes it has been discovered that nucleotide substitutions (substitution of one amino acid for another) at the evolutionary rate for pseudogenes could bring the conclusion that these genes came about around 14 million years ago. This contradicts evolutionary theory that apes converged into certain hominid species 30 million years. We share 98% of our genome (DNA in an organism) with chimps but what is interesting is this is coded DNA (DNA that carries the necessary information to code for a protein), an it only makes up 3% while non-coded DNA (DNA that does not carry information to make a protein) also known as pseudogenes make up the other 97%. The comparisons of non-coded DNA between apes and humans make them far from identical even though we share 98% of coded DNA. Evidence For Creation Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance. "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years. World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scaleruns into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. Apologies, but I'm out of room. Sources http://yakkstr.com... http://www.apologeticspress.org... http://www.facts-about.org.uk... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.keratin.com... http://calvarychapel.com...