Evolution is more credible than Creationism

"For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation." - Isaac Newton, 1706 Opticks (2nd Edition)In this last speech of the round, I would like to address the main arguments brought up by my opponent in his last speech. I would like to consolidate them into three main arguments, which I will phrase as questions. I urge the readers to answer these questions in order to cast their vote.QUESTION ONE: CAN MACROEVOLUTION BE MICROEVOLUTION OVER TIME?This was a question brought up by my opponent in his last speech. Allow me to explain, from a genetic standpoint, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution occurs by means of variations occurring in the genetic code, but new information is not added. Mircoevolution causes changes through use of both recessive genes and the different combinations of recessive with dominant. No new information is added, microevolution is a result of information already within the genetic code.Macroevolution is just the opposite. It relies on the unconfirmed and unobserved belief that information will be ADDED to the genetic code. That is fundamentally different from the theory of microevolution. The problem with this is that the only thing close to macroevolution is not actually macroevolution. Mutations are credited with being a way in which macroevolution COULD work. HOWEVER, this is simply not the case. Mutations do not create new information. What they really do is take information away. Additionally, mutations can not be counted on to create a BETTER species. Imagine that you are editing the code of a computer program. If you randomly switched up some of the 0s and the 1s, you are more likely to encounter error than success. Or, imagine that you have a Rubix Cube. If you are halfway to solving it, and you try to twist it randomly, in hopes to will get closer, you will actually make it worse. Macroevolution has never been observed, in modern times or in the fossil record, and is in complete disagreement with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that things will become more chaotic, not more organized. (http://www.allaboutscience.org...)So the answer to this question is no.QUESTION TWO: IS THERE EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM?Technically, nothing can be proven on this count. But, in fairness, there is no evidence for evolution either. So, therefore, we must look at what is most probable.A good point is that non-life cannot create (or give rise to) life. While the argument is that random chance did it, all laws of physics, chemistry, and logic defy this idea. How can random, swirling atoms come about to form a being which can think on it's own? For that matter, where did atoms come from? It had to be created. It couldn't just "come about". Honestly, it would require a miracle. And miracles are only possible when coming from a miracle-maker, a designer deity, a creationist God. Any other argument is illogical. In fact, as Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" (http://izquotes.com...)In the end, practically, the answer to this question is yes. All practical evidence points toward a creator.QUESTION THREE: IS EVOLUTION MORE CREDIBLE THAN CREATIONISM?The evidence is overwhelming. Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is not. Even though neither can be proven observationally, Creationism has logical evidence while evolution does not.For all of these reasons, and the ones brought up in my previous speeches, the answer to this question, and the main topic we are debating, is obviously NO. I urge the voters to stand with me in negating the resolution, that Evolution is NOT more credible than Creationism.Thank you. I have enjoyed this debate very much. Good luck in the voting period.