Evolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical Creationism

My time is limited, so I will have to be sparse in my rebuttals. ICR. 1. Bias. It is impossible to find a truly non-biased source. In fact, Pro has use a biased source himself. Talk origins. This source is devoted to answering creationist claims and spreading evolutionary worldviews. ICR does the same for creation. My "biased" source is balanced by his biased source. 2. Credentials. The first article from ICR was on DNA sequences (http://www.icr.org...) and the author has a PhD in genetics. (http://www.icr.org...) The second is a critique of evolution, and that author, while having a PhD in hydraulic engineering, has studied the subject extensively and quoted other more credible sources. The next one was not written by a specific author, but I would assume it was by the ICR staff. They cite credible sources to back up their data. CSI I only used this source once, so this is not really important. This is also just as biased as talk origins. It is balanced because it is biased the other way. Biochemistry. Similarity does not necessarily mean common descent. If you have a plastic plate and a plastic cup, would you assume that the cup came from the plate because they are both made of plastic? No. The evidence I provided earlier explains how that is not the case. Whale's legs. "Fossils of a whale with tiny "feet" have been found in an Egyptian lake bed. But the scientist who found them says the "feet" could never have been used for walking or even as rudders to stabilize swimming. Philip Gingerich, from the University of Michigan"s museum of palaeontology, made the find in the Zeuglodon Valley southwest of Cairo. He believes the limb bones are a vestige of a time when the whale"s ancestors walked on land. But he doesn"t know what they were used for on this whale. "It seems to me that they could only be some kind of sexual or reproductive clasper", he says. "But even that may be too strong a word because the bones are so small."" (http://creation.com...) Homologous structures. We cannot necessarily know what purposes are best. We have been wrong before. We use to think that the appendix was useless, but, actually, it isn't. Also some arguments by evolutionists are inconsistent under this point. "There are many problems with the homology argument as used by evolutionists. For example, the rudimentary male mammary gland and nipple are clearly homologous to those of the female, but they are not taken as evidence that males once nursed their young." (https://answersingenesis.org...) Macro evolution. Notice that Pro brought up no evidence to support his conclusion about micro leading into macro. It was simply asserted. We have never directly seen a fish turn into another animal. We only see adaptation within kinds. Thermodynamics. This was also simply asserted. Transitional Fossils. Pro's source says "Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks. " It discredits itself. There is so little fossil there that the descriptions are just based on conjecture, not good science. Mutations. Pro is more than welcome to address this argument if he so desires. I'd like to add an analogy to keep in mind though. "Think about it this way: if I give someone a copy of a book they already own, then they don"t have any new information, just a copy of information they already had. If I subsequently take a marker and mark out some of the letters or words in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don"t have any new information"just a messed up copy of one of the books." (https://answersingenesis.org...) This is how genetic mutations work. Unfortunately, for reasons beyond my control, I will have to forfeit the next round. I apologize for this behavior. I realize that it is unfair to everyone involved, and I'm sorry. Thank you, Pro, for your understanding and for discussing this with me. And thank you, voter, for taking time to read this. We appreciate it.