Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

Since Pro has forfeited last round, I will take this round as an opportunity to defend the creation model which I have not been doing much of. After all the resolution of this debate is "Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't". I'll begin with by defending the creation model. Argument 1: DNA I've talked about how DNA disproves evolution but it can also be used to promote the idea of an intelligent creator. Let's say theoretically that the random mix of chemicals somehow also produced a single strand of DNA despite the environmental factors that work against it. A single strand of DNA is useless unless there is a mechanism to take the DNA and turn it into functional proteins. However, in order to go from DNA to functional proteins, a special enzyme called DNA polymerase makes a copy of the DNA so that the copy can be used to make proteins without the risk of the main copy of DNA to be damaged outside the nucleus. However, before DNA polymerase can copy the DNA, another enzyme DNA helicase has to unzip the double helix structure of DNA so that DNA polymerase can do its job.[1] The issue at hand is that the instructions to make DNA polymerase, helicase, and many other proteins and enzymes that are required to make functional proteins are encoded in DNA. To add to this issue, the process requires Adenine Triphosphate (ATP) to provide the energy required to complete this process. The source of ATP is a complex motor existent in all living organisms called ATP Synthase. However, the instructions for the proteins that make up ATP Synthase are encoded in DNA decoded by mechanisms that require ATP. What we have here is a three-way chicken and the egg dilemma. All three of these systems would have to come into being simultaneously and would not be possible under the laws of nature so an intelligent designer must be behind it.[2] Argument 2: The age of the Earth The genealogies of the Bible suggest that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. However, evolutionists would scoff at this claiming that there is no evidence to prove it. In this argument I'll bring up evidences of a young Earth. Part 1: Dinosaurs Dinosaurs are believed to have existed 65+ million years ago because they are found deep in the geologic time column therefore this disproves the biblical timescale. There is evidence to the contrary that dinosaurs have existed more recently than what was generally believed. To begin with, soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur bones [3]. The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen, hemoglobin, and osteocalcin. A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years [4]. I find it interesting that evolutionists haven't even questioned the age of dinosaur bones. Their train of logic seems to amount to circular reasoning. 1.Dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago 2.Soft tissue and proteins have been found in dinosaur bones 3.Experimental evidence showed that these structures would not be able to survive for that long. 4.#3 is false because we know for a fact that........ 5.Dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago I'm well aware that Pro has a link [5] that "explains" this discovery however these claims are easily refuted. The claim that the blood vessels were result of biofilm formed by bacteria recently while could possibly explain the blood vessels does not explain the proteins that were confirmed to belong to the dinosaur. The claim that iron from the blood preserved the proteins is flawed. In an experiment, ostrich flesh was dipped in an iron-rich solution and the other dipped in water. The one dipped in water was a complete mess in a couple days whereas the one dipped in the iron solution was recognizable. The first issue is that iron is not as good as formaldehyde because formaldehyde directly forms covalent bonds with the proteins whereas iron does not. And formaldehyde is not capable for preserving something for millions of years. Also using a two year experiment somehow proves 65+ million years. Who is being unscientific? [6] Part 2: Radiometric Dating Radiometric dating seems to prove an old Earth but there is evidence to the contrary. For example, Carbon-14 has been discovered in diamonds, coal, and other materials supposedly millions and billions of years old [7] [8]. But first, let me clear a common misconception about carbon dating. It does not prove millions or billions of years because its half-life is only around 5730 years and every half-life, the amount of C-14 existent halves. With such a short half-life, a lump of C-14 the size of Earth would be completely decayed in less than a million years. The fact that C-14 is still present in materials billions of years old poses a huge issue to the old age of the Earth. Another proof of a younger Earth lies in the findings of Dr Robert Gentry on the helium retention of zircons. In zircons, uranium decays into lead and helium. And in various zircons, uranium is found that has partially decayed into lead. From dating the uranium, the age of the zircons is believed to be 1.5 billion years. Because of the size and the fact that helium reacts to nothing, helium easily leaks out and should almost be completely absent from the zircons. However, the amount of helium still present is significant. Dating the zircons by the amount of helium still in the minerals yields an age of between 4,000 and 14,000 years consistent with the biblical timescale. [8] A note on Pro's rebuttal: Multiple links lead to rather lengthy articles and it is unclear at times what information Pro wanted to take from it. I can't refute the entire article with character and time limits. What I ask of Pro in the future is to first: 1: Explain what the article is about and its arguments 2: How this supports your argument or refutes mine I tend to avoid using creationists' arguments that I don't understand as to use such arguments without understanding it or the arguments against them would be dogmatic. Sources: 1.http://www.news-medical.net... 2.http://www.bio.davidson.edu... 3.http://www.smithsonianmag.com... 4.https://news.ncsu.edu... 5.http://www.livescience.com... 6.http://creation.com... 7.http://www.globalflood.org... 8.https://answersingenesis.org... 9.http://creation.com...