creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

"Evolution is based off a believe in no God. Evolutionists are the ones who drop contrary evidence. You still don't know that sickle cell was a hoax. they covered it up. Qopel even said it was true that it was a hoax. " No it's not. There's many prominent biologists that are christian and accept the theory of evolution. See Kenneth Millers book Finding Darwin's God as well as head of the human genome project Francis Collins. Biologists don't throw out evidence contrary to the theory of evolution, if a biologist could show that evolution isn't true they would win a vast array of awards and be remembered forever. You've done nothing to show that sickle cell is a hoax, I doubt Qopel said that but even if he did, a debater on this site is not a source. "what do you want. to go to a zoo and see a Dino. or a picture taken by a pro. these people only had their phones on them. you don't walk around with a super good camera just because you might happen to see a dinosaur. you didn't quote the rest of what I said." I would like evidence not urban legends and people trying to make a buc off of photoshop. "the fossil record? it's actually no transitional forms. now the last person I said this too gave me a wiki site as evidence. all it had was pics. of extinct animals. go figure. if it really takes 100 million years for something to evolve, and everything on earth has evolved, than we should have evidence of them evolving. do we? no. all "transitional forms" can be put into two categories: huge leaps, or tiny leaps. obviously. but, these forms, if they have a set of them in order, the differences are huge, and can be explained as hole new species. others, like forms they claim are between apes and us are 1) half way imagined. I know they don't come in perfect condition, but they once made a plaster skeleton for a tooth they found that was like the perfect transitional form. it ended up that the tooth was a pig tooth. or 2) are just extent species of ape." Yes, we do have evidence of them evolving...See the nested hierarchy that's demonstrated through genetic evidence, endogenous retroviral patterns and then is corroborated by the fossil record, everything genetic evidence suggests is complimented by the fossil record. They don't just pick up a fossil and make a guess about it, for instance Ida was studied and scrutinized for 2 years before they released news of it. Several types of dating methods running on different clocks are used to determine the age, they don't just guess. How do you explain why certain species have unique combinations of traits while others don't? God just made it that way? This has no explanatory power, evolution explains why this happens perfectly. "snow flakes? really? there can if God made a perfectly ordered universe, and you do realize that that is a scientific law. its not dumb, its proven. the sickle cell as evidence for evolution was a hoax. no, there is a difference between micro and macro. micro means that something adapted in a small way, within the plans that it's DNA provide. macro evolution goes outside of the plans that DNA has. say, an animal goes from sea dwelling to land dwelling. where would its DNA get the information to make lungs?" That scientific law applies to this universe whether god created it or not, snowflakes are an example of order coming from disorder and we constantly see it happen and know exactly why, this example is to illustrate that it only applies to closed systems...we're in an open system meaning order comes from disorder all of the time. Sickle cell is a mutation that gave a beneficial trait, it's common in area's with a high rate of maleria because those with it lived on and were more likely to reproduced while those without died at a higher rate. It's a classic example of evolution. Micro means something adapted over a small amount of time, macro evolution is something adapting over a long period of time. We know the earth is billions of years old and life has been here for billions of years...so it has adapted over long periods of time. Mutations constantly change the "plans" of dna, a wall where there is no continued change has never been found...on the contrary every single reproduction hosts an abundance of mutations. Mutations changing the swim bladder were beneficial for fish because it allowed them to scour land for food and resources. Eventually this led to the lung. Over a long period of time natural selection and mutations add up. Here's a modern day example of something similar http://www.youtube.com... "you are really set on that chromosome thing. fine, does this explain it? http://lukeplant.me.uk...... oh sickle cell its self isn't a hoax, the idea of it as evidence of evolution, not so much. this should explain it to all you who haven't heard. http://www.creationbc.org...... mutations can also be evidence for creation. this explains that statement. http://www.icr.org...... tons of evidence from catastrophes on earth are largely contradictory to universalism. http://www.icr.org...... I think I have made my case, however, if anyone is not satisfied, here is one last link, exposing evidence for creation. http://www.creationsciencetoday.com...; You first link fails to understand why chromosome 2 is such strong evidence for evolution. He claims that you could also explain it with god....no duh, you could explain anything with god that's not the point. Using the theory of evolution we PREDICTED the fusion, using creationism there would be absolutely no reason to suggest that there's a fusion, we never would have looked if creationism was the standard model. I already explain why Sickle cell is a classic example of evolution. The site given claiming that mutations can be evidence for creation misrepresents the theory of aging. The theory of aging applies to an accumulation of damaged Dna that is unrepaired, not additional mutations or dna. Once again, sources are supposed to illustrate and support your arguments, not make them for you. I don't know what universalism is but large catastrophes don't contradict evolution, that's just absurd. Large catastrophes can actually speed up the process. The burden of proof was on pro. My opponent has not provided one ounce of evidence for his claims and he barely even made an argument, instead he tried to have me argue with an abundance of creationist and conspiracy websites that lacked any sort of credibility. I have provided evidence for the theory of evolution, he has provided none against nor has he supported creationism.