Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

Thanks, debater12332. I've asked Pro to tell us what he believes qualifies something as legitimate, scientific evidence. He claims he "doesn't know what this means," yet goes on to insist that he has provided scientific evidence. Well, so have I. What makes his evidence legitimate and my evidence not legitimate? Pro has failed to explain. Meanwhile, I've explained how the evidence for evolution holds up against the scrutiny of the scientific method. Pro has failed to explain how his "evidence" measures against this criteria. My opponent writes, "Genetics don't prove anything. God created every living thing with DNA and RNA so of course we are going to have some commonalities with every other living thing on earth..." Before we continue, let's note that he claims "God" is the creator but offers no proof; he simply declares it. This claim must be dropped as it is a fallacious bare assertion. I can just as easily claim that Santa Clause created every living thing and it proves nothing. Pro goes on, "If you think genetic similarities proves evolution, explain to me how. How do similarities in certain genes prove a common descent?"Scientists have explained this at length. "The translation between DNA and RNA codons (groups of three bases) and the corresponding amino acids is almost the same in all known forms of DNA-based life on earth, from humans to bacteria. If the translation between DNA, RNA, and amino acid differs, it allows scientists to probe how creatures have evolved and how different taxonomic groups branched apart" [1]. To put it simply: as we go back on the family tree, there are more and more genetic differences between us and our ancestors. By analyzing these similarities and differences as outlined by the genetic evidence, we can make a prediction from the amount of genetic diversity between two species about the time since their common ancestor population lived. "Just as scars stay on our bodies as reminders of past events, the DNA code contains “scars” and these are passed on from generation to generation. DNA scars result from the deletion or insertion of a block of bases (not just single base changes as in the previous section). Because we have a lot of these (hundreds of thousands) and they can be precisely located, they serve as a historical record of species. . . If we have the same scar as chimpanzees and orangutans, then the deletion or insertion must have occurred before these species diverged into separate populations. If we and chimpanzees have a certain scar but orangutans do not, we can conclude the deletion or insertion must have occurred after the common ancestor of chimps and humans separated from our common ancestor with orangutans. In this way we can create a detailed family tree of common ancestors" [2]. Next, Pro claims the evidence for transitional fossils is fraudulent, yet offers precisely ZERO explanation, analysis, or proof that my cited examples are false. Thus we have no reason to take Pro's claim seriously, and it will be dropped until he proves that the fossil evidence is fake. Indeed the fossil evidence is strong. While by itself it does not prove common descent, coupled with DNA evidence there is direct proof of evolution. We have evidence of transitional fossils that anatomically distinguish how species changed over time [3, 4, 5]. Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs [6]. Pro writes, "If you study Health or Anatomy you would realize that there are no vestigial organs." That is completely false. My opponent goes on to highlight that some vestigial organs were useful, however, vestigial structures are not necessarily without function. They describe anatomical structures with a purpose that is no longer clear [7]. That means they were at a time functional but no longer needed. Pro's very own examples prove this. For instance he points out "until recently" we needed wisdom teeth, admitting that we no longer need them.My opponent claims he finds a source suggesting bacteria "couldn't live that long." All of Pro's sources from last round are jumbled up and not labeled correctly. I have no idea which source he's referring to that allegedly proves this claim. It's unclear what his point is here, but we do have some indication that bacteria can be used to help prove evolution. A team of scientists collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile. Evolution doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes' lack of change is consistent with the theory [8].But again I have no idea why Pro is bringing up bacteria here. Is he denying that scientists have observed the bacteria of evolution? Not only have scientists witnessed this and explained it at length, but they have created a video showing evolution in action here in source #10 [9, 10]. Pro insists he has given evidence of a Young Earth. His proof includes: A) The Faint Young Sun ParadoxB) Seashells found on top of Mount Everest C) The existence of comets in our solar system On the Faint Young Sun - Researchers have made headway in finding the answer. "Atmospheric and surface conditions during the first billion years of Earth's history are poorly understood due to the scarcity of geological and geochemical evidence However, ancient zircon crystals in sedimentary rocks provide evidence that our planet had liquid oceans, at least intermittently, during this earliest period" [11].Scientists explain it's possible, that is, if you can keep these factors happening in the right order in the right quantities to resolve the paradox:1. Bring in lots of asteroids to heat the surface. You need some big ones, 100 km in diameter.2. Make sure the asteroids have lots of sulfur. This will be needed for life. 3. Let the asteroids cause outgassing of lots of sulfur and carbon into the atmosphere to provide global warming (but not too much).4. Keep the impacts from being too big or frequent to destroy the life that is trying to emerge. 5. Reduce the impact rate as the sun warms up.On seashells at Mt. Everest - the oceans and landmass that we know now were not always this way. The Earth's crust is constantly changing. The rock that was once below the ocean is at the top of the mountain now [12]. Shells were once in ocean sediments, where they became fossilized parts of rocks [13]. The rock forming the Mt. Everest was once under the Tethys sea that used to exist between main Asia landmass and small indian tectonic plate [14]. Those specific mountains were formed (two earth plates pushing against one another for millions of years caused the mountains to form; the earth used to be flatter way back in the day). On comets - Scientists believe that comets were born with the rest of the solar system and have been stored since formation in a cold place where the nuclear ices could be stable. The two deep-freeze locations now under discussion are the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt [15]. There is little doubt within the scientific community that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt exist. "The young-Earth creationists' attempt to date the age of the solar system, and consequently the Earth, as very young directly opposes accepted scientific evidence. With ever increasing validity through continued research, the proposition of the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are the best explanation for the existence of comets, despite claims by young-Earth creationists that the existence of comets is evidence for a young earth" [16].No Proof of Flood For a global flood to be correct, ALL fossils from ALL species of living things would need to be found in the same layer of earth (whenever the global flood occurred); that means that you should be able to find a human’s skeleton next to a dinosaur’s. This has never been the case [17]. Proof Earth is Not Young"The process of figuring out a rock's age often falls to the scientific techniques of radiometric dating, the most famous of which is radiocarbon dating. This process focuses on the ratio between the number of carbon-14 and carbon-12 isotopes in any once-living being: that ratio indicates how long it's been since that being was alive. But carbon is not the only element that can be dated—a whole host of others exist. In uranium-lead dating, for instance, the radioactive decay of uranium into lead proceeds at a reliable rate. Based on the very old zircon rock from Australia we know that the Earth is at least 4.374 billion years old" [18].Swedish researchers have found a tree on Fulu Mountain that is over 9,000 years old [19]. The fossil record also indicates the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. I can expand on this next round if need-be. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...