Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

I would like to point out that Con has not presented a shred of evidence to support his case, only a pseudo-rational argument. I also noticed Con did not affirm or deny the argument that God simply created humans rather than humans developing from evolution and abiogenesis. I know that the definition of Creationism that was accepted by both debaters does not explicitly state that humans were created, but it does state that things were created, and did not gradually evolve or develop. This ambiguous definition of “thing” is a big problem. I thought I would be arguing against common Creationist ideas which usually include things like humans being created rather than evolving, or an earth that is less than 10,000 years old. I truly hope that Con adopts these claims and can defend them, if not this whole debate is about origins of the universe rather than the origins and development of life (which is what I genuinely intended). Regardless, I will continue to extend my arguments and show in this round the mounds of scientific evidence that supports evolution (abiogenesis was supported in my last round). Although I am not quite sure what Creationist ideas Con seems to adopt, I will respond to Creationism as a whole and deal with their most general and common claims. I believe the more accurate and intended definition for Creationism should be: “the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being [8. http://en.wikipedia.org... ].” I hope Con does agree with this definition, if not then the debate becomes completely different.The reason I state that Con's argument is pseudo-rational is because P1 is not always true, and P2 is a blatant assertion. In the realm of the quantum, there seems to be no explanation and no cause for various events. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence for no apparent reason, with no apparent cause. Radioactive decay occurs for no apparent reason, with no apparent cause. Therefore the universe may have come into existence without any apparent reason or any apparent cause, so P1 is not always true. P2 is a blatant assertion as it has no evidential basis. Con could have, but did not even elaborate or make any argument to demonstrate it's truth. In my argument outlined below, I will show why a universe with only naturalistic explanations is more likely to be true than a universe with supernatural explanations.The Origin of the Universe is Unknown:Nobody truly knows the origin of the universe, and anyone who states they do should immediately be treated with tough skepticism. Theists like Con are glad to announce and proclaim that God is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim. If God is the creator of the universe then who created God? If one can claim that God had no creator and he is eternal, then it is equally valid to claim that the universe had no creator and is eternal. According to Occam’s razor [9. http://en.wikipedia.org... ], since the universe is much simpler than a God, then the eternal universe explanation is more likely to be true. In reality, nobody knows the true origin of the universe as nobody has ever demonstrated any compelling proof. Therefore we cannot make any definitive proclamation on the issue only reasonable speculations of which is more likely or more rational:1) The universe and the Big Bang could have been created by completely naturalistic causes.2) The Big Bang could have been created by uncaused causes. Uncaused causes seem to occur all the time through spontaneous quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay [10.http://en.wikipedia.org...] and quantum fluctuations [11. http://en.wikipedia.org...].3) The universe could have always existed.4) God always existed, and created the universe.Again, it is better to adopt the universe explanations (1,2, or 3) as the universe is less complex then God and therefore more likely to be correct. It is up to Con to prove that (4) is more likely than all other possibilities.The Evidence for Evolution is Overwhelming:Evolution is a scientific theory as it passes all of the criterion for one. Con accepts biologic evolution as: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.” It is common knowledge that the genetic composition of a population does indeed change with each generation for pretty much every species. It is easily testable by comparing DNA sequences of a mother, a father, and their child in us humans it is commonly called DNA profiling [12. http://en.wikipedia.org... ]. This is how Maury knows with a very high level of certainty whether the guy on his show is the father of a child or not. All species use the same biological method of processing genetic information known as DNA. Since all living organisms on this planet (animals and plants alike) have some form of DNA it is highly likely that all organisms developed from a common ancestor (this supports theories of abiogenesis). Evolution along with natural selection predicts and explains how certain features become prevalent in an organism, and how they developed to be in the context of their environment and function. This can be explained through a completely naturalistic and gradual process. Creationism, and creation science in general has quite a lot of negative hearsay and is not accepted by the scientific community because it has absolutely no compelling evidence, and is religiously motivated. Below is a very short list of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports evolution: 1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.2. Fossil evidence - (too much to list) The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.3. Genetic evidence - the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).5. Evidence from proteins - the exact structure of the insulin molecule; the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates. These proteins are absent in New World primates , and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly different proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the Old World primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the Old World primates.6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.This list can go on well into the hundreds but I do have a character limit to uphold. As I have demonstrated, evolutionary theory has heavy evidential artillery on it's side, while Creationism has nothing but assertions. For a bigger list (the evidence is always growing so it will never be a complete list) of evolutionary evidence with references, please check out the following link [13. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I look forward to Con's response, and hope that this debate stays focused on the origin and development of life.