Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life

In my DP, you see my angry idol, Chuvit Kalmovisit. That was arbitrary. Lol. It seems that the opponent has semi-forfeitted the last round (Ms.Lion, if you have loads of work, then this should be on your none-prioritized list). Nevertheless, her points will do as all I shall (and I could do) is rebut."Creation is a big reason for the development of life. Without a creator how would someone explain the "evolution" claim of things just coming to being? It doesn't. "True; anything created has a creator. That creator makes things "evolutionize" into complex beings; but who is the creator? That is where, I believe, our ideals disagree; a creator is someone/something that creates life. The idea that god is the eternal creator of all life form, and that he created in the same period, does not match our evidence.For example, in my last argument, I echoed some points that disproves this; I shall now grasp onto those points. A bacterial fossil was dated to 3.5 billion years and then through each life "form" periods, we found more and more types of animals. These lifetime periods are called Eons; geological Eons. The first mamals appeared during the Mezosozic Eon; we humans only appeared 200,000,000 years ago, or at least what we know as humans right know. Creationism provides us with a not-so rational explanation of the world, and many points of creationist theory goes false everyday.For example, it is well believed that Noah landed his Ark in the Middle East, but we find Kangaroo Fossils in Australia. If all animals came into the ark as the story is believed, then how did Noah and his pets get to Australia when there are no landbridges connecting Australia to Asia? That disproves the entire theory; many other points of the theory gets disproved by the scientific proof we are provided with every minute. For example, if the huge flood was drained off in 1 year, then there must be Grand Canyons where the flood could drain off to in every continent; that is not the case. More geological proof shows that layers over layers of rocks (some up to 18km deep) were discovered. Because of this, the mere structure of the earth was formed; because rocks form very slowly, it is doubted that anyone in 6 days, or 6,000 years, could've made such layers. TAnd how do we know evolution is the most sensible model? Quite simply this: the earth's rock formation and proof of tectonic plates moving around simply proove this. Tectonic Plates move slowly (very slowly; but however, we see that there are some fossils of the same coastal species on both sides of the world (in Africa and South America). This prooves that the age of the earth goes further than 6,000 years old. Also, the mere number of species we know exist today outweight those that could be produced in such a time; we would discover 11 new species everyday if the earth was young. Also, Old Tjikko (a pine tree) is 9,550 years old; many other trees can 10,000-20,000 years old. The earth is clearly older than these trees; if a tree is 20,000 years old, then the earth's age must be more than that. As I stated, our DNAs are almost 100% similar to those of chimps, suggesting we evolved from Chimps and other identical and less complex beings. We have also seen evolution happen with our own eyes in ring species; I have touched on this, and I will do it again; for example, the Klauberi and the eschscholtzii are two examples of ring species; both can interbreed, but they both have different skin color, but yet could interbreed. We humans are an example of ring species! Some of us have different skin color, yet we could breed. Therefore, evolution provides a simple and clear cut model of the development of life in earth.Citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...