Creation (Pro) versus Evolution (Con)

REBUTTALS: Branching Does mutation and natural selection happen now? In what way does it actually EFFECT the generations of animals? This is very unlikely, as it is isn't seen often therefore couldn't have been as effected as Evolutionists say it was. My opponent: "...then they will continue to change over time, but in different ways." I ask you to answer this: what originally initiated this ability in natural selection to generate traits? If you say natural selection produced it by working on nature's emergent properties, this is circular--and a very weak explanation. [1] You say branching is the key to Evolution. But what started all this branching? When Earth came to be, where did the traits of that first, living cell come from, and how did it evolve to all the species of animals we have now? "Observations" for Evolution My opponent: "I do not believe that "no doubt about it: Evolution happened."' Well, if Evolution had happened, wouldn't there be enough evidence for you to say 'no doubt about it'? Judging by all the assumptions scientists make on 'what happened 16.9 million years ago,' there should be MORE evidence to support it. "But one does not find humans fossils from the Jurassic period." This contradicts your saying the earliest ancestors of humans were about 100,000 years ago. Where's your proof that there even WAS a Jurassic period? Your "few transitional fossils" are quite pathetic. The archaeopteryx fossil as been proven fully bird and does not prove anything useful to the Evolution Theory. In fact, it goes with Creationism as well. [2] 'Apes and humans are both in the Hominoidea family that is what we evolved from." This is circular reasoning, (double wammy), because you are claiming 'because we are related according to this family and we evolved, we evolved from apes in this related family.' [3] CREATIONISM To get onto evidence for Creationism which you asked for, I'm going to demonstrate first how humans have always been humans. X-ray analysis of the semicircular canals of a number of apemen skulls showed that the Homo erectus canals were like those of modern humans, meaning they walked upright. But those of the A. africanus and A. robustus were like those of great apes. This shows they did not walk upright like humans, but were probably mainly tree-dwelling. "Homo habilis" turned out to be even less "bi-pedal" than the australopithecines. [4] Mitochondrial DNA analysis of a Neandertal skeleton found that the sequence differed from modern humans in 22 to 36 places, while the differences among modern humans are from 1 to 24 places. Despite some statistically invalid claims that this makes the Neandertals a separate species, the differences are within the range of modern humans. Also, DNA is quickly broken down by water and oxygen, so under favorable conditions, DNA might last tens of thousands of years at the most. This raises serious questions about the 100,000-year "age" that some scientists have assigned to this skeleton. [4] I conclude that there are many reasons humans have always been humans. Young Earth Here are 5 natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. 1. The galaxies wind themselves up too fast. The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. 2. Too few supernova remnants. According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas. 3. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. 4. Not enough mud on the sea floor. Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago. 5. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (" 165) years.1 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. Creationism explains rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old. http://www.youtube.com... Ran out of characters. Sorry for no sources...!