Evolution is the only viable explanation for the origin of all the species that exist today.

I am not sure where Pro got the idea that there is such a thing as a four paragraph definition not where he got the notion that Wikipedia is a reliable source for one but alas, I shall continue this debate using his definition.I shall explain to you beyond any reasonable doubt why evolution is not so ridiculous within itself but why the gaps in its logic are, in fact, filled ever so nicely by its key rival, Creationism.It is important to note that Creationism is not unique to the Judeo-Christian god hi and any creator, omnipotent or not, can be applied to the logic if the theory. I do not have to prove the existence of the specific God of Christianity, Judaism nor Islam to substantiate the viability of Creationism as the correct explanation of all the species that exist today.It is also essential for the debate to proceed that is made crystal clear that I fully accept micro-evolution on an intra-species level. Within a species, the most adapted creatures to their surroundings are more likely to reproduce than those who don't. This is simple natural selection (which is the process by which evolution happens but is not bound to the theory itself). Where my opponent and I disagree is that the inter-species "macro evolution" is not the only viable explanation for the origin of species that we have today.So let's analyze a quote that Darwin himself said: http://tinyurl.com..."To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."Now, he of course went on to justify how the eye could have potentially evolved but the point remains that even the very founder of evolution himself had his doubts about his theory's validity (no matter how well he covered up those doubts with desperate grasps at abstract logic).You see, Darwin did a great thing for biologists; he gave them a framework in which to categorize animals and work out the relationships between them. He observed that out of a group of 3 males and 3 females the most adapted male to the environment is most likely to be able to have sex with all the three females and only the most attractive of the three will get banged the most times with the most semen. On top of this, only the female most turned on by the male would put the effort in being attractive for him in the first place. This is all true and easy to understand. Where Darwin leaves a huge plot-hole in his storyline is in how one species suddenly turns into another. His theory falls apart in explain how us and chimps coexist and why one didn't ever kill the other off. It also fails to explain how a species suddenly spreads and why magically a male and female of the same species both evolve simultaneously to have sex and produce their own species from there onwardsThere also another huge plot-hole in terms of how the heck any living animal exists after the entire dinosaur population was wiped out. Did evolution just revamp itself? Did evolution restart from bacteria up to eukaryotes to the complexity level of human beings all over again? Why did all the dinosaurs die but living animals still remain... Oh that's right "they magically evolved"! It all makes sense now. Heck, the leading theory is that fish suddenly grew feet and walked on land.[http://tinyurl.com...]Now I genuinely wonder why a world where 71% of it is water [http://tinyurl.com...] drove fish so insane with the ocean that they felt the need to suffocate themselves in order to on land. This is simply preposterous.Aside from this major loophole in the storyline of the macro-evolved animal kingdom, is a more fundamental issue that I want to address. If a group of animals exist and one child happens to be very mutated to a degree that makes it more adapted to its surroundings, it will be socially rejected and thrown to the side for being a freak, it won't suddenly be sexually worshipped and reproduce with every woman in town to pass its genes on. Do you think suddenly one day one primate thought "ooh let's have sex with less hairy people who stand taller because that's just effing hot!" and then magically an army of less hairy upright chimps were bred that kept reproducing within its family and incest triumphed all the other primates because of suddenly super intelligent brains coming to human beings. This is a nice fairytale but simply doesn't sound realistic, in actual fact it's near-impossible. if more violent, stronger primates were around when humans began evolving it doesn't make sense that they'd out-evolve the others. Instead our weak bodies would be massacred by the superior apes that are five to eight times as strong as human beings[http://tinyurl.com...]. What do you think happened, we just suddenly evolved language and ingenuity to build spears and arrows in order to hunt and defeat other species out of nowhere? How the heck did we evolve ingenuity and language in time our weak, frail bodies not to have been thrashed by other species?!In actual fact why are black bears even black? They are the bears that climb trees but the brown bears are wasting their time hunting fish when it can blend into the tree trunks so much better. Why did pandas begin eating bamboo only? did they just happen to evolve to a less sustainable existence? None of it makes any sense.On top of this, when two similar species try and create a new one, that species is always, without fail, sterile.[http://tinyurl.com...] So how exactly is a new species supposed to form? Even that makes no sense.Following from this is the more pressing issue of how freaks of nature end up getting treated by their species. When humans that are freakishly hairy[http://tinyurl.com...], tall, short or any other oddity of humankind they are severely bullied as children and often driven to suicide via it. If they happen to be tough enough to survive that, they will very rarely be able to meet any other human who they can turn on due to their freakish appearance. If they do happen to reproduce it's still very unlikely that their children will be able to find anyone to mate unless the partner is really ugly and desperate themselves and hence evolutionarily maladaptive. In fact, what is likely to happen is that the less-freaky children will out-reproduce the more freaky looking children and over time that undesirable trait will die out. Now I really don't think that being a skinny upright-standing talker was attractive back in the days that humans originated from the "original primates". Instead, I think that standing upright instead of crawling everywhere you went was just considered screwed up and idiotic because you couldn't climb trees so well and no other ape would have wanted to have sex with that weirdo. It makes sense that humans should have died out long ago via evolution. We didn't. Instead we evolved the most idiotic thing ever.Black absorbs heat better than white[http://tinyurl.com...] but darker people are where the sun is. How does that make any evolutionary sense?In all honesty the more likely answer is that each species was created as a breed in a great game designed by one, or a group of, bored god(s) that had nothing better to do with their time. It has a pattern for the sake of it and certain species look similar to each other but that's just the mysterious beauty of the work of art that is our world. We don't know how they did it, or why, but to think that evolution explains the whole picture is not only amusing but downright stupid.