Evolution is better supported by evidence than creationism.

IntroductionWorldviewScience is just the observation and study of different things, and we should follow the evidence to where it leads, not let our pre-conceived notions determine the evidence.If a person were asked to describe how a computer is created, without being able to talk about humans, he would have a hard time to do so. So, if the universe was created by God, then explaining it's origins would be near impossible to do without having Him in the model.Now, I understand that my model of the origins of life needs a Creator, and my opponent's model does not need a Creator. I will try to present arguments that disprove the notion that life can be explained without God.MisconceptionsUnder the Ptolemaic model, everything revolved around Earth. When issues came up that seemed to contradict this theory, adjustments were made to keep the theory accurate- every planet would also have to revolve in smaller epicycles. (1)Even though his model could still accurately depict the positions of the heavenly bodies, it was obviously later disproved by Copernicus and Galileo who weren't afraid to go against both the religious and the secular scientists of their days. (2)People never thought that the earth was flat, but this myth was created in the 19th Century because of a misunderstanding of the reasons why Columbus went on a voyage. (3)Making a PointI brought these two examples into the discussion to make a point- scientific theories can still make accurate predictions but can still be wrong, and people are susceptible to believing in myths or generalizations that lead to believing people are unintelligent.I will argue for two contentions:1: The Neo-Darwinian theory might have some truth within in, but overall it is an incorrect theory.2: People who believe in Creation are not an unintelligent lot that disregard science.RebuttalsMutations and Natural SelectionNatural selection does what it implies- it selects only from information that is already there. It cannot create any new information, so New-Darwinians argue that mutations can change information and that will need to new information. However, mutations only lead to a loss of information. Yes, mutations can lead to new traits, but it is still a loss of information. (4) With no no information, no new kinds can evolve.Lee Spetner "We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." (5)If my opponent wants to rebut this argument, he must give evidence on a mutation actually giving new information.Transitionary FossilsCharles Darwin: "“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (6)We should be seeing many transitional forms in the fossil record, however, there are a handful of disputable ones that have no scientifc concensus of agreement.Not only this, but we should also stll be seeing many things in transitional forms today, which we see absolutely none of that. So, my opponent might argue for maybe one or two transitionary fossils, but it's an understatement to say that that would be far from being enough to explain away this issue.DNA ComparisonIf there was one Creator who designed all, there should be no issue of similar DNA. This does not prove either evolution or creation, it is a fact that is compatible with both theories.Observed Examples of SpeciationCreationists rely on the ability to create new species, especially with a short period of time. Creationists believe that there is no argument that we see changes within a kind, but nothing created outside of what can be reproduced within a kind.Vestigial StructuresVestigial structures, or "junk DNA", is an old argument that Darwinians previously used, but have since abandoned because all of the claimed "vestigial structures" are actually not useless and provide important functions. The human coccyx contains no bones or muscles; it is the anchor for the muscles that hold the anus in place. It is quite important. (7)Wings of flightless birds only prove a loss of information from birds that could once fly, not a gain of information.The "Hind leg bones" in whales are not remnants from once land-dwelling mammals, but they are an important feature used for penis erection in males and vaginal contraction in females. (8) Problems of Evolution (9) Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient; The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. Arguments for Creation (10) I would say that there are numerous arguments for Creation, but there is one argument that I consider the strongest and most important- the worldwide flood from the days of Noah. Polystrate fossils are trees that were fossilized and buried upright, and often traverse multiple layers of strata. The fossils themselves prove a flood, as fossils are created because of rapid burials, which would be easily explained why we have so many of these fossils because of a worldwide flood. In mountains all over the world, we find sea shells and other marine fossils. We see these on the Sierras, Swiss Alps, the Himalays, etc. The worldwide flood would have caused rapid layers in the earth, which secular scientists falsely interpret as millions of years. Conclusion If evolutionists were as skeptical of the Darwinian theory as much as they were as skeptical about religion, they would agree that the Theory of Evolution is not something that would even hold up in a court of law. Many issues arise in evolution, and they create "epicycles of planets" to maintain this dying theory. We need our Galileo who is not afraid to go against the top religious and secular scientists who still cling to this religion. "The Hindus were Spinozas 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world." (11) Evolution is a theory that comes from the Hindu religion, and it still exists as a religious belief today. (1) http://www.polaris.iastate.edu...(2) http://www.bethinking.org...(3) http://europeanhistory.about.com...(4) http://creation.com...(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...(6) http://www.icr.org...(7) http://www.answersingenesis.org...(8) http://creation.com...; (9) http://www.evolutionnews.org... 10) http://www.earthage.org... (11) http://www.ukapologetics.net...