Evolution is only a theory and will not be fact. Creation is true.

Chromosome #2My opponent claims that Chromosome #2 is not evidence of evolution for a couple of reasons. First, he claims that God could have made humans in a way that made it appear "as if" it is a fused chromosome, but isn't really. However, God could have created all of us five seconds ago, with memories fully in tact. These types of assumptions are just useless when dealing with scientific issues of this nature, because a prima facie case can self-evidently be made for the chromosome being fused. For this reason, my opponent's objection in question fails. Pro also goes on to claim: "Even if we did share the same number of chromosomes as apes at one point we still could have been completely different from apes."This seems like a rather useless statement, because there is no way we could have been "completely" different from apes. We both have brains, feet, hair, teeth, arms, noses and things of that nature. Regardless, it is not just the amount of chromosomes that make apes so much similar to us on an evolutionary level, it is other genetic similarities as well. Also, the fossil record clearly shows that the more advanced ape like creatures formed later on, compared to less advanced forms. This is strong evidence for evolution. All we need to do is find one human fossil dated at a time which contradicts evolution, then evolution would be falsified. However, all fossils found are dated in a way coinciding with the evolutionary tree. This would be unreasonably coincidental if evolution was false. Another statement made by Pro was:"Cats and pigs both have 19 pairs or 38 chromosomes. But do pigs and cats look like the same animal to you?" This is rather a juvenile rebuttal to the Chromosome #2 argument, because it really has nothing to do with it once so ever. Nobody is arguing that pigs and cats are the same animal, or that humans and apes are the same animal. Since this response was trivial at best, it is safe to say it can be disregarded as a sound objection.Another reason Chromosome # 2 is strong evidence for evolution, is that it was predicted by evolution. It would be extremely unlikely that we would find this exact chromosome if evolution were false. This is analogous to somebody claiming they got in a chase and left a blue bike at park "A", and you go there and find the blue bike. There could be a blue bike there for some other reason, but it's most likely that the blue bike has to do with that person's claim. It would just be too coincidental otherwise.Due to the fact that my opponent's objections failed, it is safe to say my argument stands unscathed. Chromosome # 2 is definitely evidence for evolution. Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation This section of mine went unaddressed by Pro. I find this strange, as this is the most compelling argument for evolution. Different species evolving have actually been observed in laboratories. This is not only evidence of evolution, but definitive proof. Therefore, the resolution has been negated based off this section alone. Additional Claims Made By Pro"1. evolutionists say that reptiles became birds uhh... that just weird for one and one major difference is their lungs the reptiles breath in and out like we do and birds do not anything in between there would be fatal. All the Evolutionists think about is the scales becoming feathers. So please explain how this proves evolution."The genetic sequencing of birds and reptiles shows common ancestry. Also the discovery of the Archaeopteryx fossil[2] shows a creature with bird like features, like feathers, but also with reptile like features as well. These reptilian features include small teeth (which modern birds aren't known to have), and a boney tail. The odds that the Archaeopteryx coincides with the genetic sequencing prediction by chance is too low it seems. The fact that this fits perfectly with evolution, is strong evidence for it. Pro then goes on to say:"And I know it may seem weird to think about a God who created this all by his hand but it seems harder to believe everything happened by chance I just don't see any logic in any of that."Evolution is not driven by chance alone, this would assume complete randomness. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which is a non-random process which leads to specific results. "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers."[2] Since evolution is not completely random, it is not driven by chance alone. There is no reason to assume evolution driven by natural selection this is less likely than common Creationist claims. "You can get a pile of bricks from a building but you cant suddenly get a building out of a pile of bricks it just doesn't work."Nobody is claiming this is how it works. Thus, the above is a false-analogy. "Neither does chemicals and other things suddenly forming a very complicated thing and even more complicated things to have the other thing to survive."Chemicals could easily suddenly form into simple life forms given enough times to run the odds, but not complex ones. Complex organisms take much time to evolve, all life started out extremely simple."And why are people so eager to say we came from apes? I would take that as an insult to be honest."Evolution doesn't claim that we came from modern apes, but rather we share a common ancestor with the modern apes. Regardless, the reason people are so eager to claim this evolution happens, is because this is what all the DNA and fossil records clearly show. If the evidence went in another direction, then scientists would lean in that direction, but this is not the case. It has nothing to do with people's subjective "wants", it has to do with finding out the truth about human origins, in a more concrete fashion than simply adhering to ancient books.Why Is Creationism False?Pro did not address my section here, thus it stands. If creation is true, then we should find human fossil remains as old as dinosaur bones, but we do not. All fossils are aged exactly as they should be if evolution was true, but this would be extremely coincidental if evolution was false. It is much more likely to conclude that evolution is true, and creationism is false for this reason. ConclusionIn my opening round I presented three sections of argumentation:1. Chromosome # 22. Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation 3. Why Is Creationism False?My opponent only addressed the Chromosome # 2 claim. Therefore, even if his objections do stand (which they do not), my other arguments remain untouched. For this reason alone my opponent is not to be favored in this debate. Also, his additional arguments for creationism did not stand to scrutiny as well. A vote Con, would be a vote in the right direction due to arguments outlined in this debate. Source[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...