Evolution is better supported by evidence than creationism.

OpeningMy opponent says that 'creation.com' and 'answersingenesis.org' use misleading arguments and half-truths. What he is saying, essentially, is that since they are Christian scientists, he will cover his ears and yell "lalala can't heart you" because he marginalizes those he disagrees with. This is an ignorant argument. It doesn't matter who is doing the research, the facts do not change. My opponent argues that those who call themselves Christians, who have earned their degrees in science, are intentionally lying to prove that the God who is against lying exists. This is irrational. Christians have a higher standard for truth, while secular scientists need to hold to these values- they could be persuaded to publish things for the sake of money, which we have seen many times over in the name of evolution. (1) It is more logical to believe that Christian scientists would strive to be more reliable, than the Darwinian scientists who have already proven to blatantly misrepresent evidence to make extra money.Pro also argues that peer review is an important aspect to scientific articles. I agree. Creation scientists also present peer-reviewed material.RebuttalsNew InformationQuote from Pro's link:"Under the classical model for the evolution of duplicate genes, one member of the duplicated pair usually degenerates within a few million years by accumulating deleterious mutations, while the other duplicate retains the original function. This model further predicts that on rare occasions, one duplicate may acquire a new adaptive function, resulting in the preservation of both members of the pair, one with the new function and the other retaining the old" (emphasis mine)This is exactly my point. We observe that mutations can only duplicate original functions. This article goes on to say it "predicts that on rare occasions..." This is my point exactly. There is no observational evidence of new information being added. My opponent merely gives an example of him substituting faith for evidence- since the evidence is not found, we still must believe it must be possible. Creationists need not invoke faith on this issue.Transitional FormsMy opponent missed the point in trying to refute the supposed transitional forms. There were earlier species that were fully formed before these supposed missing links, meaning that they could not be transitional forms later. He argues that there is a more complete list, which is still quite lacking in quantity, and still lacking in scientific concensus. He also still ignores the major account of having 999 out of 1000 missing links, althouth he uses the fallacy of assertion to claim that we will some day find these missing links. This is faith at it's highest level, asserting that it is true, regardless of all the evidence against it.Half Fish Half AmphibiansMy opponent shows examples of certain f that can use their gills to crawl to land. This does not show that they are transitional fossils, as we have no previous fossils to show stages of development that lead up to this ability. They could just have easily been created in this form. With no evidence to support the theory that they devoloped into this stage, the evidence is in the favor of Creationism, where again, the Darwinian is needing to invoke faith that the evidence is just "missing' again.Noah's Flood (2)As the flood was forming many layers rapidly, many things would be fossilized quickly, glacial deposits left, burrows, etc. The fossils would be distributed by the simpler things being near the bottom and the more advanced creatures surviving to the higher layers. There is actually evidence of the flood, in direct opposition to there being no evidence for Darwinian evolution. Again, the Creationist can use the observational evidence to validate their claims, while the evolutionist must just invoke the faith that there never was a global flood, so that their interpretation of the geological layers and the fossil record are not in vain. ClosingThe secular scientific community remains dedicated to holding onto their worldview despite the observational evidence. It is a dying theory that will hopefuly dissipate as more rational and honest scientists rise to the occasion. There will be a time when people will realize that the truth of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution relies only on faith despite evidence, while Creationism is completely compatible with the evidence that is left of the antiquity of the world (even though the popular conception is the other way around.) I thank my opponent for this debate, and I plead that Pro and the readers allow themelves to be as skeptical of Darwinian Evolution as they are Creationism.(1) http://www.nwcreation.net...(2)http://www.youtube.com...