Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

It is my belief, as well as many others that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be. Either by the hand of a creator or by millions of years of molecules being mixed together until the first cell arose. Some people try to offer an alternate theory to these two like panspermia. Panspermia: the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment. But the question still remains the same. How did those life forms begin? This debate is primarily on (as Con has already stated) Macro-evolution. The reason that I feel the need to bring this up is because it is important to understand that the science of how the first life-form came to be has never been proven. So just as Con says I cannot prove the existence of God. The theory of evolution cannot prove the origin of life using the "Criteria of a Scientific Theory" mentioned in Con's opening statement. "Consistent (internally & externally), Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations), Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena), Empirically Testable and Falsifiable, Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments, Correctable & Dynamic, Progressive, Tentative. " What we do know is how the world works now, and I will argue that the science points to a young earth made by a creator. I find it interesting that Con has "tentative" as one of the criteria of a scientific theory when most of the leading evolutionists say that evolution is a fact; they state that there is no God, without giving any evidence. This does not seem very scientific to me. Con states that there is "essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming" Besides the obvious appeal to authority it is important to note that being a creationist in the "scientific community" is not easy as most evolutionists don't view creationists as scientists. History has proven that the majority is not always right. I would also like to add that creationists are discriminated against in the scientific community which leads to very biased studies and statistics. [1] "Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non- scientist alike, and it aroused violent controversy. Religious people disliked it because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. Lipson, H. S. [Professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK], "A physicist looks at evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138. Con also stated that "We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else. " This is simply not true. Just because two animals have four legs doesn't mean they have a common ancestor. This is a very common argument, but it goes both ways. If God made everything then we can expect a commonality. Where is the evidence for evolution here? "This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable. " Again, believing in God or a deity is one of the only logical explanations for how life began; if you have any other explanations I would love to hear them. The Big Bang is very unusual and so is the idea of Abiogenesis which goes against the Cell Theory, a theory that has never been proven wrong. Also the Theory of Evolution is not verifiable. If evolution were verifiable, it has failed because in all this time no one has ever been able to prove that life came from non-life, that macro-evolution is possible, or that the earth is billions of years old. "Evolution is useful" It's actually not useful at all. The idea of vestigial organs was made up by ignorant scientists trying to find evidence of evolution. Those organs that most people learned were vestigial are actually very important, and no the appendix is not vestigial. The more we learn about anatomy the more we learn about the importance of these "vestigial organs. " I would urge Con to please check your facts, and if you still don't believe that there's no such thing as vestigial organs I'll gladly give you a long list of examples where scientists were completely wrong and "vestigial" organs turned out to be very important. "why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development;" I'm guessing that you're referring to "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" this was proven wrong in the 1800's. The guy who introduced this actually faked the drawings so I'm not sure why Con is using this as evidence of evolution. You also pointed out some other examples that I will have to cover later in one of my four remaining arguments due to the 10,000 character limit. [3] Macro-evolution is the main point of this debate, and there is no evidence to support it. I did a quick google search for proof on evolution and could not find one thing on all of the evolutionist websites that proved the possibility of macro-evolution. You made the extraordinary claim that there was proof of macro-evolution and I can't find anything online so please give me at least one example to prove that macro-evolution is possible. What I did find when I googled "proof of macro-evolution" was an article entitled "there's no scientist alive today who understands macro-evolution. " I found a quote by Professor James M. Tour who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world that said "From what I can see, micro-evolution is a fact" and "there is no argument regarding micro-evolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of micro-evolution to macro-evolution. " Now that I've shed some light on some of Con's "evidence" I am going to show some proof of creation. I believe that God made the earth in 6 days about 7,000 years ago like the Bible says he did. If I'm right then we should expect to see some evidence that either proves or disproves my theory. If the Bible is true we would expect proof of a young earth, and proof of a worldwide flood. These are things that could either prove or disprove the young earth account of Genesis. It is estimated that the moon is 4.53 million years old and 238,900 miles away from earth. The moon moves away from the earth every year. If the moon were more than 1.5 billion years old it would have to have been touching the earth. Even if the moon did not recede this fast, as most all evolutionists claim, the tides caused by the moon would cause many problems for all life on earth. [4] Then there are the comets. If our galaxy was as old as evolutionists say it is we shouldn't have comets. The lifespan of a comet is only a few thousand years, any longer and it melts. How does our solar system have comets and yet evolutionists claim its 4.6 billion years old? Diamonds were carbon dated at less than 50,000 years. Evolutionists try to say that the diamonds were contaminated in some way, but not only is this a lot of speculation it would also prove that other dating methods such as Uranium-Lead and Potassium-Argon dating methods are completely unreliable. [5] Evolutionists claim that the Sun is about 4.54 billion years old. If this is true it means the sun has used up about half of its life and is brighter than it was a couple of million years ago. Evolutionists say that life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. There is something known as the faint young sun paradox, if the sun is 4.45 billion years old the temperature of the earth would be below freezing. Not only does this contradict evolutionist's theories that the earth's temperature was about the same throughout time, but it would also freeze the life-forms on earth. [6] We also find evidence for a flood such as seashells at the top of Mount Everest and many other mountains. Things like these collaborate the Genesis account and provide evidence for the theory of a young earth. [7] Evolutionists like to say that creationism isn't science because creationists will twist the data to make it work with the Bible, but then they'll turn around and do the exact same thing they're accusing creationists of. No matter how much evidence contradicts the theory of evolution, evolutionists will refuse to believe in the existence of God. I never said that I can prove God exists, but I can prove evolution wrong and show that the Bible is consistent with science and is the most logical explanation of our origins. Thank you. [1]. https://www.theguardian.com... . http://creation.com... [2]. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3]. https://embryo.asu.edu... [4]. https://answersingenesis.org... [5]. https://biblescienceforum.com... [6]. http://www.space.com... . https://answersingenesis.org... . http://www.bbc.co.uk... [7]. http://www.creationscience.com...