Evolution is more plausible than Creationism

I got my term evolution from an online definition source which i worked off of, But you can create your creationism definition however you want :) Rebuttals. 1. Population of Christians Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make that claim true which is why i did not use the argument that the vast majority of scientist support evolution over 97% percent. This is a logical fallacy known as the argument of ad populum which appeals to the popularity of certain ideas to say that it is true. We can see just by looking back at human history that most of the time the most popular idea was not always the correct one. http://ncse.com... 2. Religions connect. Im not sure how this is relevant to showing how creationism is most likely true but ill try my best to refute it. Using the same logic someone can claim Buddhism is true by saying that Hinduism is true. If your aware of Buddhism you realize that the founder of it was first brought up as a Hindu and then he rejected it. In total these religions make up about 1 billion followers so does that mean those creation myth's are true? But i have to state again on what does this have to do with showing creationism to be true at best it might be another way of showing that a lot of people believe in it which i will guide back to my previous rebuttal above this one. 3. The Universe was created The examples given by Con can be explained by natural processes, Animals seem designed because of evolution. For example a animal that can survive on its own in a environment will be able to pass on its gens to the next generation while animals that aren't fit for the environment die off. So the "Design" of animals for there environment is nothing more than natural selection picking out who's gens can best survive in a certain environment. The Origin of Dna is still a unknown mystery but we have some natural explanations on how it could of come about. Dna is a complex molecule which most scientist's believe came about through a gradual process which is called the "Rna world hypothesis" Which states that before Dna there was Rna and before Rna there was amino acids and proteins which came together in chemical reactions (Which is still trying to be figured out) all these came about to make Dna. We might not have a exact theory on the subject but scientist's are figuring out how life could of come out in natural processes. 3 (a) Im not sure what this measurement proves of creationism its just a mathematical way of describing certain patterns I fail to see how this relates to god creating the universe, Con needs to show this connection 3 (b) Con is right to bring up which designer designed our universe or even us for that matter. One thing i would like to bring up to Con is why cant there be a designer for the universe but not a designer for life? Maybe the designer created this universe but just forgot about it. Also just because a real place was brought up in a fiction book does not make the rest of the fiction book true if that were the case, Percy Jackson would be true because it has the empire state building which can be seen. In terms of the bible being not contradictory, this is completely wrong wrong. Im running out of characters but for a list of contradictions please check out these links http://infidels.org... 5. No sign of extraterrestrial life I will agree that there has been no direct evidence of some type of alien life so far but we are getting closer. Plus even if we were alone in the universe that does not mean were were created, merely that going from chemicals to life has to go over major hurdles in order to become "Life". However recent discovers in astrobiolgy have confirmed that in our galaxy alone there could be up to 40 billion earth like planets and don't get me started on the other 100-200 billion galaxy's in our universe. Later this decade more powerful space telescopes can tell what type of atmosphere's these planets might have and therefore find chemical signatures of there being life. The math shows that with the amount of planets out there it would be almost impossible for there to not be alien life. 7. "Life was suddenly created" Im having trouble understanding on what you mean by "Suddenly created" do you mean the Cambrian explosion? or life arising? As i have shown a few rebuttals up that life from chemicals went over a gradual process and the difference between life and non-life was almost nonexistent the only difference was that "Life" had a self replicating molecule and before that it was just basic organic chemicals. When the earth finally formed through collisions of debris from the proto planetary disk it took nearly a billion years for the first thing that can be seen as life to come about and a few hundred million years after that to show basic structures of cells. So life didn't just "Appear" it came about through a natural process through millions of years. 6. Sorry that i skipped 6, Whoops. Anyway, your last objection i believe is that our dating methods don't work and that other methods show that our earth is young. The entire argument was pulled from a creationist website which i took my time to go to but sadly i found that they had no link to real scientific, peer reviewed journals that showed that our understanding of chemistry is wrong. I would like voters to read how we know how old a certain thing is. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://science.howstuffworks.com... Some Objections that Con brings up are taken into account when scientists look at the dating method which is shown in the links above. Thank you Con for the arguments brought up in favor of your position :) Im also glad you followed the rules, Cant wait to see your response!.