Evolution is more credible than Creationism

Let’s take a look at your best arguments: ""Not one change of species into another is on record . .. we cannot prove that a single species has been changed. " Charles Darwin, - My Life & Letters” That was written in 1887. Darwin was the only biologist looking for change because he was the first evolutionist. Now, because we have people all over the world looking, we have found many examples besides the fish and lizard example I already provided. We now have numerous examples of observed proof that a species has changed. “Charles Darwin, - Origin of Species, Chapter Difficulties "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I Freely Confess, Absurd In The Highest Degree. "” I remember this argument from when I was raised Christian so I find this one particularly interesting. During Darwin’s time, biology was in its infancy and had very little data compared to what we have today. Today, we know the eye evolved in a progression as shown in the chart below: s://upload. wikimedia. org. .. ; alt="" width="350" height="488" data-file-width="584" data-file-height="815" /> I am not going to spend my allowable characters in this debate explaining the diagram so the full explanation can be found here: . https://en.wikipedia.org... “Giraffes have some identical skeletal traits as Horses, even some of the exact same internal organs. Are we to believe the Horse is a new species of the same animal? ” No, they are descended from a common ancestor. Genetic drift over a long period of time with positive phenotypical traits was reinforced by their environment through natural selection, which eventually became two distinct species. The fact that they have some identical skeletal traits and the same internal organs is just MORE evidence for evolution from common descent. Most of the people you quoted said nothing to detract from the evidence for evolution other than essentially saying, “I don’t like it. Evolution is bad. ” So really the point you are making is that people that have been formally educated and also believe in Creationism exist. It is a sad state of affairs for the theory of creationism when that is the extent of the argument for creationism. You quoted a couple people that basically said life is too complex to be mathematically possible. I was tempted to post a long list of scientists that claimed something was impossible yet eventually become reality. To save on space, I will list one simply to make my point: “There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. ” – Albert Einstein, 1934 Here is a list of more incorrect scientists claiming impossibilities: . https://www.newscientist.com... Despite claims that it is mathematically impossible, I have presented cases of species we have observed that have significantly changed to adapt to their environment. When your theory contradicts what we can observe in reality, it’s time to get a new theory. I’m sure Einstein would agree with that. Are there scientists that do not believe in evolution? Yes. Two percent (2%) of scientists do not believe in evolution, which means ninety-eight percent (98%) DO believe in evolution. The 98% have reviewed the arguments of their peers in the 2% and have found them wanting. Are there any other controversial subjects that any group of highly educated professionals can agree on more? Source . http://www.pewresearch.org... The best a creationist can hope for is some angle to discredit evolution because there is no evidence whatsoever that creationism can stand on. Even creationists have to admit that the only evidence for creationism is a book written during a time of magic and superstition by people that are long dead. How do they know that this book claiming magical stories is true? Because it says so. Can you imagine a society where that was the standard of proof for anything ever written? The author simply has to say all his words are true. Every religion makes the same claim that theirs is the only one true religion yet none of them see the irony in that. The reason we are solely arguing the evidence for evolution but Con has not provided any evidence for creationism is because of two facts: 1. There actually is evidence suggesting evolution that people can debate. 2. There is literally no evidence to suggest creationism is true that anyone can present. Despite Con’s critique of Evolution, he has been unable to present one single shred of evidence in favor of creationism. It is one theory that literally has no shred of evidence versus another theory with tons of supporting evidence (as I have outlined). Commons sense tells us which one is more valid.