Creationist Web sites are legitimate and possibly reliable sources and thus may be used in debates

My case for the lack of credibility in creationist sources lies in the difficulty of objectively proving that there is one entity who created the universe. Consider this: If we did not exist at the time of the creation of the universe, how would we know what created it, or even if it was created? We can't observe any creator entity, since, in order for said entity to create a universe, it would have to be in another isolated system that allows for the entity to both observe and interact with the created universe, while the created universe cannot observe or interact with the entity. The reason for this is that the entity could not be in the universe it was creating, since it would be in a universe that did not exist, thus creating a paradox. Attempting to test for the existence of an entity would be similar to trying to determine the contents of a cardboard box in a sealed room with no windows. You can't do anything to test for its contents, and you can't even prove that there is a cardboard box in there in the first place. Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory that can be derived from readily-available facts. It has been proven that humans possess DNA that contains all the encoding for proteins and growth that humans use to reproduce and grow from a single cell. For the purposes of this debate, I will be assuming that a source is not needed for the existence of DNA, as it is a well-known fact supported by direct observation, although I could go into the process of how RNA is copied from DNA and how proteins are assembled in cell ribosomes from this RNA if you need me to. It is also known that accidents happen in the duplication of DNA, which we call mutations. These change how the organism is built. These changes can either help or hinder their ability to find a mate and reproduce. Now, while the child of the possessor of the mutated gene and their mate might get that mutation, it is very likely that that gene will not get passed down to that child's children, especially if the gene is a recessive gene on only one chromosome in a pair, where it would not manifest itself. It takes plenty of luck for a superior gene to gain a firm foothold in the genome of a species because of this, and this, combined with wider gaps between generations with humans, results in evolution being imperceptibly slow for humans. While human evolution can be difficult for one person to directly observe, we can observe bacteria, which tend to evolve much more quickly. Ever since antibiotics were invented, there have been new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is logically coherent with evolution. Bacteria get a lot more chances to mutate - the time between generations of bacteria can be as low as 20 minutes under ideal conditions. In addition, there are a lot more of them. It is often said that for every cell in your body, there are 10 bacteria in it as well (Don't worry, though - most of these are non-pathogenic and are essential to your bodily functions). Now, obviously, with all the splitting they do, they copy their DNA wrong, and with how many opportunities to screw up they have, it is actually quite likely that a mutation will accidentally make a bacteria more resistant to a specific antibiotic. As a result, they live through applications of antibiotics and continue to split again and again, while the bacteria without the mutation die from the antibiotic. This is an example of natural selection. Now, to get to the point, in those last two paragraphs, I made a very strong case for evolution by using observable facts that anyone with the right equipment could confirm, then extrapolating on those facts. All of these facts converged on one point. This cannot be done with Creationism. There are many possible alternate explanations for important aspects of Creationism. This means that one Creationist source could use a different explanation for a certain phenomenon from the one that another source uses. Given this and the difficulty of objectively proving something that cannot be observed directly, I assert that Creationist web sites should not be treated as reliable sources.