Creationism is more believable compared to Evolution

Pro said - According to Pro's narrow scope of "evolution" pertaining to only "living organisms " during the history of the earth," and with Con's belief in the existence of a God.I'm going to assume this was a typo, because I am con, and my opponent is pro. This debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God.This debate DOES have to do with proving the existence of a God, because creationism depends on the existence of a god. Con is a Athiest who believes God set off the Big Bang (Creation)Con, being me, is an atheist who DOESN'T believe in a god. Because, the definition of atheism, as I pointed out before, is a person who doesn't believe in god. Atheists that believe in god don't exist.However, I think my opponent made another typo, because CON is me, and PRO is my opponent. Even then, you can't be an atheist if you believe in god. The ONLY thing that makes you an atheist is not believing in a god, or gods. In reference to the Bible---man's written scriptures. For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all ("72 virgins" upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).If man cannot be trusted to correctly interpret what god wrote in the Bible. Then how does man worship the god in their preferred religious text. What if that god was also interpreted wrong?Putting aside the confusing choice of my opponent to refer to myself as pro, and then halfway through starts calling me con.My opponent references the existance of the elements. That has been explained scientifically. To scratch at the surface, after the big bang only the 2 lightest elements were formed, hydrogen and helium. As the cloud of cosmic dust and gases from the Big Bang cooled, stars were formed. Nuclear reactions and supernovas are what created the other 86 elements we know today. And many unknown ones are probably out there to discover. My opponent argument is flawed, because the existance and making of the elements isn't even remotely close to the evolution of life forms.My opponent also references that humans are confined in natural selection. I'll give definitions here - From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Natural SelectionThe process whereby organism better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.My opponent says humans could interfere with the natural selection process. I'd like my opponent to look into ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, which is humans interfering with the natural selection process.This round was very hard for me to respond to, because my opponent provided 4 sources, and none of them worked. Such as the youtube link, which just takes you to the youtube homepage.Throughout the debate, my opponent hasn't provided a single shred of evidence in favour of Creationism. To sum up, evolution is much more credible than creationism, because evolution has been observed over a shortened timeline [the moths I referenced earlier,] and it's been fully explained to be theoretically possible. Whereas creationism has no evidence, and it's never been explained. Which is why creationists have such a hard time providing evidence for it.