Creationism is a better model than evolution

My opponent starts off his final round by stating that a mitochondria is needed to properly fold the amino acids, so I ask my opponent if he knows how mitochondria became a part of cells, they used to be independant organisms with their own cell membranes, so if they were an organism, how were their amino acids folded? And luck may seem like a weak answer but when you think about how many attempts there were, the fact that it happened once should not come as a surprise. Lets use my numbers from last round, 25 million strikes per year, for 1 billion years that is 25 million billion chances for it to be right one time. If you think that is impossible then I am not sure you understand the gravity of that number. That is 25,000,000,000,000,000 tries for 1 success. I do not think that is outside the realm of possibility. I think that science owes an answer but at the rate that it took for it to be successful it could take a long time to prove it. My opponent then compares the bible to star wars which makes lots of sense as they are both fictional stories told to make children feel better. Natural selection told us what we should be and evolution made it happen. As to why some creatures became land animals, I would assume that it is because there was an overcrowding problem, but its hard to tell. If you want to learn about eye development read Darwin's talk about it, it is wonderful. The base level 0 is when it reaches the surface, so there is no problem in that regard. So the only problem then is adjusting for levels of radiation, which is why there is a margin of error, and obviously the suns radiation would be displayed in some sort as a function of time to adjust for levels of sun radiation. The drunk driver gets home one way or another, and so does science. Science doesn't stand there and insist that it is right even once its been proven wrong, it gets up and says okay this is accepted now. And if evolution was as flawed as my opponent states he is welcome to try and debunk Darwin's theories and make billions. The Noah's ark argument, you won't let this go even though it is absurd. Science does not consider an animal a new species unless it becomes enough different genetically from the species it evolves from. Even still 7.7 million species/4000 years is still almost 2000 species per day. Evolution is a slow process that is not realistic. Not to mention that Noah is supposed to have built this boat with untrained family members, but it requires advanced ship builders with modern technology to replicate it today. Also there are a few other issues such as the fact that Noah would have had to gather 2 of each species in the world and controlled them and made sure none of them had sex for the whole trip. The kangaroo fossils should be found as they would have to walk from where the boat landed in the middle east, to Australia. As you can see here (1) Australia would have been quite the trek to not leave a single fossil. "The fundamental problem which creationists seem to have is the idea that organization and complexity can arise naturally, without any guiding or intelligent hand and without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We can easily see exactly that happening, though, if we look at how gas clouds behave. A small amount of gas in an enclosed space and at uniform temperature does absolutely nothing. Such a system is at its state of maximum entropy and we shouldn't expect anything to happen. However, if the mass of the gas cloud is large enough, then gravity will start to affect it. Pockets will gradually start to contract, exerting greater gravitational forces on the rest of the mass. These clumping centers will contract more, beginning to heat up and giving off radiation. This causes gradients to form and heat convection to take place. Thus we have a system which was supposed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium and maximum entropy, but which moved on its own to a system with less entropy, and therefore more organization and activity. Clearly, gravity changed the rules, allowing for events which might seem to be excluded by thermodynamics. The key is that appearances can deceive, and the system must not have been in true thermodynamic equilibrium. Although a uniform gas cloud should stay as it is, it is capable of "going the wrong way" in terms of organization and complexity. Life works the same way, appearing to "go the wrong way" with complexity increasing and entropy decreasing. The truth is that it's all part of a very long and complicated process in which entropy is eventually increased, even if it appears to decrease locally for (relatively) brief periods." (2) I am not an expert in the field so I consulted someone else to explain. Thus I believe I have proved that evolution is a more realistic model for why humans are here, than creationism, and why God is not the most likely solution. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I hope the voters see it the same way I do. 1. (http://eatrio.net...) 2. (http://atheism.about.com...)