Evolutionism Vs. Creationism

My opponent: "In order for (Creationism) to be considered a scientific theory it has to be falsifiable. In other words, you have to be able to prove it false. If you had the right evidence, you could prove evolution false. You can't prove anything about creationism, because it's just a story. There's nothing you can test of demonstrate about it." He contradicted himself by then saying "to be a scientific theory, it has to be peer reviewed by scientists and proved to have the same outcome using different methods." You can't do that if it's falsifiable. My opponent: "Creationism isn't even a hypothesis." Web: Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for a further investigation. Its philosophy = a preposition made as a basis of reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Well, I propose that Evolutionism is not on a basis of reasoning and it does have an assumption (not proven) of truth, therefore it's not a hypothesis either. Evolution is very falsifiable and so it is not fact, either. Scientific facts for Creationism and the Bible: 1). Intelligent Design is a big part of Creationism and the Bible. Believing in that means you believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. Earth's geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily the world-wide flood that Creationists believe in. 2). Natural mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain origin of complexity. 3). In cosmology, evidence suggest that the universe--including all matter, time, space, and energy--came into existence a finite time ago, contradicting the picture of an eternal and self-existing material cosmos. 4). In physics, science shows that the universe is "finely-tuned" for the existence of life, suggesting the work of a super intellect. (Fred Hoyle). 5). In biology, the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly. 6). In molecular biology, the presence of information encoded along the DNA molecules has suggested the activity of a prior designing intelligence. Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin urges scientists to embrace "a materialism [that] is absolute" and to stick with "material explanations" no matter how counter intuitive. 7). The Mousetrap (example of Intelligent Design by Michael Behe) "Some biochemical processes are irreducibly complex, such as the mousetrap. It consists of (a) flat wooden platform or base; (b) a metal hammer which crushes the mouse; (c) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (d) a catch that releases the spring; and (e) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice." A irreducibly complex thing is a single system composed of well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basis function, wherein the removal of any one part causes the system to cease functioning. It cannot be produced by modifications over a long period of time. Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system cannot function when missing one of it's parts. Now, think of the human cell, which has many MORE parts, and imagine the modifications made to "become" what it is now. It doesn't function unless it has all parts, tell me how that "works." By the way, research Michael Behe, people like William Dembski and Phillip Johnson, and you'll find all the "prizes" they've gotten from figuring more out about Creationism and ID (intelligent design). Arguments for a designer are generally arguments against the alternative. 8). Not all changes produce fitness, in fact the probabilities of an organism improving on fitness is VERY unlikely. The other options are that the organism is neutral, leaving no effect on fitness, or that it is detrimental which means decreasing the fitness (and that is most likely). 9). Scriptural evidence for the flood: Ark landed on mountain; animals on ark (so they could multiply). Scientific evidence: fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to ocean waters flooding high over the continents; rapid burial of plants and animals; rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas; sediment transported long distances; rapid or no erosion between strata; many strata laid down in rapid succession. I would explain these statements (and give more evidence) but I will run out of "characters." Sorry. 'creationismdesign.org' is not mocking Evolution, it is SIMPLY showing you what is wrong with it. The site proves Evolution wrong. Maybe you should report the bullying/mocking going on here...! (Sarcasm). I can tell, you didn't even look at the website. "That's not very credible." Changes DO occur in in kinds of plants and animals, but ONLY within fixed limits. This is all that has been proven, this is all I believe. 'Changes in biology' is a wide subject that can be interpreted ma ways, as you have done wrongly. You said so yourself: evidence doesn't always mean it's true. Stop asking for proof when that's not what matters most: what matters is the logic of each side, and what we should do is ridicule/debunk the other theory cause that goes under the category of figuring which theory is most logical. You still haven't tried to debunk the Book of Genesis. If it's not an atheist's job to define who God is than don't say 'God' would make you believe in God. And you didn't state your case for why and how God is the reason that would make you believe in God. This is silly unless you can have a guess at who God is. Yes, everything has information. Are they intelligently designed? Let's think about that, because the alternative is to say it ALL happened by chance. By saying 'no, not everything is/was created,' you're instead saying that EVERYTHING which is physically in the Universe formed from ONE single life cell. And you don't even know where that life cell came from! You have no good reason to plainly and merely say 'no, information is not intelligently designed.' There is no back-up. Your website about mass extinction didn't give any proof of these 300-457 million year old animals which supposedly lived once and is extinct. It just SAID so, and that is a great example of the scientists who assume things and--since the given information comes from scientists, it must be true!--and the information ends up on websites and textbooks. Soon everyone is thinking that without doubt, evolution happened. For another example, the Miller-Urey Experiment, conducted in the 1950s, was where scientists tried to prove that a living cell could form from non-living matter. It worked. But there was a problem that wasn't addressed to the public: they got the environment wrong. The scientists contradicted themselves by assuming there probably wasn't oxygen when the first living cell was formed (so they didn't use oxygen in the experiment), but later they dated rocks to be some-millions of years old--when they assumed the earth (itself) was formed--and they decided there had to have been oxygen then. But no, the icons did not change in text-books, and the experiment was still being taught as proof for evolution (and for quite a few years too). Lots of people believe what's in the science text-books because most do not think Creationism has nearly as much evidence therefore the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang have to be correct. My opponent (about the video): "Yes it was a joke, period. It wasn't scientific. Exploration films is "Christian based". First of all, what wasn't scientific about it? Second, I believe Dr. Martin made great points, even though some spectators question/doubt his time he said he was an Evolutionist. Third, how can you trust an Evolutionist's own website, written by someone who's just trying to defend his theory and make Creationism look bad, and how do you know Dr. Jobe Martin DIDN'T study Evolution? I ask you, who IS an evolutionist if you don't consider 'someone who studied the subject' one? Who are you to say who is or is not someone who maybe once believed in the Theory of Evolution? And because of the information that got across through the video, it doesn't matter who said it because WHAT was said, is true. You're calling me ignorant when you say Creationism has zero evidence. There are many people who have proven Creationism and found scientific facts that fit perfectly with it. This is just more proof of how ignorant you are. Besides, who wants to give out Nobel Prizes to scientists who nobody wants to see prove their theory true? In other words people don't like the thought of there being a God who created us, so why would they want to give a prize to them? You know what I mean, don't try to rebut that. I gave you "evidence" for Creationism so don't be a fool and say there is none.