Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting you to respond to each point. That's essentially 50 debates in one. The only reason I responded to so many of his points was as a challenge to myself, and neither of us have the time to keep up to those levels. The two you chose are just fine. But first:"However, my question is this: you seem so dedicated to your belief in evolution, so I am wondering if you can disprove creationism?"There are a number of pieces of evidence falsifying creationism. Here are two of the simpler ones:Light speed: If all of the Universe were created at the same time, for example we will say 6,000 years ago, then the light from all of the stars that are more than 6,000 light years away would not have reached us yet. The night sky would be almost blank. Law of Superposition and Principle of Fossil Succession- These are straightforward geologic principles, you only need a little information to see how they work: Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rocks; the processes that create metamorphic and igneous rocks destroy fossils. Sedimentary rocks are created when other rocks are broken down into pieces, laid out in an area and lithify (become new varieties of rock) through various processes. Often this leads to sedimentary layers, which are found all over the planet, and account for most of the outer crust, especially on land. Prior to lithification, they are essentially fields of sand/soil/dirt, and due to gravity they spread out in flat, horizontal layers. As time goes on, the new layers build on top of pre-existing ones, thus the oldest are at the bottom, the youngest are at the top. This is known as the Law of superposition, and is a relative dating method. Unlike absolute dating methods, relative dating don't tell you when things happened, but they do show the sequence of events. Now we come to the principle of fossil succession. Fossils are found throughout the strata. Here's the thing, certain fossils appear in certain strata, having died in whatever sedimentary layer was on top at the time. And all over the world, we find the same progression of fossil types. More recent strata show life forms identical or very similar to what we see now, go a little further back and they disappear, replaced by dinosaurs, and a few basal birds, small mammals, etc. Go back far enough before that, and you don't see any land forms at all, just aquatic life. And follow the aquatic life far enough back and it gets smaller and simpler. The key here is that there are never exceptions. We don't find Permian fossils in Holocene strata. We don't find land animals in the Cambrian strata. If we started finding humans in strata mixed with hallucigenia fossils, or maybe a polar bear next to a stegosaurus, then evolutionary theory as we know it would have to be scrapped. On the other hand, if creationism were true, we would see all life appearing at once, and continuing on in a mixed-up unpredictable pattern throughout all of the strata. There's more, but let's see how you respond to these two first. "This point is one that many atheists in conversation with a believer in attempt to 'prove' His non-existance."Yes, many atheists do that, but not I. I don't claim that God does not exist, I claim that the evidence offered to prove his existence is faulty. I don't entirely rule out the possibility, but I do patiently explain that there may be other explanations for observed phenomena, and the only way to rule out the alternatives (as well as possibly come upon new ones that were never thought of before) is through thorough and honest examination. Humanity hadn't been properly equipped to conduct truly thorough investigations on most phenomena until the past few centuries, but as we do, as we take closer looks and more precise measurements, many processes that could once only be explained through conflicting supernatural descriptions turn up to have perfectly naturalistic causes. God's necessity has yet to be identified. And if he is active, than he is using the processes that we see to create. But that is simply one possibility, and one that is not decisively present in the evidence, hence why I do not believe in him. "Furthermore, God is under no obligation to present Himself to His creation"Than I see no reason why I should be under obligation to believe in him. Its not like the unseen bosses in a company; if it is important to me to find out who they are, I can get their names, find out what city they work in, etc. And if it comes right down to it, I can use this information to see them face-to-face, maybe even watch them work. God has never given me that opportunity. "Hypothetically, if you were to look at all this and say 'but that isn't evidence, I can't see that' then why don't you 'look' at your own beliefs because you certainly can't see that can you?"I don't really have beliefs that can't be investigated so that's not really a problem for me. "You don't see monkeys evolving into sinful men and you certainly don't see the evidence for such an event ever taking place."I've already shown you a list of observed cases of speciation. We've seen it dozens of times. True, we aren't going to see a monkey turn into a man, because each individual case is a one-time deal. Nothing in evolution says that given enough time, any creature will become man-like in shape and capability, nor does it say that there is some archetype within each clade that all other species will gradually morph into. However, the various factors that guide evolution interface with organisms in observable, predictable ways, and man, monkey, and all other life that we have tested and observed has the marks of evolution in their DNA and in their morphology. So a few cases of speciation (and due to the time involved, we only get a few to observe in even great spans of time) is all we need. As far as your next point (age of Earth estimates), I really want to get to it, but I fear this post is already too long, and many points have been presented. So for brevity and focus, I will skip it for now, but I will happily respond to it if you wish :)