Are there any logical people out there?

I do enjoy debating creationism/evolution, however I find that (this is my first time in this forum) there are some really crazy and sheepish creationists, and there are some super arrogant and ignorantly prideful evolutionists. The thing is to me, its completely logical to believe either. I have seen enough evidence for both sides of the argument and there enough doubt on both topics to warrant either side. Are there people out there who are willing to have a completely logical debate or anyone willing to recognize that either side is a logical possibility without resorting to slander because of one's religious or non-religious beliefs?

__________________
Michael Scott: Oh, and another fun thing. We, at the end of the night, are going to give the check to an actual group of Boy Scouts. Right, Toby? We're gonna...

Toby: Actually, I didn't think it was appropriate to invite children since it's, uh, you know, there's gambling and alcohol. And it's in our dangerous warehouse. And it's a school night. And, you know, Hooters is catering. Is that enou-is that enough? Should I keep going?

Michael Scott: Why are you the way that you are? Honestly, every time I try to do something fun or exciting, you make it not... that way. I hate... so much about the things that you choose to be.

So what's your logical argument for creationism?

If you think both sides are logical, you start the ball rolling by telling everyone how you think creationism is logical,
then someone will put forward the evolution side, does that sound fair?

I agree, the debate can get emotional on both sides.

Now, what evidence have you seen for the creationist side of the argument?

Well, I think I'm logical, but everyone else probably does too. I certainly agree that creationism and evolution are both logical possibilities, in the sense that neither is self-contradictory. Only one of the two is consistent with the evidence, however, and I don't see anything illogical or arrogant in pointing that out. (Qualification: there can exist forms of creationism that are consistent with the evidence, but they are strongly limited by the constraint that the evidence all looks like the result of evolution.)

Just checking, i'm getting sick of the arguments on youtube and the RRS and other internet sites where it just seems to be a bunch of angry people against a bunch of ignorant people. I just want to know there are people who are willing to have a civilized discussion and I have seen decent atheists here on the other forums, however it is my first time in this section of the forums.

Well ill start off a few topics, and the evolutionists here have probably heard them all before.
Some of my personal reasons for believing in an intelligent design (not necessarily the genesis creation account, that is because of my faith) are as follows:

1. I believe it is utterly impossible to empirically prove the origin of life as it truly happened since no one was around when it began and we cannot really recreate it in a lab. I do know of an experiment done where they got together all the building blocks of what supposedly the earth was like millions of years ago when infused with electricity, life can be sparked (I believe it was the miller experiment), how do we know that the gases that we believe were present were actually present?

2. Earth seems to provide the necessary criteria for life to exist. Now there are two logical conclusions I can come to about this:
a. Earth was created or designed in such a way to sprout life or begin life or for life to continue and exist
b. The type of life here is a result of something happening based on what is available. Ex. Since there is abundant oxygen, life forms needing oxygen came about. But this would mean that it is highly likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe.

3. The irreducible complexity argument. You all know about this, and I have seen Ken Miller videos of him explaining why certain parts of the bacterial flagellum can function on their own. But the question I was left with was, how did those parts which are made up of other parts come together through numerous slight successive modifications. If you have the type 3 secretory system, and you add on one piece of the approximately 40 pieces needed to make the bacterial flagellum, you still seem to get something that serves no purpose or has extra parts that are not needed.

4. The laws of thermodynamics, specifically the second law seem to indicate that things will break down and become unstable over time. But in my mind that seems to conflict with evolution which suggests that things build up and become stronger and adapt over time.

Those are just a few I may add more later.

__________________
Michael Scott: Oh, and another fun thing. We, at the end of the night, are going to give the check to an actual group of Boy Scouts. Right, Toby? We're gonna...

Toby: Actually, I didn't think it was appropriate to invite children since it's, uh, you know, there's gambling and alcohol. And it's in our dangerous warehouse. And it's a school night. And, you know, Hooters is catering. Is that enou-is that enough? Should I keep going?

Michael Scott: Why are you the way that you are? Honestly, every time I try to do something fun or exciting, you make it not... that way. I hate... so much about the things that you choose to be.

The second law only applies to closed systems. The earth's not a closed a closed system, it's powered by the Sun.

The second law applies to all systems (or at least all systems large enough for statistical mechanics to be relevant and smaller than the universe as a whole). What doesn't apply to an open system is a particular formulation of the second law, one that says that entropy never decreases in the system.

This one (along with all of the others, incidentally) is an argument that has been rebutted over and over again. In fact, promotion of nonsense like this is one reason that many people here get so mad at creationists: it relies upon constantly asserting that physics says something other than what it actually says.

Honest suggestion: go and read this. It's only $8 and only 100 pages or so, and it will explain what the laws of thermodynamics really say, and how they are derived. I could just point out that the second law doesn't say what your argument claims, but you;d probably find it more convincing reading it in a fuller context...

The Solar System is a closed system. The Universe is a closed system. That would make earth part of a closed system, if not a closed system all its own.