The universe was Created by God and not by evolution.

First off, I'd like it if my opponent didn't copy directly from Ken Ham's website. I'd like my audience to read the article themselves from the website to see if there's any difference at all. [1] An opponent who didn't plagiarize would be ideal in a debate but obviously my opponent has chosen to ignore society's standard that one should not copy another's work and post it as your own, especially without sourcing. I truly do find it amusing when PRO becomes so lazy in his copying and pasting that he fails to cut out the section that refers to himself as a TEACHER! "As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, "Well sir, you need to try again.'" I truly do not believe that a 24 year old from Florida would hold a position even remotely similar to the 59 year old Australian creationist. I am just pointing this out to show the readers of this debate that Pro was so incredibly lazy and lacked all resourcefulness that he resorted to plagiarizing in an attempt to win. So, due to the plagiarizing committed here, Pro's argument is completely void, yet I shall address it anyway. "Christian time-machine" As my opponent states that only Christians have a way of seeing what happened in the past, scientist themselves actually have one too. It's called carbon dating and is currently our most accurate way of determining the age of a substance. More accurate than any book that went through years of manipulation and translation that further diminished it's meaning and ruined it's overall credibility. Which is why using the Bible as a source yields quite a flimsy argument and if one is lacking faith in fairy tales, then the argument means nothing to them. "As a teacher..." I am truly glad that my opponent provided a story of a difficulty Ken Ham faced while teaching creationism but as he provided none of the evidence that would convince myself or the audience of this debate that he is correct, I see no value in this or any of the sections of his debate I did not address. "Debate Terms" I find this section ridiculous as the debate terms should have been defined in the opening round. Additionally, Pro failed to remove the linking that was in the original website.... Pro may use as many Biblical quotes as he pleases, yet that does not mean they will give any weight to his side of the debate. "We arrived by random processes" My opponent argues that the origin of life was an extremely improbable and random even. He is correct in the first point, but in the second he is not. I shall address "improbability" later in the debate. The origin of life however, was not simply a random event. To begin, a planet that is capable of sustaining life must first be orbiting a star in what is known as a Goldilocks zone. The heat being let off of that star must heat the planet to a temperature that is not too hot, nor too cold. The planet must also hold a handful of other characteristics in order to sustain life and satisfy the Anthropic Principle.[2] Life arose on these planets because they fit the characteristics of a planet that would sustain life, and it was not random. "Without God there is no truth" This is quite an absurd statement and it actually managed to provide me with a great deal of amusement. The only image that comes to my mind is a crowd of people who degrade themselves into anarchistic animals over the fact that there is no God, which religion itself has actually managed to do through terrorism, hatred of minorities, the Holocaust, the Crusades, 9/11, etc. This is merely blasphemy that Ken Ham spewed onto his website that Pro here managed to copy and paste in addition to his "argument". 1. As Pro really did not post much of an argument, making no statement as to how the earth was created, we can predict that he will give something along the lines of the creation story and will tell us that God created it. At this point in the debate I will only provide one point to counter his potential argument. Creationists generally agree that everything on the earth is good at what it does. An eye is good for seeing, a lung is good for breathing and our jaws are good for biting. How could any of this have been created by random chance? Well the fact is that every living thing evolved to be the way that it is through natural selection, but creationists will conclude that to be so perfect at just living, some infinitely intelligent designer had to have created them that way. My opponent is a Christian so I shall continue with the Christian God as my example. The Christian God is all knowing, all powerful and is capable of things that defy natural laws and all logic. "He" also communicates constantly with all of the beings on earth and intercepts everyone's thoughts and sees all of their actions while receiving millions of prayers and sending signals to them at the same time. If this "God" is to be anything at all, he just can not be simple, let alone probable. Additionally, if we apply the same creationist logic to their creator, who or what must have created God? And then what about the creator of God? The creator of the creator of God? What we create with that logic is a never ending paradox of infeasible super-computers that are able to create these massively powerful beings that manage to exist with the capabilities stronger than any tangible technology that any group of people could ever dream of! And creationists feel this is an adequate solution! Well I do not think anything is answered when you respond to it with an infinite amount of additional questions. Let alone a sky-fairy. The origin of the universe and it's life is improbable enough. Why do we attribute it to something even more improbable? It simply does not work. 2. Now I will describe the scientific theory to the origin of the universe and life. There several theories on the origin of the universe, but the one that has the most supporting evidence is the Big Bang Theory. Scientists estimate that the universe began itself around 15 billion years ago with this big bang. This "Big Bang" was a huge explosion that started the expansion of the universe.[3] At this point all of the matter and energy in our universe was contained at one point and highly compacted. Galaxies also appear to be moving away from us which has been deemed the Hubble Law.[4] This shows that our universe is one that expands infinitely after the big bang itself terminated. It also shows that the universe itself was once compacted.[4] Additionally, if the universe was once very hot as the Big Bang suggest, we should be able to find a remnant of the heat. Well, scientists found a a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is the remnant that they were looking for.[4] Lastly, the abundance of light elements such as Hydrogen and Helium also supports the Big Bang theory.[4] From that point on, life originated on Earth due to it's position in the Goldilocks zone. Organic molecules were produced from the inorganic material from energy sources like lightning or the sun.[5] The molecules then reacted chemically with others and formed nucleic acids. Next, genetic codes arose in the primitive living aggregates. They were pre-cellular at this point but soon evolved to be cellular and then progressed on to become life as we know it.[5] I await my opponent's response for next round anxiously! Hopefully it will be his own, and not Ken Ham's. 1. http://www.answersingenesis.org... 2. http://www.wisegeek.com... 3. http://www.umich.edu... 4. http://www.big-bang-theory.com... 5. http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de...