Darwinism, Evolution by Natural Selection, and Athiesm is False and Un-scientific

I do not have to prove that God does not exist in order to negate the resolution. In fact I only have to prove that Darwinism, Natural Selection and Atheism are valid according to some type of scientific criteria. In this debate I have thoroughly outlined how these things fit within the parameters of the Scientific Method, and my opponent has failed to prove that they do not. Nor has Pro given us alternative criteria for which to judge. Pro begins the final round by questioning how the first cells could appear from non-living entities and reproduce. While the answer is speculative, theoretical biophysicists at the University of Tokyo say they might have the answer. "Their model holds that one of the two molecules reproduces much more slowly than the other, but this molecule would also last much longer than its counterpart before breaking apart. This means that a single working example of this molecule could sustain generations of the other molecule, providing some security for the system... When the molecule copies itself, it and its copy slowly drift apart, providing lots of space for the other molecules. These then form a cloud of fast-reproducing molecules around the original, slow-replicating molecule. Between these clouds, space opens up in the solution, segregating the different units and providing a natural mechanism for protocells to emerge... From these humble origins, protocells could eventually turn into more complicated structures, and life could begin. " [1]. Another popular theory is the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that precursors to life as we know it were RNA molecules that could self replicate (reproduce). These RNA molecules supposedly evolved in to life in the DNA/RNA/Protein world via an intermediate stage of ribonucleoproteins. The reason why RNA could have preceeded DNA based life is because it has the potential to carry information and to be the catalyst of its own synthesis [2]. There are credible scientific theories that seek to answer this question. Just because a theory has not been definitively proven or accepted does not mean one of those theories is not correct, or that another scientific theory cannot be found. The question is does "God" alone withstand the scrutiny of the scientific method or other criteria for measuring scientific validity? No. On the other hand, I have explained why Natural Selection indeed has. Pro writes, "The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory instead of a law." That is patently false. "In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be" [3]. "Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them" [3]. Pro's next contention is that new variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. This is irrelevant to the resolution. Science does not have to create an entire new species (whatever that means) in order for Evolution via Natural Selection to hold water. My opponent then claims that because there is no mathematical formula that describes evolution, it doesn't qualify as being observable. "Evolution is anything but random and there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation: p" + 2pq + q" = 1 Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a" The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met: 1. mutation is not occurring 2. natural selection is not occurring 3. the population is infinitely large 4. all members of the population breed 5. all mating is totally random 6. everyone produces the same number of offspring 7. there is no migration in or out of the population 1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change. 2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change. 3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite. 4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change. 5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change. 6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change. 7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change. The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times" [4]. Furthermore, not to be ignored is the Price Equation as a possible mathematical equation for evolution [5]. My opponent then claims God is definitively real, and uses sources from Biblical scripture to back it up. However this is fallacious circular reasoning or begging the question. First Pro commits the fallacy of circular reasoning here: P1. The order and magnificence of life is evidence of God's Creation. P2. Therefore, we know that God exists. He assumes that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's creation of life" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Biblical scripture as supporting evidence is circular for the same reason: P1: The Bible tells us that it is the word of God. P2: The word of God is infallible. C1: Therefore the Bible is infallible. P3: And as such, the Bible must be the word of God. P4: The word of God is infallible. C2: Therefore the Bible is infallible, etc. CONCLUSION Please extend my previous round's conclusions along with my arguments on microevolution and the observation of evolution. Pro repeats that macroevolution has not/cannot be observed, but I've already explained why what has been observed and how that can be applied to infer other facts at the macro level. Pro drops these contentions and repeats his arguments which I do not have the character space to repeat, but which I have already addressed. I've outlined how the majority of scientific discoveries have been observed via INDIRECT observation (along with cited numerous examples) much like evolution. My opponent has dropped these arguments. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...