evolution is dead, god is alive!

C1. I gave specific reference stating that the Second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. Pro has given no reference as to the derivation of his understanding. I do not understand what he is trying to say in the ensuing text "see, say in a given system there is 100 units of energy" ... "form a car on there own." Possibly he is supposing that having a human agency is an exception to the Second Law. There is no such exception. In the case of a cake baking, the cake is made more ordered solely by the application of the heat of the oven. Pro continues, "my [opponent] would be [correct] in that the earth alone is not an isolated system. however, the universe as a whole is, therefore making the 2nd law of [thermodynamics] [applicable] to everything" Applying the Second Law to the universe as a whole implies that the total entropy is increasing. However, order can increase in one place as it decreases to a greater degree in another. The sun was losing energy as evolution occurred on the earth, thus the total entropy of the earth-sun system increased while the entropy in life forms decreased. C2. "what is the point of the argument?" The points that Pro asserted that no genetic trait could arise that was not encoded originally in the genes. The origination of blue eyes is a counter example to Pro's claim. The reference describes how scientists deduced this from genetic evidence. The phrase "It's my best guess" was used with respect to the location and time of the occurrence of the genetic mutation. The fact it occurred was asserted with certainty. Pro ignored the standard references to mutations occurring by natural errors in genetic replication and by external causes. His assertion that nothing new can arise in genetic material stands refuted. C3 "my argument is basicaly that no reamains ,or proof of life is found before the cambrian explotion [sic]" The references I cited demonstrate that there was plenty of life before the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian period was 565 million years ago. "The oldest well dated and well preserved microsfossils were described by J.W. Schopf from the Apex Chert at Marble Bar, Western Australia. These are dated at 3.465 Ga. Microfossils from Swaziland (South Africa) have a similar age. The North American Gunflint Chert (2 Ga) is the first occurrence of Precambrian microfossils that has been discovered and published. The Belcher Group microfossils from Canada have a similar age. The Bitter Springs Chert (central Australia; 0.8 Ga) has definitely yielded the richest and best preserved association of Precambrian microfossils. " http://www.uni-muenster.de... the reference gives a lengthy chart of examples more than 2 billion yeas old. C4. Pro offers denial without rebuttal. The contention stands refuted. Moreover, his C4 contradicts C2. C5. Pro did not respond. The contention stands refuted. C6. Pro says, "-my opponents answer to this arguent [sic] is laughable" -- a debate conduct violation. Pro offers no proof of his assertions, but merely reasserts his contention. Pro gave no rebuttal to refutation 6 (a) and (b). C7. Pro asks, "do you believe murdur is wrong?" Yes, I do. But I did not receive a commandment from a god to that effect. It is a natural instinct for social animals. Pro ignored my argument. N1. Pro says, "if science is ever evolving, then chances are that in the future that evolution will be replaced with another theory." Pro had argued that if evolution were wrong then it would prove Creationism were true -- see the wording of the resolution. Now he concedes that is not the case, that if evolution were disproved it would likely be replaced by another scientific theory" Well-established scientific theories are generally expanded, per Einstein over Newton, rather than replaced. C8. Pro asks, "Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?" A winglike structure that is not fully evolved is useful because it facilitates gliding to escape predators. This is evident in species like flying fish and flying squirrels that glide for short distances rather than fly. Wing structures in birds evolved as gliding mechanisms in reptile precursors. Pro's assertion "The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense." is completely false. Where did that come from? Pro concedes that natural selection obviously works in many cases. The cases he does not understand are most often explained in the scientific literature. In some cases, a structure that evolved for a completely different purpose is adapted to a new purpose. There are still some unexplained cases, but that does not imply that no explanation is possible, only that they remain unsolved. C9. (a) Pro claims that evolutionary sequences of fossils are contrived. "This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. ... The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution." The evolution of many species has been traced through the morphology of successive fossils. For example, the evolution of horses are traced over 55 million years. http://chem.tufts.edu... The evolution of giraffes is given: "Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras Drawing(very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx(also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia(one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe." http://www.nature-wildlife.com... (b) How do Creationists explain the time sequence of evolving fossils. Did God kill off one species then create the successor, repeating the process many times to the present? That makes no sense. Morphological sequence is determined by unusual details in fossils, not just by general appearance. For example, the characteristic structure of an ankle joint may be used to help trace ancestry. (c) Moreover, there is independent evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary sequence through analysis of what is commonly (and improperly) called "junk DNA." http://atheism.about.com... The ancestral precursors of whales derived by this DNA methodology is shown at http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... Hence there is verification of evolution independent of the fossil record. C11. The origins of life is a different subject from evolution. Pro gives no reference to his claims of what scientists think or thought. As to whether scientists can create life in a test tube, there seems to be progress in doing just that http://www.foxnews.com... Scientists were unable to create airplanes before 1900, so in prior years did that prove the task impossible? Clearly it was not proved impossible. C12. Pro gives no reference to his claim that DNA error checking repairs all errors in DNA replication. contrary to Pro's assertion. "Error correction is a property of some, but not all, DNA polymerases." http://en.wikipedia.org... N2. Throughout this debate, Pro has failed to provide a single reference for any of his numerous assertions of claimed fact. Since Pro has the burden of proof and he depends heavily on claimed facts, I do not actually need to refute his assertions. I must only point out that they are unproved claims. Pro has failed to provide evidence substantiating a single claim, therefore the resolution is negated.