Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

EvolutionMost of what my opponent has said has no relevance to my case, interestingly enough, on this point. There are two claims he makes here which are relevant: firstly, that macro-evolution claims we have all descended from a common ancestor. Secondly, that macro-evolution has never occurred.With regards to the first claim, that macro-evolution claims we all have descended from a common ancestor - this is not the topic of debate. Consider this possibility: the world was created last thursday. This means there has been absolutely no time for even natural selection and genetic mutation to take place, meaning no micro-evolution has occurred, yet alone macro-evolution. Does this make macro-evolution impossible, however? No. Given enough time in the future, even if the world was made last thursday, macro-evolution could (and will) still take place. The starting point of where life came from has no grip on whether macro-evolution takes place. My opponent is still yet to give evidence from scripture that macro-evolution is impossible.Secondly, my opponent claims macro-evolution has never been observed - indeed, that it cannot be observed. However, what we are looking for in short is genetic mutation and natural selection on a scale large enough to cause speciation. In other words, we are looking for speciation. Speciation has been found, as I have already stated, in the Lenski experiment, with the London Underground Mosquitos, and the Sphinx Moths. We also have Nylon bugs[1], Cavefish[2], and even cabbage[3] that undergo speciation in our lifetimes. The flu virus in fact speciates every year! To claim it has not been observed is to reveal an ignorance in science.On GodMy opponent with regards to the problem of evil has just pushed the goal posts further, but he has made it more difficult for himself. His argument is now that the fall occured, and it was just. I dispute both. I dispute that the fall is a historical event that we should take literally and not figuratively, and I dispute that it was a morally right actions. Moreover, my opponent is showing God to be more psychopathic by the moment: God creates murderers for the express purpose of murder, so he may sadistically punish them? If a scientist created mice to torture and kill other mice, so he later could torture those mice (behind close doors, of course, so it won't deter other mice from torturing and killing), we would call that scientist a monster, abhorrent, and a plethora of other words. Yet even the most ambitious megalomaniac would pale at the suffering that my opponent claims God causes, simply "for God's glory" or "to show [God's] trait of being just by means of punishing them." If any person did this, we would call the abhorrent. Yet my opponent is ludicrously making exception for his deity.However, none of this even touches upon my technology argument. Even if it is all true, then God still allows us to use computers, cars, planes, and a plethora of other technologies. These ameliorate the punishment God justly gave upon us. Are we immoral by making lives easier for ourselves? Is technological advancement a sin? It must be, according to my opponent's case. "Science and technology", my opponent states, "are results of these just punishments". Ignoring how he avoids any moral dispute by using the adjective "just" in front of every noun to cover up any moral atrocity, this does not answer the question: is technological advancement a sin? According to my opponent's argument, it must be, no matter how much he tries to avoid to admit it.The Bible PropheciesWhile it is true that the Bible fulfilled a meagre portion of the prophecy of Tyre - Nebuchadnezzar did indeed seige Tyre - it did not fulfil the sections where it clearly stated Nebuchadnezzar would bring its destruction. It clearly does not say that Nebuchadnezzar would almost destroy the city, but that he would entirely and completely destroy and crush it, never to be made again. So if Alexander the Great was the one who conquered Tyre, clearly the prophecy is false! Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and that "you (Tyre) shall never be rebuilt" (26:14) and "shall be no more, though you are sought for, you will never be found again" (26:21). History, however, records the fact that Nebuchadnezzar not only didn't destroy Tyre, he didn't even capture it. The New Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, Vol. 10, 1978) said this in reviewing the long history of Tyre: ... and in 585-573 (B.C.) it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II (p. 223). In its summation of this same period of Tyrian history, The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 27, 1984) says: The neo-Babylonian conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success (p. 331, emphasis added).[4] In The History of Tyre, Wallace B. Fleming said this of the city's defeat by Alexander: Alexander then left the city which was half burnt, ruined, and almost depopulated. The blackened forms of two thousand crucified soldiers bore ghastly witness to the completeness of the conquest. The siege had lasted from the middle of January till the middle of July, 332 B.C. The city did not lie in ruins long. Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned. The energy of these with the advantage of the site, in a few years raised the city to wealth and leadership again (Columbia University Press: New York, 1915, p. 64, emphasis added).[4] All we learn when we examine the evidence - specifically, the evidence not taken directly from apologetics trying to subvert scripture to fit their ends - is that not only did Tyre survive Nebuchadnezzar, but it barely was scratched by him. Instead, Alexander caused massive destruction to Tyre - but it was still rebuilt. God prophecised that Tyre would never be found again, but it was discovered by the Romans, Christian Colonists, Arab Colonists, Venetians, and more until becoming in Lebanon and a UNESCO Heritage site in 1984[5]. To claim Tyre is a "desolate rock where fishermen spread their nets" is somewhat insulting to the 113,000 people who live there. In short, the Tyre prophecy simply is a failed one.Science Cannot be Proven, or the Sun MiracleMy opponent here defends the sun miracle by claiming:P1: The Bible is inerrantP2: God existsC1: God can perform a miracle. In fact, he created all things ex nihilo.Now, I dispute the first premise because of the Sun miracle. So to justify the miracle by appeal to this argument is clearly circular. The argument would go as follows:How did the Sun Miracle Occur?Because the Bible is inerrantHow do you know the Bible is inerrant?Because the Sun Miracle OccurredHow do you know the Sun Miracle Occurred?Because the Bible is inerrantAnd it loops. I dispute that the Bible is inerrant, because the Bible claims the Sun Miracle occurs. I gave multiple arguments against believing the Sun Miracle occurred and therefore the Bible is errant. My opponent needs to address these, not simply continue to assume there is no debate. The Bible is errant. Therefore, its claims that macro-evolution did not occur does not justify macro-evolution not occurring. No more than Harry Potter including magic proves magic being real.With that, I pass over to my opponent for his summarising remarks.1 - http://www.nmsr.org...;2 - http://www.sciencedaily.com...;3 - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;4 - http://www.infidels.org...5 - http://whc.unesco.org...