Evolution vs. Creation

Introduction I will begin by thanking my opponent for responding and giving me his arguments. As it is now round 3, it is time for my rebuttals. Rebuttals My opponent begins by talking about how he believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution, which means he believes all life was put down on Earth by a divine creator, but all that life has begun to adapt over time. He gave the example of Galapagos finches. I now understand what my opponent is arguing. My opponent wrote: "For this to happen, the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with new, additional genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind." This is actually incorrect, for when bacteria gained resistance to antibiotics, their genetic code changed and there were both base insertions and base deletions.[1][2][3] Then, my opponent wrote: "Darwin once wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description."" First of all, a cell is not an organ. Cells make up tissues and tissues make up organs. Cells are simply part of an organ. Secondly, it seems my opponent does not understand that not all changes in genetic code cause a cell or organ to cease working correctly. An example is certain humans having a heterozygote advantage.[4][5][6] This happens when people have heterozygous traits rather than homozygous traits. This tends to give these people greater skill in fitness and other skills. Another result is bacteria changing their code to be resistant to antibiotics. Next, my opponent said this: "If there is one thing we have observed about the universe, it is that nothing happens without a cause. The Law of Causality says as much. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or cause. There is always a driver or something that causes that car to appear. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the law of causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." So we know premise 1 and 2 are both true. But what does that say about God's existence?" This is a good question that I would like to answer. Theists like to say that the universe cannot be created without a god, but they fail to say the same thing about God. How did God come into existence without a creator? The answer is simple: There is no God to create the universe, for the universe came into existence in its own. There is no need for a god if things outside the universe can come into existence without a creator. Finally, he stated this: "In conclusion, my opponent must come to grips with the implications of the Big Bang evidence. The evidence shows that time, space, and matter were created at the Big Bang, so the most probable scientific conclusion is that the universe was caused by something OUTSIDE of time, space, and matter. "If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?" Is a question we all have to answer. In light of the debate I have given, we are left with only two options: either NO ONE created something from nothing, or SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is the more reasonable of the two?" The answer to his final question is simple: No person or being created something from nothing. It's a simple fact. I reasonable answer to what caused the big bang is simply "I don't know." It's a very reasonable answer because it's the truth. I don't know what caused the big bang… My opponent doesn't either. The difference between my opponent and I is that I use science and data to try to explain it while he uses faith and "God did it" as his proof. Data is more reasonable that faith and my opponent must admit that. Defense for Macroevolution My opponent seems to deny the existence of macroevolution, so I have the burden of proof for that point. Proof of this is the Guam Rail and Horses.[7] Looking at them today as well as their fossils, we can see that they are not only recipients of microevolution, but macroevolution as well. The ancestors of these creatures were once very small, but grew over time. Horses used to have toes. Rails can swim. Other proof would be humans. Humans, without a doubt, evolved from apes. Genetic information and fossil records can tell us this. Moreover, we know for a fact that apes evolved from rodent like insectivores such as species from the genus Altiatlasius and Smilodectes.[9]These species are dated around the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras. So, if my opponent does not believe in macroevolution, how can he even begin to explain the shift from Smilodectes to Homo and Pan?[10] Conclusion In conclusion, I have refuted all my opponent's arguments. I believe I have shown that macroevolution is indeed a fact and that Creation is a false conclusion. I patiently await my opponent's response. Works Cited 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. http://www.genetics.org... 3. http://www.wiley.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ucl.ac.uk... 6. http://www.pnas.org... 7. http://www.macroevolution.net... 8. http://www.talkorigins.org... 9. http://anthro.palomar.edu... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org...