Evolution is better than creationism

For the last round I will give rebuttals only. Please see the sites I give at the bottom. "Do you know how we determine of something is designed or not? By comparing with things that are not designed." But that doesn't work, either, and it's an irrelevant statement. I don't know how it's supposed to sound, but it doesn't make sense to me. We were debating the 'resourcefulness of life' but then my opponent brought up this: "Anything that reproduces, carries on its genes. This causes those unable to reproduce by lack of ability to survive to not pass on those genes. This causes things to be adapted to an environment." Huh? This does NOT by any means explain the resourcefulness of life. Big Bang, what I'm assuming my opponent believes in, is the explanation. Pro contradicted himself, as I know he always says "evolution is a totally different thing from the Big Bang" and "the Origin of Life has nothing to do with evolution." Yet he said "No this..." (The resourcefulness of life) "...is explained perfectly by evolution." We were debating 'infused instinct.' My opponent: "So magic made animals know what to do? You're hilarious!" Tu Quoque fallacy: it's the same thing with your theory too. It's the same thing with yours, except for mine there's an loving Creator, and yours the earth created itself from nothing yet every living thing on it knows what to do. You're hilarious! "Everything has benefits and drawbacks, and the environment shapes the organism. E organism is not directly shaped for the environment." I disagree because there isn't ONLY evidence for environments shaping the organism, there's proof that the organisms are created specially and uniquely. One argument example would be that of plants epigenome as varied as their environments" and of Epigenetics in Species [http://darwins-god.blogspot.com...]. Different specimens of a given species of plant, all with the same genome, had significantly different epigenomes. Epigenetics is another example of how the species do not appear to have evolved. As you know we all use the same facts in the world to encourage our theory, but the scientific evidence presents a great many challenges to the idea of Evolution. Under evolution the idea is that random biological changes naturally occur and are inheritable, such as mutations in the germline, and they might magicaily sometimes be an improvement to the organism"s fitness. In those cases the organisms with the change would likely be successful and procreate, thereby passing on the change to future generations. But epigenetics challenges all this. First, the tagging of DNA does not naturally occur as mutations do. In order for an epigenetic change to occur and have any effect, there must be a small army of coordinated molecular machines that are working according to the same code. Some machines attach the tags according to external, environmental signals. Other machines remove or move the tags, again according to other signals. And yet other machines interpret the tags, thus influencing which proteins are expressed. This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works, even to the environment. In fact epigenetics would involve thousands of changes required before any benefit would be realized. The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals. And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing. That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science. I really don't understand why you call our brain plastic and then say we have no instinct because of it. You're saying there's no instinct in ourselves? What does the "ability to learn very easily" have to do with anything? http://www.brainhq.com... And the 'power of reason' is us knowing good from evil; spiritual from physical; etc. and where does this come from you say? Brain plasticity which evolved...somehow. DNA is molecule, yes, but you say it like it's not amazing or important. That's crazy! http://www.everystudent.com... "He was originally thought to be a human, but over time that concept evolved." I'm assuming you mean 'God.' Well there are a LOT of myths out there, especially on the Internet, that say the idea of God started way back 6,000 years+ ago and has become 'Christianity' now. It's silly, just like 'evolution' itself is, and there are multiple reasons you shouldn't trust the web and it's stories. Why don't you try TRUSTING, for once, that there IS a God--instead of saying God is an evolved, man-made story? Why is the Bible so accurate if God is a myth? How come the Bible is believed by so many modern-day people? Why/how do you explain the so-called hallucinations people have, of experiencing God? "EVOLUTION EXPLAINS COMPLEXITY" hey, mind if you add some detail? I can't trust you saying that complexity "evolves" from simplicity without giving some proof. "First, the Big Bang isn't the origin of life, it explains the EXPANSION of he universe." Why do you evolutionists say the Earth came from the Big Bang then? "The origin of the universe is the highest-energy and smallest possible thing. That, my friend, is why we can't yet answer the origin of the universe... YET." My friend, I hope you don't sit in your death bed saying the origin of the universe can't be discovered because it's the smallest possible thing. I hope you discover that that is an opinion, and that MAYBE, just maybe GOD is the origin of the universe. "No decent parent would sacrifice their child for anything." If you believed God Created everything and loves all, then sacrificing their child in the temporary world wouldn't be so bad. But it also depends which way of sacrificing. It is so annoying when atheists/evolutionists say "Creationists are stupid because they don't study evolution because they are retards," which is what you JUST said. Please, I'm only 13. But I encourage you to actually study creationism, perhaps just one time, so you can figure out what we really believe in. Right now you can't tell the difference between a "sky-wizard" and a Creator God. Do some research. http://www.comicvine.com... http://www.debmark.com.... Your sky wizard hasn't...fulfilled any prophesies, nor does he go with what the scientific world does...nor has he performed miracles...a Creator is much different. P. S. your YouTube copy/paste process didn't work, you seem to have done it wrong--or--maybe you didn't research how to do it?! http://www.icr.org... https://www.google.com... http://www.westernjournalism.com... http://www.freethoughtpedia.com... http://i961.photobucket.com... https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...