Evolution more rationtal than creationism/god

I thank my opponent for an interesting argument for the existence of a god, however this argument is flawed. In this round I will show my opponent why the quantum argument for the existence of God is flawed.The Young's double slit experiment is a very important experiment, however my opponent has reached the wrong conclusion regarding the experiment. Firstly my opponent has said that "particles do not exist without observation." While this may sound true by considering that the particle can either go through one or both slits depending if it is observed or not, it rejects the particle/wave duality which is an integral part of quantum mechanics.(1) So while it is true that when you observe a wave function it collapses and then you can observe a particle moving through a single slit in the experiment, you are then negating the wave function. If you negate the wave function then electronic states of a particle are no longer important and then we miss out on important science like semiconductors, photo conduction, catalysts and other intrinsic properties associated with materials which can only be explained using wave functions.(2)My opponent has also said that this behaviour is also observed on a much larger scale than electrons like in the experiments using buckminsterfullerene and other large organic molecules. (3,4) Then my opponent states that what we need to realise is that "the whole of the macro world is built by the quantum world". I agree with my opponent, but as I have shown in the previous paragraph this does not mean the wave part of the duality disappears it still has to be present otherwise all our molecules loose intrinsic properties. My opponent then introduced the concept of Schrödinger's Cat, to say that "nothing is certain until we measure it." Well, yes this is true but you seem to be forgetting that this is based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice verse."(5) This is important, as it has profound implications for our understanding of matter and the universe around us. As we can only know one part of a system, but never the other parts of the system at the same time.(6,7) This means we can either know which hole the particle is going through in the double slit experiment, or we can know the wave function is allowing it to go thorough both holes. This is why my opponents argument fails, as if the quantum world is part of everything then we can only know one part of the system by observation. That means that we can never know all the parts of a system at one time which is what would be expected of an Omniscient god. So my opponent s formulation of his argument is wrong as Quantum Mechanics proves the opposite of what he claims. I wish to address my opponents argument in point form here as well.1) Molecules only exist when they are observed.This means we are neglecting the wave function, and so the particles we are observing are not what we know. They lose all their other intrinsic properties when observed as we can only know one property at a time. As this statement is incorrect then all the statements that follow are incorrect due to statement 1 been falsifiable.I will address the following claims briefly, but again they are all null as the initial claim has been shown to be false. 2) We, made of Particles, exist.Sure, but statement 1 is incorrect. 3) We, existing, must therefore be observed by another conscienceNo, as by been observed we are only one property. 4) There is a regress of observers until we reach 'Cosmic Consciousness'.No, as we have no proof of this cosmic consciousness. 5) There is therefore a consciousness that exists outside of the universe.No, as then it is not testable and it cannot interact with us. If it can interact with us it becomes testable. 6) We call this observer God.So God is a deity that observes and as such can be tested.I hand the debate back to my opponent to hear the rebuttals for evolution.(1) http://www.princeton.edu...(2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...(3) http://www.nature.com...(4) http://www.nature.com...(5) http://www.aip.org...(6) http://www.aip.org...(7) http://www.aip.org...