Evolution is real and we still are evolving

Its much appreciated. Now he claims that the Theory of Evolution and Christianity can coexist, but doesn't give me reasons why. Then he contradicts himself later by saying the Bible, "shouldnt be used as a scientific document. They are completely two different worlds. " He asked me to not use religion against him, though, so I will leave the matter there. He admits that not every animal does evolve, yet isn't that admitting I'm right? Who determines which animals evolve and which ones do not? Now he calls my source from Peter Ruckman(who he should look up sometime) extremely biased, but its a two way street buddy. Your souce (. http://ideonexus.com...) is also extremely biased (Voters you are going to have to decide who has the better facts and logic then). My opponent never did address my argument with demographics either, which, if considered, show that the earth has not been here millions of years. My opponent uses terminology like "I'm sure evolution has happened" but what does that prove? What makes his opinion important? What are the facts is what a debate is about! He says, "no matter the circumstance a change in adaptation is considered evolution. " Really? I can move to a warmer or colder climate and ADAPT to the weather. Am I evolving because of that? I don't think so. Now about this common ancestry business, he said that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, "that split onto different evolutionary paths. " What caused the split? He didnt say. Hmm? What determines that we have a common ancestor and what is this common ancestor we share? People think because chimps and humans resemble each other, that they are kin. Poppycock! Couldn't God have created similarities among his creations? Now he uses a source that shows how animals are evolving. The problem is the source doesnt talk about animals in particular. It focuses on DNA and mutations and adaptations and fossil records. It even mentions the theory of embryonic recapitulation which few evolutionary scientists accept anymore as credible. The theory proposes that an embryo looks like a fish, then an amphibian, then eventually a land animal and finally a human when its born. Ultrasounds can refute that garbage. Finally, let me conclude this debate with a story of the great lengths evolutionists go through to "prove" their theory. During the famous Scopes Trial of the 1920s, the evolutionists cited the Harold Cookii man(they called it that because a man by the name of Harold Cook discovered one tooth). He said, "It is the tooth of an ancient man and if a tooth looked like this, then his jawbone would have to look a certain way. If his jawbone looked that way, then his face would have to look a certain way. If his face looked a certain way, his cranium would be a certain way. If his cranium was a certain way, his shoulders were a certain way"(Baptist Bread, July and August 2012, July 8th entry). He finally wound up with some big baboon, with a long tail and all. ALL HE STARTED WITH WAS A TOOTH! Years later they discovered that it was really a pig's tooth! May you come to accept the Bible as the final authority, and not evolution. My friend, the Bible is a scientific document. Its right no matter what some scientist says.