Evolution is a Delusion

I cannot debate my opponent this round. Unfortunately, I must refer our readers to the First Round, wherein I ask that plagiarism be specifically prohibited from this debate. My reasons for specifying such an inclusion (I am normally quite tolerant) can be discussed elsewhere. This argument was almost entirely copied from this website: http://harunyahya.com... I shall present the two narratives, side by side: Debate Argument presented by my opponent: “The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this mechanism. But the fact is that the mechanism in question"known as natural selection""cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species "greyhounds or foxes, for instance.” Content From Website: “The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this “mechanism.” But the fact is that the mechanism in question—known as natural selection—cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species—greyhounds or foxes, for instance.” I will not directly address my opponents efforts further. However, many readers will be disappointed that I do not answer the argument itself, however poor the form with which it was presented. Therefore: This argument is a basic one, very often used by creationists. It argues that evolution cannot possibly answer for all the variations that are to be found in nature. This is accomplished by way of completely misleading readers as to the qualities of heritable change – and the profound effect that these otherwise very minor changes can have over vast periods of time. Essentially, although the bookmarks on my opponents’ computer are lavishly illustrated, they do not present a comprehensive understanding of basic biology. I shall skip the rick-a-rack of the “evidence” presented and get straight to the point that this tract is attempting to prove. I shall present the argument, I would have broken it down: If evolution is found to be flawed, then something else must have created the universe. The universe is too amazing to have created itself, and developed into its current form Therefore, the universe must have been created by an outside agency. This outside agency is most likely one of the gods worshiped in ancient Mesopotamia We can discard the final proposition, since it does not follow that an “outside agency” necessarily must have been that particular god. This leaves us with an argument that sounds like this: The universe is too amazing to have come into existence unaided The universe must have been created by an outside agency This argument begs the question: Wouldn't’t an entity able to create the amazing universe have to be even more amazing thanthe universe? This requires that the argument read: The universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator The creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator The creator of the creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator The creator of the creator of the creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator The creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator And so forth…Since the word, "creator" begins to sound a bit peculiar when it is said too many times without sufficient spaces between its usage I shall stop for now, and allow my opponent to present his first argument.