The Theory Of Evolution Is False

1. that is not a change. Wemen have suffered through that for thousands of years!Here my opponent makes an assumption that natural selection is not a change and that women have suffered a lack of ovulation if they are low on body fat for thousands of years.This shows that my opponent lacks a core understanding of how natural selection and survival of the fittest works and has neglected to click and read my link. The link states the various reproductive challenges that ensures the survival of the fittest and eventually evolving. The assumption that natural selection is not a valid change is false. To change is to make or become different. If the following generation of humans lacks a certain trait weeded out by natural selection, it is different. Therefore, it has changed.2. Have your religion examined any macro evolution? No? I thought not.Here my opponent makes the false assumption that I follow a religion- a claim he refutes in his next paragraph. He also makes the false assumption that macro evolution is not happening. This is false.A good example of macro evolution is the Evening Primrose Oenothera lamarckiana. In 1905, a scientist found there was an unusual variant among Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas. Due to time constraints but a need for another example, the Fruit Fly Drosophila melanogaster due to many circumstances involving mazes, they evolved into Drosophila pseudoobscura. Following this, by changing the pH, they evolved into Drosophila willistoni.Many more such examples exist and I invite my opponent to look them up.3. this is probably evolutions weakest part! There had been no scientific proof of an animal evolving and losing or gaining chromosomes. So this makes the theory of evolution invalid.Here my opponent makes yet another blunder by not reading or researching my arguments. My last sentence in the second to last paragraph clearly states "variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case.", which with a bit of research will turn up more information.There had been no scientific proof of an animal evolvingThis is simply not true. Due to time constraints I invite you to click this link. http://humanorigins.si.edu...4. also I can tell now you are an atheistwhy do you believe in the big bang theory I mean there is a planet before us then who created the planets and how did living cells come into the equation and so you're saying our solar system was a lot more complex before? Because the surrounding planets do not hold all the elements we have found on earth today. all these elements of carbon oxygen nitrogen lithium and Iron? Got you thinking right?If my opponent so chose as to visit my profile, he would see I am indeed an Atheist. However, that has no bearing upon today's debate.I remind my opponent that simply because I am an Atheist does not mean I support the Big Bang Theory but I also remind him that everything is possible even if it is only 0.00001% possible. There are a few possibilities of the Big Bang Theory arising to life. Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them. Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes. Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals. Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA. However, it is not fully researched. But, since my opponent has chose to bring religion into this, I will provide a thought experiment for my opponent on the existence of God. First, allow us to define "God". God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created the Universe. This is an undisputed definition. Here is some food for thought, however. Proposal: Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood. Reasoning: If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make. Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God. Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions. Question: If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil. Conclusions: If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention. If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist. If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster. I look forward to your arguments