Macro-evoluton is valid

I look forward to a positive and fruitful discussion. I am a Christian Creationist, who believes the Bible is the inerrent word of God. While I do not reject the idea of an Old-Earth interpretation of Genesis, I do lean more towards being a Young Earther. Regardless of how old the Earth is, I believe that evolution is absolutely insufficient to explain where we are today. To open, I feel it necessary to make one observation. I believe in 'Micro-Evolution. ' I think the term variation is more appropriate. Two dogs having a puppy and making a 'mix' is observable. We can know and see that animals can change to this degree. This does not, however, explain goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, or Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution postulates that given enough time a rock could become living, or a dog could become a cat. This is a very important distinction to be made as we continue. My opponent requested that I list no more than three primary arguments in my opening statement. As such, I will provide my three biggest objections to evolution. Everything needs a start, and evolution is no exception. Where did it come from? The Theory of Evolution does not sufficiently provide an explenation as to how one can gain genetic information. The Fossil Record does not support the theory of evolution. Everything needs a start, and evolution is no exception. Where did it come from? Omne vivum ex vivo. .. All life is from life. The Law of Biogenesis states that Life can only come from other Life. This law is accepted almost universally, though sometimes reluctantly, as there has never been any study of test to indicate otherwise. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation. ’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. ” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, p. 94. Until proof is developed to show that life can come from anything outside of life, I believer there is a major hole in the theory. The naturalist, however, has no explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. Ignoring life for now, where did Time, Matter, and Space come from? The Theory of Evolution does not sufficiently provide an explenation as to how one can gain genetic information. Evolution has no basis for explaining how we evolve. Macro-Evolution postulates that given enough time one kind, by means of small mutations, will become something different. This, however, is simply illogical. We never observe mutations providing new information. It can only work based upon what is already present. “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species. ”. .. “It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations. ” Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung p. 1157. Most mutations are harmful, or even lethal, to the subject of the mutation. In the event that a mutation is beneficial, it is not due to new information but due to circumstance. I don't see how it is logical to assume that aquired characteristics gained after birth could be inherited by offspring. Unless evidence could be presented showing otherwise, this means several assumptions within evolution are incorrect. For instance, it is held that giraffes had their necks because they had to reach long distances to get the top leaf. We would agree it is illogical to assume a muscular human will automatically have muscular children. Natural Selection can select from information already present, and ensure that the best designs survive, but it does not explain how the designs got there, how they get more complex, or how information is added. Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill. (with new information. )The Fossil Record does not support the theory of evolution. If Evolution were true, we would expect to see a couple of things in the fossil record. In reality, however, the record is missing many of the key ingredients expected. For instance, we have yet to identify any transitional fossils. We have fossils we can make some assumptions on, but we do not have any conclusive evidence for transitions in the record. There is a massive gap between forms of life whose cells have nuclei, and those that don't. Links are missing between different plant groups, between insects, (their invertebrates and vertebrates) between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, as well as between apes and other primates. There are not simple missing links here, but missing chains! For more on that: . http://www.creationscience.com...Not only are there missing chains in the fossil record, or 'evolutionary tree,' but this 'tree' doesn't even have a trunk. At the very bottom of the fossil record life appears suddenly, complex, and diverse. Evolution postulates small changes led to complexity, but this simply isn't what is found. Fish, Wirms, Coral, Jellyfish, and Mollusks among other complex species are found at the bottom. This doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. We can't even figure our where insects come from based on the records. . http://www.creationscience.com...I also want to breifly discuss Polystrate Fossils which are found within the fossil record. These are fossils which cross two or more sedimentary layers. There are many trees in different layers standing straight up. There are other fossils which are upside down! I find it hard to believe one could say these are vastly different ages when there are trees which fossilized withing several different layers. Dead trees don't stay up for long, and upside down ones don't stay up at all. To me, it seems apparent that the fossil record does not represent millions and billions of years. In Conclusion, I do not find Evolution to hold water personally. Understanding human limitation and fallibility, (Isaiah 55:8-9) I expect that I'm not right on everything I've brought up or am talking about. Because of this, I look forward to my opponents rebuttal with great anticipation. Thank You for your attention thus far.