The theory of Evolution

I accordance with rubric for debate, I will not refute any of my opponent's arguments just yet. I will instead provide my own arguments against macro evolution as a creator of life and species as we know it. Macro evolution lacks enough evidence to be called fact, and to quite the contrary, most evidence suggests that macro evolution is impossible. Scientists and common people alike have just accepted evolution as the origin of life and species, but few have taken the time to look deeper into the issue. I have several main contentions against the theory of evolution. Contention #1: Evolution provides no beginning This is the most obvious contention with evolution, and yet it is one of the least answered. Where did it all begin? Some say an asteroid crashed into earth with bacteria, [1] and that bacteria started the evolution process. But where did that bacteria come from? Where did the asteroid come from? How did the lifeless earth come to be? Where did the energy to sustain adaptation come from? I invite my opponent to formulate, cite, and rationalize a beginning to evolution. Contention #2: Evolution violates laws observed in nature This is perhaps my favorite problem with evolution. So-called science being proven wrong by science. One example is the violation of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy. The Big Bang Theory calls upon the necessity of a large expenditure of energy to put mass into the places that they are today. [2] But according to the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy, neither matter nor energy can be created. So what started and fueled this expansion? Another blatant example is the violation of the Law of Entropy. [3] The Law of Entropy states that when subject to chance (such as mutation), objects in nature tend to descend from higher levels of organization into chaos. For instance, if you drop a bag of bricks on the ground, those bricks won't land in a stack. So a series of mutations bringing a lower life form into a higher life form is laughable. Far more examples of law violations can be cited, but for the sake of brevity, we will keep it at these. Contention #3: Evolution relies on too many constants to be considered fact Thousands of scientists "calculate" evolution by measuring distance to stars, measuring expansion of the universe, measuring carbon's radioactive decay, and a score of other mathematical measures. But these calculations are far too reliant upon mathematical constants within today's nature. They rely on a constant speed of light, a constant use of centrifugal and centripetal force, a constant force of gravity, and especially on a constant rate of radioactive decay. There is no evidence that these rates have been constant throughout earth's history. Contention #4: Evolution relies on fabricated evidence Whether it be fake skeletons, assumed missing links, or fraudulent reports, evolution repeatedly demonstrates its need for fake evidence to support its preposterous claims. [5] Even in the image brought up by my opponent, you can see parts where an artist filled in what they ASSUMED the skull would look like, not what science would actually have them draw. Conclusion: Evolution has not provided enough evolution to prove it as fact. Most evidence supports the opposite. Evolution through mutation over time cannot be accepted as a form of life creation and species progression. Sources: [1] http://science.time.com... [2] http://www.space.com... [3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [4]http://mathcentral.uregina.ca... [5]https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com...