Evolution Singlehandedly Debunks Christian Mythology

I compliment you on your initial response. You took a lot of time to write it, And I can see the effort you put into it – thank you. I'm actually very excited to have this debate. This was not supposed to be a debate about evolution, But I will happily agree to that. I have no problems with this. Before I start, I would like to clear something up. You are expecting evidence from me as to how evolution debunks Christianity. I already provided that in my initial opening round. To be clear, I'll state it again, Briefly. If evolution is true, There never was an original Adam and Eve. Evolution is true, Therefore there was no Adam and Eve. That is my proposition. Without Adam and Eve, There was no original sin, Obviously since the entire story is based on them. Without original sin, Christianity falls apart, Obviously, Since original sin is foundational to the entire religion. According to evolution there never were only 2 homo sapiens as a product of our ancestral speciation, This is not how speciation works. Because of this, There could not have been an Adam and Eve, As depicted in Genesis. For the scope of this debate, If evolution is wrong, Adam and Eve could have existed. If evolution is correct, They could not have. I believe we can at least find common ground here, Correct? This would leave us with only one topic for debate - evolution. Agreed? Assuming you and I agree on the above, And knowing our rounds are limited, I will go ahead and rebut the points you previously made regarding evolution. I do have some questions for you. I will highlight my questions in bold (to make it easier to respond). I will highlight your statements in italics. Do you disagree with all evolution or do you acknowledge micro evolution? If evolution really happened, If for example a cat really did evolve into a tiger, Then in the fossil record we should be finding a series of fossils that represent that transition. False. Fossils are very rare and require certain conditions to form. Complete fossils are even more rare. Most organisms are often eaten by other animals, Decompose or they are destroyed by natual phenomena such as erosion. In order for fossilization to even be possible, The organism needs to undergo a rapid burial where it is isolated and protected from predators and other natural elements for very long periods of time. Assuming this happens, Generally the bones will undergo perimineralization where minerals enter the bone. Combined with pressure and time, Solid fossils are formed. We can dive deeper into this if you'd like, But the simple answer is - fossils are very rare and finding complete morphology in the fossil record is even rarer. This being said, We do have transitional fossils that clearly demonstrate morphology and homology. Technically, All fossils are transitional fossils, Because every generation is adding to the genome before it. Transitions are typically very slow and require immense amounts of time and other variables. The best argument for evolution is probably structural homology and it is the study of similar structures in different species, But it is flawed. For example, Evolutionists will say that because dogs and horses have a lot of similar structures, They must have had a common ancestor. I would argue that homology is more complicated than you're brief assessment, But it is also not the best evidence for evolution. Numerous fields in science all corroborate evolution; however, One field in particular is very compelling and should be the starting point for our discussion. The best argument for evolution would be genetics and genomic sequencing. All life shares a base genome at some point in the phyogenetic tree. The genome lines up with what we see occuring in observed reproduction and scientists have developed a very powerful understanding of it and it's evolving layers - powerful enough to even be used in court. For example, The Golden State (US - California) killer was found using DNA. There is a mountain of science around this area of biology and the overwhelming consensus agrees it is correct. Could you please provide a solid argument against this, As you would need one to disprove evolution. DNA is a vital part of evolution and something that can be easily demonstrated. Before I end I would like to point out the biggest problem facing evolutionists today. It is the cambrian explosion and it is something evolutionists simply cannot explain. Another reliable place to look for data about the earth's history is the geologic column. The geologic column is a column of rocks on top of each other and in them contain the species of life we see today. Now from an evolution point of view complex life forms evolved from simple ones. Thus, This is exactly what the geologic column should reflect, And for a while, That's what it looked like. At the bottom, You see simpler life forms such as the triiobites and nautiloids and as you go up they get more and more complex and you see things like horses and dinosaurs. But then something unexpected was found and today it is the biggest problem facing evolutionists today. At the very bottom of the geologic column were found species from every single major phylum in biological classification. This reveals that there was the sudden emergence of all species at once. The cambrian explosion is not in any way an obstruction to evolution. There have been other smaller instances of rapid evolutionary change following extinction level events. Just because it happened more rapidly does not disprove evolution in any way as the processes for natural selection simply occurred under more pressure. The cambrian explosion simply illustrates a point in which most of the main branches in the phylogenetic tree manifested. The phylum are still primitive, And this is an important thing to note. There is no point in the geological strata where you will find modern organisms beside their older ancestral organisms, Further supporting evolution and disproving Biblical accounts such as Genesis where all life was created in less than 7 days. From a creation point of view, This makes perfect sense. After all, For Christians, We believe God created the world and all of the species in it in 6 days and if this were true, We should be finding all of these species in the very bottom of the geologic column and it is exactly what we found. This is not correct in any way. Some of the eldest branches in phylogeny were formed from the Cambrian explosion, But that is not in any way the same as "all organisms". According to the accounts in Genesis, The universe, Adam and Eve (homo sapiens) and all other organisms were created in less than 7 days. This is in no way aligned with the Cambrian explosion. 1 - it didn't happen in a week. 2 - there are no homo sapiens or other modern organisms found anywhere near this layer of geological strata. From an evolution point of view however, It leaves you scratching your head. You see, Evolution believes that every transition from species to species takes millions of years. However, The geologic column reveals the sudden emergence of all species at once. Not only does this not makes sense transition wise, But is also inconsistent with the idea that life started out extremely simple. False. The Cambrian explosion lasted about 20-25 million years, Not 7 days. By evolutionary standards, This was fast, But it was in no way leaving anyone scratching their heads confused and it is in no way a problem for evolutionary science. This event occurred approximately 541 million years ago, Not 4-8000, Like Biblical scholars would like us to believe. It only makes sense to see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. The evidence points to an intelligent creator, Not evolution. I agree with your first sentence, But wholly disagree with your second. There is absolutely no evidence of a creator and all known evidence can be explained using natural means. I look forward to your rebuttals.