Creation (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

The Scriptures as a SourceMy opponent claims that the Scriptures are reliable as a source to be cited. However, as I have pointed out in a separate and unrelated debate, there are multiple contradictions in the Bible and reasons that it has no particular merit to prove anything. How can we be sure that the Scriptures are reliable? Because God inspired them? Well, it's not logical to use something which has questionable integrity in order to prove something about God... When your reason for believing it is because God wrote it! This is an example of circularity and is invalid in any debate.As to my opponent's assertion that I did not address the verses he provided, this is due to the fact that the Bible simply is NOT in any way reliable in proving creationism. It is riddled with religious bias which should automatically disqualify it as a source.EntropyThere is a sad misunderstanding here of what the law of entropy implies. It states that any closed system will decay and decrease in complexity AS LONG AS there is no energy applied (exactly as my opponent has stated). The misunderstanding comes in the form of his claim that cells could not increase in complexity due to entropy. This is addressed in the book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." [1] The author states that "mitochondria...permit us to fend off the Second Law of Thermodynamics." THIS is the reason why life is able to become more complex. Entropy is irrelevant due to the introduction of energy via the mitochondria. Thus, the argument using entropy is invalid and refuted."Kind"The use of the word "kind" in Genesis can only loosely be linked to the word "species." Besides, it is irrelevant due to the fact that it proves absolutely nothing. All it states is that two cows cannot make a horse, two pigs cannot make a dog, etc. This is common sense and can simply be observed in nature."No New DNA"While my opponent claims that no new DNA can possibly be created, he shows a forgivable ignorance of how the progression of DNA works. There are mutations within DNA which cause either a lesser chance of survival or an advantage which helps that particular organism (and therefore its species) survive. These mutations are found IN THE DNA as genetic encoding information. [2] These mutations are then allowed to pass on to later generations from the original carrier if it is beneficial. It is obvious that these helpful mutations do occur. A perfect example is the peppered moth of England. There was a part of the encoding of a gene in the moth which gave it its light color. Some (but few) of the moths had a mutation which altered the color and made it darker. After the Industrial Revolution, the darker peppered moths had a higher chance of survival; and so, they propagated and their mutated DNA was transferred on to the next generations. If this occurred in a species and the mutation was compounded (or if more were added), then there is a potential for the species to branch off into a completely new type of organism.HomogenizationMy opponent states that there would be a homogenization of the gene pool. However, it is not clear as to what he is referring to. I assume that he is speaking of evolution itself. In that case, the gene pool would not be homogenized because of a combination of mutations and the natural diversity of the gene pool. In simple terms, the maternal qualities which are passed on basically center around the mitochondria, while the male information which is sent is only 50% of the total information. The diversity which could be achieved through this is stunning and can be found in depth in the book I referred to earlier. [1]Expansion of the UniverseFirst, I find it interesting that my opponent used a blog as a source. Especially since the man who wrote the blog has no experience in astrophysics, but is instead a doctor.Besides that, there is ample reason to believe that dark matter and dark energy are what hold the universe together and even allow it to expand. There is an extremely large amount of mass in the universe that is unaccounted for and this is explained through the idea of dark matter. Also, dark energy possesses a certain "anti-gravity" quality; it pushes things away instead of pulling them in. Dark matter was proven by NASA in 2006 (of course creationists question its legitimacy) through the observation of two colliding galaxies. [3]The Appendix as a VestigeAgain, there is an obvious air of unknowing around this subject. My opponent believes that a "vestigial structure" is one that has NO FUNCTION. This is not true, as I have already pointed out. A vestigial structure is one that is smaller and serves a much lesser purpose in one species as opposed to another. This is true of the human appendix. I extend the same source which I used previously. My opponent's argument is against a straw man.StrataMy opponent uses my own evidence to reinforce his argument. However, he still cannot account for the fact that there are complex organisms (dinosaurs and such) in the higher strata but not in the lower strata. The strange thing is, there is no distinct cutoff for this difference in complexity. Complexity simply seems to increase in a fluid and gradual way as one moves up in the strata. There are complex creatures in strata which would have (under normal circumstances) taken far more than thousands of years to be buried. Thus the argument against my proof is unfounded."Kind"...AgainBefore I address this, I would like to express my deep displeasure at being accused of not reading my opponent's argument last round. Also, the claim that I ignored sources- I didn't.My opponent STILL has the belief that the Bible can be used as the sole proof of a Creator. I've already addressed this and I reiterate the fact that I am displeased that my opponent has nothing to offer other than the Bible. It is comparable to using a fairy tale to prove the existence of unicorns; completely flawed and unreliable. I most certainly do not share my opponent's enthrallment with the Scriptures as a source of either knowledge or proof of anything.I was stating that I would like PROOF (preferably legitimate) that the Bible actually describes why different species do not interbreed. I was not questioning the fact itself as my opponent mistakenly assumed.Lastly, I would like to point out a major error my opponent made: he claimed that "That’s why a chimpanzee and a human cannot create offspring, yet somehow; we’re the same 'species'." This goes to further show my opponent's lack of experience with science, particularly biology. Humans are of the species Homo sapiens. On the other hand, chimpanzees are of the species Pan troglodytes. The two names aren't even similar.Evolution Over TimeI honestly have no idea where my opponent got his numbers from, but I know of not a single evolutionary biologist who believes that humans evolved over the course of 30,000 years. Besides, cavemen were a variety of modern man.Big Bang and the StringsThere are plenty of problems with my opponent's argument, but the one that is most interesting is the fact that he neglects quantum physics. The laws of physics which apply to macro-objects (which he spoke of) do NOT necessarily apply to objects on a quantum level. Since strings and the brane would be on a quantum level, his argument holds no water. Since my opponent finds it acceptable to use blogs as sources and claim they are reliable, I will as well. [4]ConclusionSince I am out of characters, I will finish with the fact that I have refuted every one of my opponent's points systematically and effectively. He has failed to refute evolutionary theory and has no adequate proof of creationism.Vote CON.1- "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett2- http://bacteriamuseum.org...3- http://www.nasa.gov...4- http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...