God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

1. There is a lack of support by scientific facts, physical or fossil evidence and this shows the theory is not well supported. As mentioned in my previous argument, I believe I have provided significant evidence that is in support of common descent and evolution. This comprises genetic evidence, experimental evidence, fossil evidence and other biological evidence. I believe I have shown that there are many different avenues, all supported by extensive evidence and so therefore I feel that I have rebutted this particular aspect. 2. Why should it be taught in school. I did not have the word count; so have added this to the comments section. 3. Lack of transitional fossils As I described, the 175 significant transitional forms are by no means the only evidence; in fact form only a small part of the objective evidence for evolution. Given that we know the process of fossilization is very rare, not being able to see an extensive fossil record is to be expected. The issue is not the depth, but simply the process required as outlined in my previous source. While you have no opportunity to do so now, I would point out that you have provided no source, or justification as to why we "must" see countless millions of fossil species. In terms of your quote by Colin Patterson, I would point out that this quote is taken out of context, later on he says: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."[13] As such, the original quote is very much taken out of context, what Patterson is trying to infer is: "that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question"[13] 4. Complexity of genetic code, Traits don't just get passed down. As I mentioned previously, with the processes of mutation, duplication, changes and removal of gene sequences the length and complexity of the genes can be explained through the process of natural selection. To use your analogy, it is like starting with one sentence, with you able to remove letters or words, duplicate letters or words, and change letters at random. Doing this at random will yield a random words. But if you take your paper, copy it ten times, and then chose the one that looks most like Shakespear; and repeat again and again and again millions and millions of times, you will likely have something that is understandable (although not entirely like the bard). The mutations are random, but the application of selection is not. Passing down of traits in the same way is not random; traits that benefit survival will be MORE likely to be passed down than others; which means what traits are passed down and which are not are very much a non-random process. I would also point out that the theory of evolution does not say, imply or state that humans came from monkeys. At some point in the past, there was an ancestor that had traits that both humans and monkeys share, these had descendants one branch of which acquired more monkey like traits, with the human branch acquiring more apelike and then homonid like properties. Common Descent no more implies humans came from monkeys than you being descended from your great great great grandfather implies that your mother is your third cousin.[4] 5. Scientists do not know what was before the big bang. This is true; but again whether we find out what was before or not; the fundamental question of origins may not even be a valid question. Moreover as I stated in my previous argument, even if we did answer the question, God is no more rational or pertinent than simply assuming that some aspect of the universe, or multi-verse is timeless and infinite. 6. Why are planets and stars spherical. This actually has nothing to do with the big bang. This is actually relating to Gravity; either Newtonian or relativity. The force of gravity pulls matter together. For a collection of liquid or semi-liquid matter such as a molten planet or star, the most optimal configuration is a sphere. The earth itself, however, is not spherical; the gravity of the moon cause tides in the oceans that deform the spherical shape of the earth[2], with the spinning earth causing a bulge at the equator[1]. Further investigation shows that the earth is actually slightly pear shaped with the bottom being slightly "bulgier" than the top[1] Also I would point out that many comets are not spherical, the most famous comet: Halley has been photographed and shown to be non-spherical.[3] 7. The earths age. There are innumerable methods of dating the age of the earth. The most common is isotope dating; we know the decay rates of certain elements fairly exactly. The ratio of that element to the elements it can decay into will allow you to calculate the date at which the rock became solid. [5] You can think of each element that is used for dating as a stop watch that ticks at a certain speed; with different radioactive elements ticking at different speeds. Examples of the different types of element that can be used are Uranium-Lead, Samarium-Neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium as well as non-explicit mechanisms of fission tracking (detecting evidence of radioactivity in crystal).[6] While there are a number of known problems that can occur, such as contamination and leaching, all measurements made using these methods broadly agree, with a very significant majority of all dates aligning as would be expected given the known margins of error.[5] This is like thousands of stop-watches all ticking at different rates all showing broadly similar times. We can inferr whether this radioactive decay rate has changed by looking at the fine structure constant (which must change if decay rates change due to the physical laws of quantum theory) [7] As it doesn't, we can be fairly certain that the decay rates have been constant over time. Moreover, even if the FSC changes, the clocks ticking at different rates would all change by different amounts, making the alignment of results more unlikely. With respect to moon dust, measurements of the rate of dust accumulations have been conclusively shown to be orders of magnitude lower than was shown by Morris, the original proponent of this argument; and with the properly measured values the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon would be less than a foot. [8] With respect to geomagnetic dating, I believe you mean the argument used to date the earth based on geomagnetic decay. Unfortunately, this has several issues: firstly it assumes that the magnetic pole simply decays over time (for which there is compelling evidence to show otherwise such as magnetic pole reversal)[8] Moreover, many other dating methods all conclusively show the age of the earth to be longer than a few thousand years. For example: Dendrochronology allows us to use recreate tree rings up to 11,000 years.[9] Thermolumniscence that allows us to reach up to hundreds of thousands of years. [10] Amino Acid dating can allow us to get up to 10my dates [11] Distant starlight, erosion, Geomagnetic reversals, helioseismology, Human Y chromosomal ancestry, ice layering, impact craters, iron-manganese nodule growth, lack of DNA in fossils, length of pre-historic data/ lunar retreat, Naica megacyrstals, Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds, oxidizable carbon ratio dating, rock varnish and stalactites ALL demonstrate a minimum age of the earth that is greater than 10,000 years. [12] These dating methods (although some are just process that we know take a long time) are all used in conjunction with one another, with no single method being used exclusively to date an unknown rock, or other object. 8. God is true. While I will not add any additional arguments, as I initially stated that I would only rebut in this round and as such as I am the last poster, this would not be fair, I would like to point that the half the premise of this debate, that God is True has not been demonstrated by my opponent. 9. Summary To summarise this debate from the side of Con, I believe that given the original terms of the debate (to which I presume my opponent has agreed), I have shown that evolution is well supported by the evidence; that the Big Bang theory is a reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe, with the atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe being more rational and including fewer un-provable assumptions than invoking God. Moreover, I feel I have fully and comprehensively addressed all of my opponents issues with evolution, the philosophical explanation of the origin of life. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.talkorigins.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10]http://en.wikipedia.org... [11]http://en.wikipedia.org... [12]http://rationalwiki.org... [13] http://www.talkorigins.org...