Evolution is Wrong and False. The Bible Gives Better Answers.

Once again the motion regards the biological development of organisms NOT any other science or political notion or nation state or anything like that. I believe I have demonstrated the coherence and rationality of evolution. My opponent merely got American domestic policy wrong and hurled bible verses at me.My opponent requested I speak on quantum physics and I shall now do so and I will also talk about cosmology.On Quantum Physics and Cosmology: Atheists are often mocked by theists for thinking the universe didn't need to have a creator and I shall now address that point. self Contained Models Of The Universe:-The Oscillating UniverseThis is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed. -Hartle HawkingA boundless self contained universe model in which a creator is unneeded. QET:-Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are plausible self contained models.Christianity/ Theism Is A Poor Cosmological Model:Theistic Cosmology basically states god created the universe. This is not a good cosmological because it is excessive and it not testable. It also makes no predictions and this is because there is an infinite degree of flexibilty. Any theist could just say "god made the universe that way".Theism's series is as follows: X(god) --> X -->Y (universe).A much more simple and rational series is: X(universe)-->X. (assuming there is a cause).On Why Causal Arguments Are Not Good:KCA(first cause): This is a terribly presumptuous argument.It presumes:1. Everything has a cause2. The universe has a cause3. The universe has a transcendent causeAxiom 1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause.Axiom 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.Axiom 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.This violates Occam's razor.If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.Axiom 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.Casmir Effect And Virtual Particles:Virtual particles pop in and out of existence.These virtual particles often appear in pairs that nearly-instantaneously cancel themselves out. However, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. For instance, photons—packets of light—can pop in and out of a vacuum. When two mirrors are placed facing each other in a vacuum, more virtual photons can exist around the outside of the mirrors than between them, generating a seemingly mysterious force that pushes the mirrors together.The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, but its speed passing through any given material depends on a property of that substance known as its index of refraction. By varying a material's index of refraction, researchers can influence the speed at which both real and virtual photons travel within it. If a mirror's thickness changes fast enough, virtual photons reflecting off it can receive enough energy from the bounce to turn into real photons.Essentially something can come from nothing.Conclusion: Refer back to the motion. I have offered plenty of evidence for evolution and none of it was refuted.My opponent asserted god without demonstrating such a being exist. He kinda said we all know god exists. I beg to differ.Most of my opponent's argument came from vague prophecy and politcal and sociological condition/events.Once again he was in some debate but it was not this one.http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...