Creationism (Pro) vs. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution (Con)

Pro has just sprung on me more facets of evolution that was not reasonably inferred by the question and and round 1 introductory statement. Please disregard Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, and organic evolution. Furthermore, Pro makes the ridiculous claim that only micro evolution has been observed. And likens it to "taking a German Shepherd and a Husky and mating them to make a different variation of a dog" which is absurdly incorrect as to what micro evolution is. This example is selective breeding, the whole point of evolution is that it's natural! This was explained by the definition of evolution I brought up in my opening statement. This example does not show natural selection, genetic mutation, OR hybridization. Completely flawed reasoning by Pro. Pro then goes on to say the he BELIEVES macro evolution is ludicrous. First of all, Pro's belief have no affect in scientific FACT that it occurs. Second of all, he makes what I hope is a joke in saying he doesn't believe we evolved from a rock. Nowhere in science does it claim that, and again Pro's beliefs are worthless in this debate. Macro evolution, on a basic level, is a series of micro evolution that provides a unique creature completely different than the "original." Pro goes on to state "what evolutionists and scientists fail to prove is how one animal can turn into another." Science isn't claiming morphology. Pro's absolute misunderstanding and ignorance on this scientific theory is extremely flawed. Then Pro goes on to contradict this statement by stating that experiments have observed small organisms "turning" into other small organisms, but then critiques these experiments by saying they were modified. Not only does Pro cite these claims he doesn't even name the species or experiment this was done in. Evolution is observable: "This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal"pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor." This excerpt from an article, citation below, explains everything. To make another point extending from this article, all that is needed to prove evolution flawed or wrong, is the wrong fossil in the wrong place. That is literally all it would take, yet every single fossil supports evolution, every single one of them. To quote the same article to refute Pro's argument that evolution is too "lucky." "Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days." This clearly obliterates Pro's nonsensical refutation that nobody even claimed was true in the first place. Pro then goes on to say that his refutation to SCIENTISTS saying that evolution takes millions of years to produce such complex things is "How convenient, well I don't see it happening anytime soon and all you have is an 'explanation.'" First of all, all I have is an explanation? That is literally all that is needed, it explained evolution. He says it convenient when it isn't when looking at actual science. He states that he doesn't see it happening anytime soon so it must be false. What a fallacious argument, does this disprove the eventual explosion of the sun? No it does not. Pro then argues that he is baffled by how "the belief that everything came from nothing and life came from non life is now growing to be the popular view on everything." Again, it doesn't matter what his personal views are. So moving on. "Now I disagree with science teaching the big bang in public education. If they want to teach it in private schools fine by me. But the reason I have a problem with this is evolution and the belief in the big bang is nothing but a religion." More personal belief arguments that have no weight in this debate. "First, I would like to mention the planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago." No citation, therefore just pro's personal, and extremely flawed, scientific beliefs. "Secondly, Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart." Honestly, what an illogical and dare I say stupid argument. He claims that the rotation is SLOWING then claims if this were to be true earth would fly apart due to it spinning too FAST. Pro is grossly misinformed. "Thirdly, and my most favorite for debunking this, is the oldest living tree pinus longaeva is 5,066 years old according to ring count. With this said, shouldn't there be a tree or some kind of plant older than this, if life existed millions of years ago on Earth, without trees life cannot exist on Earth. People like to tell me they've gone extinct? All of them? And how is that?" What the hell does this even mean. Of course there are plant life that existed before this, doesn't mean there has to be something older, because then that logic would require and infitiely living organism. Pro talks about dark matter and energy as if it has anything to do with evolution. "Now lets try cosmic inflation, the term inflation refers to the explosively rapid expansion of space-time that occurred a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. HOWEVER, this definitely violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, in which apparently nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But then, some scientist comes along to try to explain the big bang with a magical term "inflation" I use magical because again, it has never been proven or observe, while breaking laws of science. I would post more proofs however, I did not want to bore you on my correctness of a bunch of useless, boring reading, when I have made my point." Claims things without citation. Says it violates things traveling faster than the speed of light which no one has claimed. No Pro, you have not made your point. You have made, in sum, zero logical or science based points in this sham you call a rebuttal. I was hoping for an educational debate between scientific theory and criticism but Pro has done nothing but slap personal beliefs and critiques without any evidence substantiating them and vast amounts disproving his beliefs. I am appalled.