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

-EvolutionA prerequsite to debating the validity of evolution is knowing what one means by "evolution". Well in the most general since it can be used to mean change over time but in the spirit of intellectual debate let's use the technical definition, which is as follows:Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This is all that is meant by evolution and when one puts it like that, the answer is obviously yes, evolution is true.-Universal Genetic Code:Every cell on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the petals of flowers, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is quite convincing evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.-Fossil RecordBirds-The evolution of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton ofArchaeopteryx lithographicain Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton ofArchaeopteryx.(http://donsmaps.com...A reconstructed Archaeopteryx.) This ancient animal seems to constitute strong evidence of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.-WhalesIn 1994,Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales.Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians.Ambulocetusis regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.http://upload.wikimedia.org...-Ubiquitous Genetic Similarity:Human beings share approximately 96% of genes with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.Bacterial Resistances:Bacteria colonies may only build up a resistance to antibiotics via evolution. It is vital to note that in every colony of bacteria, there is a minority of individuals that are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.I think the aforementioned pieces of evidences is sufficient to substantiate evolution.(EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE)Are we still evolving?Yes, however it is not drastic because we are no longer exposed to drastic climates that would require us to do so.Increased Resistance:In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution discovered 1800 genesthat have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy.Shrinking Brains:as they shrink, our brains are being rewired to work faster but take up less room. There's also a theory that smaller brains are an evolutionary advantage because they make us less aggressive beings, allowing us to work together and to solve problems, rather than tear each other to shreds.Bible:Now my opponent said a lot of things about the bible, however as far as I can see, none of it regards science.My opponent seems to be concerned with social and political causes and events. If he wishes to assert the bible is a reliable scientific document, he should make scientific claims and submit evidence.God:Now I don't want to venture off topic however my opponent has invoked god and I would like my opponent to first substantiate the claim that a god exists before using said deity as an explanation. He seems to be putting the cart before the horse.Theism Is Not A Good Model:Just as in Cosmology, theism is not a good biological model. The model tries to backslide in a deity where ever possible. The primary reason it is not a good model is because it could be used to explain any observable life. Any theist can say "God made it like that". Theism does not make predictions.Genesis Is really WRONG:2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.And that is just the begining.In the next round I ask my opponent to demonstrate that a god exist andSubstantiate biblical science not sociological and political conditions.Sources:http://www.huecotanks.com...http://mentalfloss.com...http://www.agiweb.org...http://evolutionfaq.com...http://atheism.about.com...http://www.bioinformatics.nl...