Evolution vs. Creation

I would also like to state a few complaints. First, when quoting me, my opponent has left out the information that works in his disadvantage. He said it doesn't work for me to say "I don't know", but he 'forgot' to mention that I also said he doesn't know either. This is a lie on his part, which is bad conduct. Furthermore, my opponent has continuously only picked the facts that work to his advantage and not the ones that prove him wrong. Here is an example of this:"If you place a short-haired dog breed in Antarctica, then whenever that breed begins to reproduce one of its offspring will eventually be born with the mutated gene of long hair. That dog will reproduce, and its long haired offspring will be more likely to survive than their short haired cousins, who will eventually die out. Did the dog evolve into a polar bear? No, of course not. It adapted. "In this, my opponent is denying the proof that proves him utterly incorrect. In my last argument, I said this:"Other proof would be humans. Humans, without a doubt, evolved from apes. Genetic information and fossil records can tell us this. Moreover, we know for a fact that apes evolved from rodent like insectivores such as species from the genus Altiatlasius and Smilodectes. [9]These species are dated around the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras. So, if my opponent does not believe in macroevolution, how can he even begin to explain the shift fromSmilodectes to Homo and Pan? [10]"In that statement, I showed that these large changes occur over a large period of time. In my opponent's dog example, the dog may eventually change over a period of a million years. The only reason we would not see a change in the dog would be because we simply do not live longer to see it occur. "We have discovered these organs, and yet my opponent still expects you and I both to believe that advanced organs such as the Brain and Eyeball evolved over millions of years from a single cell amoeba. "As I have already stated, this occured over almost a billion years, not thousands. "God is described as "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. " By this definition, God is an infinite, all powerful being. If he is infinite, then by definition he has no beginning and therefore cannot be compared with the likes of a finite being. ""My opponent even contradicts himself later on, saying "I don't know what caused the Big Bang. ", so I this rebuttal is invalid. "Again, my opponent has 'forgotten' to quote the next part of my sentence. This is poor conduct and is a lie. My opponent has not made a valid argument here. Secondly, I wish for my opponent to give me proof that God exists. Either show me a picture or show me the mathematical equations. Then, I wish for my opponent to give me proof that an "infinite, all powerful being" can exist. If he cannot, then my opponent must either say "God did it," "Just have faith," or "I concede, for my opponent is correct. ""But nowhere in the article does it provide evidence that the Rail and Horse evolved from something that wasn't a Rail or Horse. Yes, the horses may have had fingers instead of hooves, but It was still a horse. It micro-evolved. "According to this picture, . http://upload.wikimedia.org..., the ancestors of horses were not horses. They were Pilohippus, Merychippus, Mesohippus, and Hyracotherium. They were not horses, but a different kind of species that evolved to become horses. Not only the the toes change, the size did as well. Macroevolution is a result of microevolution. After many millions of years of apes microevolving, they suddenly became bipedal. Then, after more microevolution, they became larger and had an increased brain size. My opponent cannot deny this. He simply cannot. In conclusion, I shall make my argument as to why the voters should choose a Pro vote. My opponent has made invalid argument after invalid argument. He denies the proof that I give; he denies the proof that he finds while researching; he denies evidence. He twisted my words to work in his advantage. Because of this, I believe I deserve points for more convincing arguments.