Evolution contains enough evidence to override religion

I. Opening Statement First off I'd like to say welcome to all who read this debate I hope you enjoy your time spent with us. I would also like to thank thank my opponent, AlexanderOC, for his intelligence on this matter and commend him on his first round. "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious views of anyone." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species "The mysteries of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain agnostic." -Charles Darwin Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the man who changed how people think about like on this earth was an agnostic; he never denied the existence of God. He only believed that his findings on evolution were the means of how organisms evolved over time. As he says in my first quote, evolution should not changes anyones religious views, it is not meant to disprove anyones religions only merely to demonstrate how things change. This too is my belief, I am a Christian but that does not mean I deny evolution, I am a Theistic Evolutionist, believing God made the earth and everything in it and has guided the changes. As con I will not be disproving evolution, merely the fact that evolution does not in fact override religion. I hope to show you that they can go hand in hand. II. Religion is not prevailed by Evolution i. Where did the information come from? In order for evolution to work there needs to be initial DNA to evolve, where did this DNA come from? God. God created the earth and animals of the earth. Even though animals have changed as time went on they were put there by God. Just as many things change over time we still credit the creator for the initial invention. Take the telephone for example. Invented by Alexander Graham Bell, in the beginning you needed wires and circuit boards and you had to be at home to be on the phone. Now it has evolved to something that better suits the needs of modern life, it goes where we go, we can wirelessly call text and access the internet. Still we credit the invention to Alexander Graham Bell. Just as God should be credited with creation and setting evolution in motion. ii. Cambrian explosion Even Darwin had doubts about one thing, commonly referred to the Cambrian Explosion. The deepest layer of rock categorized as Precambrian rock. In this layer of rock has little to no fossil evidence in it, then in the layer above it (Cambrian layer) there was an abundance of diverse fossils. This was a mystery to Darwin, if all life had evolved from one living ancestor how could there be nothing and then diverse life without any noticeable relatives linking them. This is probably the reason he remained an agnostic. That one fact meant God could not be disproved. III. Rebuttal a. Brief Background I really have nothing to say about this part except to point out that Darwin and other scientists believe evolution happened over millions of years not thousands. b. Modern Natural Selection While I agree with natural selection I do not believe it has the influence to change the entire genetics of a species. We will use Pros moth example, there is nothing beneficial about being a moth, you are at the bottom of the food chain. If a moth were to evolve, like pro said its ancestors did why would it not have evolved into a bird? Simple, because natural selection allows for change, change in color, shape, size, wing patters, and all other character traits. Natural selection does not however allow for a change of species, never mind changing its genus, order, class, phylum or kingdom, as evolution suggests. Even if natural selection were to work like that it still needs the initial DNA to work with where did that DNA come from? God. Also there is the issue of Pros first lines of "c. Fossil Evidence" to address. My opponent writes "While I have shown natural selection has occurred and still occurs, there is some room for doubt." After all, natural selection could have just not worked back then." He admit there are doubts in natural selections ability to make monumental jumps. Then Pro continues on to say "After all, natural selection could have just not worked back then." This raises the question of, if natural selection was not at work in the time when we saw a dramatic diversification in living beings, what was at play? Perhaps it was God? c. Fossil Evidence Firstly fossils are proof of past life not evolution. If you dig up a grave you are going to find a body. Second Pro made a point " It must be noted, if even a single fossil was found out of place, one specimen not being where it should be, Evolution would fall apart right then and there." There are many times where fossils are found out of place in both time and location. Instead of taking it as proof that evolution is wrong they just extend their time tables and say the earths plates must have shifted. They are constantly changing the story of evolution to make outliers fit in with their beliefs. I would also like to point to 2 cases: Case 1- The Wollemi Pine. [1] The Wollemi Pine's fossils are dated 65 million years old and there is no known record of any since. Then in 1994 a grove of the previously extinct plant cropped up in Australia's Blue Mountains. This plant is now called a "living fossil" and has been found a long way from its home in the Jurassic era. Case 2- Hurdia Victoria [2] Hurdia was a one-and-a-half foot anomalocarid found in the Burgess Shale. [2a] This fossil is considered Cambrian, because of the layer of rock it is found in. Recently though it has been discovered in the Ordovician rocks above its supposed time period. This creature also proves the fact that fossils cant directly prove evolution. at one point it time scientists thought this creature to be the ancestor of shrimp and other sea creatures, not they say its living relatives are actually insects. To address Pros point of the Archaeopteryx Fossil, "this fossil is shown to be a median between modern birds and prehistoric dinosaurs." Pro then continues on to say it had teeth like dinosaurs but feathers like birds. To me the Archaeopteryx sounds like the platypus of the prehistoric times. I would like to point out that just because it has shared characteristics does not mean it will morph or evolve into one or the other thing. If so what was/is the platypus was it a beaver that grew a bill, a duck that decided flying was not fun and wanted to feed its baby milk? How has that adaptation helped it compared to both ducks or beavers, both of which are currently thriving. Or is the platypus simply a platypus like the Creator intended and the Archaeopteryx just a Archaeopteryx? IV. Conclusion In conclusion there is no evidence to deny God the title of creator of the universe and everything in it. While you may choose to agree with evolution, even one of the largest contributors to the theory could neither confirm or deny the existence of God. There are things out there that evolution can not explain, not with the help of natural selection and ffossil evidence is unreliable at best. I like to think these "gaps" in information the confirmation of God. Thank you to my opponent, I look forward to the next round. Appendix [1] Wollemi Pine links http://creation.com... (and since this is a creation site and could be viewed as bias , like the atheist site used by pro, I will include more links corroborating this evidence) http://www.kew.org... http://www.icr.org... http://earthsci.org... [2] Hurdia Victoria http://www.icr.org... http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [2a] Direct quote from this site http://www.lifebeforethedinosaurs.com...