Evolution vs. Creation

I would like to begin the final argument of this debate by thanking my opponent for this opportunity, he has given very good arguments and I hope this has been a learning experience for us both. In the first part of his conclusion argument, my opponent accuses me of misquoting, lying, and bad conduct. Very serious accusations, which I was surprised to see. He claims that when I quoted in my previous argument that he said, "I don't know what caused the big bang" and left out the part following, where he claimed "My opponent doesn't either", that I was purposefully leaving it out because I believed it worked to my disadvantage. While I can certainly now see why he would think that, It is nonetheless a false assumption. The reason it was excluded from my quotes was the same reason my opponent did not copy and paste my entire argument into his quotes; It did not pertain to the rebuttal I was making. Making the assumption that I do not know something that he also does not know is virtually pointless, and later I will show how he himself contradicts this statement in his round 4 argument. My opponent then claims that I have "continuously only picked the facts that work to his advantage and not the ones that prove him wrong. " He then addresses my "Dog in Antarctica" analogy, and says the following. "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 macro-evolution, how can he even begin to explain the shift from Smilodectes to Homo and Pan? [10]" My opponent assumes that because I neglected to address a portion of his argument, that I recognized it as something I could not defend and purposefully left out of rebuttals. This is funny, because I could say the same about an argument I made way back in round two, saying; "Another problem that plagues the plausibility of macro-evolution is fact that transitional forms could not survive. for example, consider the Darwinist assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over a long period of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would also be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn't be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for my opponent is twofold: first, there is no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway" My opponent neglected to address this particular argument in his rebuttals. Does this mean that he recognized it as a fatal flaw and didn't attack it, hoping I would not notice? Possibly. Could it just as well be his forgetfulness or any other reason? Again, possibly. In making these accusations against me, my opponent has used evidence he fabricated in his own mind to try and convict me of "denying the proof that proves him utterly incorrect. " He calls my supposed actions Poor Conduct, but the Poor Conduct lies in his accusations without valid reason or evidence. While I would happily refute his argument concerning the humans and apes, my opponent will not have a chance to debate my non-transitional argument. So out of respect to him, I feel it would be unethical to do so. My opponent then quotes me in this, "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 occurred over almost a billion years, not thousands. " My opponent corrects me saying "Millions" by replacing it with "Billions", yet then says "Not thousands" as though I somewhere said thousands. If I wanted to, I could easily accuse him of misquoting me as he accused me, but I will not, as I do not know his motivations like he pretends to know mine. Regardless of weather I typed billions or millions or decades, my opponent still did not refute the fact that he expects us to believe that over a period of time, be it long or short, every living creature on this earth, from the enormous elephant with massive tusks to the little gerbil with tiny whiskers, evolved from only one thing; A measly single celled amoeba. I will not make it a new argument, only call it to your attention, but my opponent has neglected to mention all this time where the amoeba, the first life form, would have came from. Next, my opponent quotes me and says the following; "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. " This puzzles me, because while I did not include the "my opponent doesn't know either" assumption he made, he still claims that I have not made a valid argument, yet fails to say why. (I will quote what he says next in just a bit, you will see that he doesn't) My opponent then claims, " 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. " This is an utterly ridiculous statement. In it, he says that If I cannot provide definitive, undeniable proof of an infinite, all powerful being, that I must resort to "just believe it" claims, or concede from the argument. Now, that WOULD be true, but only if he had 100% definitive evidence for his claim, which he does not! If it was, why would we even be having this debate? Just to prove that he does not, I will quote him in a statement I am sure he regrets saying. "I don't know what caused the big bang" My opponent doesn't either. " He said it. He does not KNOW what caused the big bang, so how could me not providing definitive evidence automatically prove his claim correct? It couldn't. This is yet another faulty claim. Finally, my opponent quotes me yet again and says as follows; "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. " In adding an additional source and failing to address my accusation, my opponent proves himself that the site he initially cited said nothing about the claim he was making. This is faulty citing, the second time he has done it, and an all out lie. But he cites a new photo, surely this proves his claim? unfortunately for him, no. The photo shows what he says it shows, but the assumption he makes based on the photo is faulty. He says "they were not horses, but a different kind of species that evolved to become horses. not only did the toes change, the size did as well. " He says this as though a change in size and type of toes constitutes a species change. The photo says nothing to support this. The changes in toe type and size can be attributed to Micro-evolution, not macro. My opponents claim that they were a species other than a horse has no evidence cited to back it, and if you the voters would accept that then I might as well just say "God is real" so that we can leave. In conclusion, my opponent has accused me of invalid arguments without giving reason, slandered my name in accusations of poor conduct in which he had no evidence, and makes wild assumptions, then stating the assumptions in a way to make you believe they were fact. Twice, he has cited a source and then made an argument claiming something that the source says nothing about, making it nothing more than a lie and an assumption. Combined, this DOES constitute poor conduct, and I have actually given evidence as to why. I have successfully refuted every argument my opponent has made using actual facts, not what I claim to be facts, and therefore I believe I deserve points for the most convincing arguments and an overall debate win.