Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

I'll argue in favour of the evolutionary model over the creationist doctrine. My argument is three-step. First, I'll argue against God. Then, I'll criticise the Bible being an infallible document supporting creation. Finally, I'll support for evolution. Note that each of these three steps are independent: there is no domino effect, where if one is false, so are the others. Disproving God does not disprove the Bible's support of creation, nor does it prove evolution to be true. However, if God does not exist, or if the Bible is inaccurate, or if evolution is true, then the doctrine of my opponent is necessarily false. With that in mind, I'll begin. The Existence of God The problem of evil is a simple enough argument. Consider you see a woman being mugged and raped in the corner of an alley. Imagine you have a stun gun in your hand, and now how to use it. You have the ability to stop an evil being committed: therefore, we would all agree, we ought to stop that woman being mugged and raped. Yet God, we are led to believe, has the tools to stop evil taking place, as well as the moral righteousness to stop the rape taking place. So why does evil exist? Some respond that God protects our free will, which justifies his inaction. This has three problems: the woman’s free will of course is being infringed upon, so God’s inaction infringes still upon free will. Secondly, if infringing on the free will of the rapist is immoral, then I must allow these atrocities to continue, which is abhorrent and blatantly ludicrous. And finally, this explains moral evils, but not natural evils: why is it that the world has tsunamis, earthquakes, animals that kill us, diseases that plague our existence, dirty water, nuclear radiation, an endless list of destructive ills that maim, torture or kill us, when a God has the power to stop it? My second “Argument from Evil” is one from technology. Compare the life of a working class woman in Britain or America a thousand years ago to today. The technological and political advances today give that woman so much more freedom and liberty and happiness and general quality of life. So what reason is there not to have granted that woman a thousand years ago – or the first couple – the boons of technology? Free will of course is a moot point here: we had resources to build these technologies, and in a sense of resources we had some, such as fire and wood, but lacked harder metals and the ability to use them. Instead, we spent thousands of years toiling vainly, doing things that took days in the past that take minutes to do now, like manufacturing clothes or working the land. The lack of technological aid implies the inexistence of a God, similar to the existence of the gratuitous suffering of the innocent. Regarding my opponent's cosmological argument, I shall quickly present my rebuttal. Firstly, the fact that all natural things known on this earth has an origin is as true as the claim that all things known on this earth have a natural cause. So are we to assume inductively that the cause is natural also? This is a fallacy of composition, where we assume because the part of an object has a characteristic (an origin, orcause), then we assume that the whole - in this case the universe - has an origin as well. To skip the science quickly for brevity (though it shall be expanded upon in R2), I believe that an uncaused singularity is the most likely explanation for the cause of all other natural things. To refer causation to a supernatural thing presupposes the existence of the supernatural, and that the supernatural can interfere with our world: two premises that need to be justified for my opponent’s argument to succeed. Mine, however, does not rely on the supernatural and therefore is much more sound. The Case Against the Bible I’ll state here my case against the historicity of prophecy, and then later move on to my case against miracles. The prophecy I’ll criticise though is the inflammatory Ezekiel. He is very entertaining to read, but simply fails to be accurate even the most adamant bibliophile must admit. Ezekiel’s prediction was Tyre's destruction would be complete and permanent: "The merchants among the peoples will hiss at you; you will become a horror, and be no more forever". God, according to Ezekiel, states: “I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers… I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, you shall never be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken,"(emphasis added)(Ez. 26) He doubly mentions Tyre’s complete permanent destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, yet its falsehood can be verified by a simple visit to your public library. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and that "you (Tyre) shall never be rebuilt" (26:14) and "shall be no more, though you are sought for, you will never be found again" (26:21). History, however, records the fact that Nebuchadnezzar not only didn't destroy Tyre, he didn't even capture it. The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1978 states: “ and in 585-573 (B.C.) [Tyre] successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II”, and Encyclopedia Americana 1984 states: “Nebuchadnezzar II, subjected the island to a 13-year siege (585-572) without success”. The city was only taken by Alexander, hundreds of years later. But even if we are to assume Ezekiel got the name wrong (and catastrophically wrong at that), “The city did not lie in ruins long. Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned. The energy of these with the advantage of the site, in a few years raised the city to wealth and leadership again”[4]. The Bible’s prophecies are bunk, and with it so are scriptural inerrancy. Secondly, I want to move to Biblical Miracles which are supposedly to have occurred. One of my most favourite miracles of the Bible is Joshua 10, where in the midst of a battle between Joshua and the five Amorite Kings, "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely theLord was fighting for Israel!"[5] In other words, God stopped the spin of the earth and its spin around the sun. Miracles like this are common in the Bible. Indeed, they are a central necessity for the Bible to be true. Yet we have every reason to believe that miracles are impossible. As Hume pointed out, a miracle is defined as "a violation of the laws of nature". Miracles are simply without evidence: no miracle has been provided which gives us strong evidence to believe that the laws of nature which we observe every day as holding to be true, have ever been suspended for a single individual or group at a moment of time for no particular reason apart from Divine Will. Indeed, miracles seem impossible because the suspension of the laws of nature is contrary to every fiber of our reason. Moreover, the miracles that seem to arise are only justified by flimsy witness testimony - usually a secondary source at that. We know for a fact that human beings tend to exaggerate, and miracles are usually only found among those who are in a pre-scientific time, by those who would rather believe the fantastical stories than not, yet very rarely are they accepted by those who have no vested interest to believe the miracle took place. Finally, the sheer number of miracles from each different religious group - Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etcetera - all force us to question whether there is anything unique about these miracles at all. For if we accept a miracle proving Christianity, there are many miracles in Islam and Hindu faiths which are equally strongly (or weakly) supported. When seen with a critical eye, we have no reason to support the existence of these miracles, and therefore cannot accept the God thrown along with them. Both God and the inerrancy of scripture must be chucked. My opponent also referred to a completely unsubstantiated argument in favour of the Bible’s inerrancy. As such, I’d lie him to justify each premise. I claim that not only the Bible is inaccurate, but it nowhere denies macro-evolution as well. Furthermore, how are we supposed to know the intended meaning of the author who wrote the Bible? They are long dead, and we are only guessing at their intended meaning based on our cultural and historical understanding (which is synonymous with context). My opponent’s justification for interpretation is essentially whether it fits context, and is consistent. Of course, this means there are dozens of correct interpretations of the Bible, which I am sure is not what my opponent wishes to claim. And to make one more nitpick: all this comes down to personal interpretation of the Bible. Is this not subjective? Justifying Evolution I’ll rely on a mathematical formula to explain evolution:Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation = Diversification and Speciation.This means there are three premises to justify:1) Natural Selection (we have granted this)2) Genetic Mutation (again, granted)3) This leads to diversification and speciation (contended).As such, I'll be focussing on justifying premise 3. It does seem intuitively obvious, however: a single letter change in a ten thousand deep code would probably have little effect (I say probably - of course some are huge). But what about ten? A hundred? A thousand changes? This would completely alter the entire system and cause complete diversification. Why does my opponent deny this to occur?