Evolution vs. Creation

My opponent first begins his rebuttals by calling out a part of my argument in which I wrote, "For this to happen, the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with new, additional genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind." He tries to refute this statement by providing the example of bacteria adapting to resist antibiotics. He claims that when bacteria gains a resistance to a certain antibiotic, it is due to brand new genetic code being introduced to said bacteria. He then cites several sources leading to fancy sounding websites and articles. The thing is, nowhere in these websites does it claim that NEW, ADDITIONAL information was introduced to the bacteria. My opponent states, "their genetic code changed and there were both base insertions and base deletions." Ladies and Gentlemen, these are called mutations. His sources say as much, if you would like to read them. Mutations lead directly to my premise, one of Micro-Evolution. 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 analogy, the cold weather is the antibiotic and the dog is the bacteria. The dogs (and therefore the bacteria) remained the same species, therefore macro-evolution did not take place. Next, my opponent calls attention to my statement of Charles Darwin's quote, which is as follows. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." I go on to explain how there are many instances in which this applies, and therefore saying Darwin's theory is broken down. I use the cell as a primary example, and my opponent feebly tries to prove this wrong by calling out that, "a cell is not an organ.", yet conveniently neglects that regardless of weather I used in my example the cell, or the human eye (which is, in fact, an irreducibly complex organ.), my premise still stands. Darwin himself stated that his theory would fall apart if it could be demonstrated that there were irreducibly complex organs in which, in the words of Michael Behe, can be defined as being "composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." 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. Next, my opponent says, "Theists like to say that the universe cannot be created without a god, but they fail to say the same thing about God. How did God come into existence without a creator?" I would like to begin my breakdown of this claim by saying that the Universe is finite, and as I have evidenced before, it had a beginning. 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. I reject the claim "Everything that exists had a cause", and affirm "Whatever BEGINS to exist had a cause." He then says, "The answer is simple: There is no God to create the universe, for the universe came into existence in its own. There is no need for a god if things outside the universe can come into existence without a creator." Now, this would carry weight if he had provided some sort of evidence to support his claim that the universe came into existence on its own, but I have yet to see it. My opponent even contradicts himself later on, saying "I don't know what caused the Big Bang.", so I this rebuttal is invalid. Finally, my opponent answers my question of "we are left with only two options: either NO ONE created something from nothing, or SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is the more reasonable of the two?" He replies, saying "The answer is simple: No person or being created something from nothing, it's a simple fact." This, again, is funny, because he then states "A reasonable answer to what caused the big bang is simply "I don't know." It's a very reasonable answer because its the truth, I don't know what caused the big bang." This, ladies and gentlemen, is lazy arguing. My opponent admitting that he doesn't know what caused the big bang does in no way validate his refutation of my claim. He then says, "The difference between my opponent and I is that I use science and data to try to explain it while he uses faith and "God did it" as his proof. " Now forgive me if I am wrong, but I have yet to in this entire debate try to defend myself with "God did it." or "Just have faith.", while my opponent HAS defended himself with a statement of "I don't know." "Data is more reasonable that faith and my opponent must admit that." Yes, data is more reasonable. Luckily, the data supports the Creationist ideals. My opponent then tries to defend Macro-Evolution using the examples of the Guam Rail and Horses. He states, "The ancestors of these creatures were once very small, but grew over time. Horses used to have toes. Rails can swim." If you read the website article he cites, It says as much. 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. Now, as for my rebuttal of my opponent, I will try to keep it short and sweet. The first half of his initial argument was made before he realized I was only arguing against macro-evolution, not evolution in general, so is inapplicable. But, he does attempt to prove Creation wrong. My opponent states, "Humans are made mostly of carbon atoms. This, like evolution, is a fact that we have proven time and time again. We also know that carbon atoms, as well as all the atoms that make up this planet, are only formed within the intense head within a star. So how could God have created Earth before He created light? He couldn't, because the atoms needed for the Earth to form had to be created inside stars, which emit light." In this argument, my opponent forgets that God is defined as an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite being. He assumes that because our rules of logic state that carbon and other atoms that make up our planet are formed inside a star, God could not possibly have created the Earth first, as it says in Genesis. In Genesis, the Earth does come before the Sun. Yet, God DID create the sun. He did create those atoms of carbon. If he could create those from scratch, why couldn't he have done so in Earths case? Finally, my opponent tries to argue that the story of Noah is implausible for several reasons. 1. There was no way to keep bacteria alive on a boat for 50 days 2. Dinosaurs could not fit on the boat, nor could they resist the temptation to devour the other creatures on the ark. 3. Why are there million year-old trees if there were a flood 4,000 years ago? Statement 1 is inapplicable. Genesis 6:19-20 says, "19 Bring a pair of every kind of animal"a male and a female"into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. 20 Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive.". Please note that the scripture says "Animal". Living things are classified into 5 kingdoms - animalia, plantae, fungi, protista, and monera. Bacteria belong to the kingdom monera. Therefore, Bacteria are not animals, and were not taken on the ark. Statement 2 is a contradiction. In this statement, my opponent says "Dinosaurs could not fit on the boat, nor could they resist the temptation to devour the other creatures on the ark." Weird, because in statement 3 my opponent claims the flood occurred 4,000 years ago. Last I checked, dinosaurs were not around 4,000 years ago. Statement 3 is invalid. The oldest known living tree is around 5,000 years old, not millions of years old. While there are million year old trees still standing, they are, unfortunately, dead. It is no mystery why they are still standing, because we have all seen dried up dead trees still standing in lake beds. In this case, the Earth is one giant lake bed. I believe I have now efficiently defended my opponents refutations of my claims and also added on some of my own rebuttals to his. I look forward to my opponents reply. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ruf.rice.edu...