evolution is dead, god is alive!

C1- my oponent has a very rudimentary understanding of entropy and the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. he said "Contrary to Pro's assertion, the Second Law of thermodynamics does not require that "every system is created, its level of entropy is increased." If Pro's assertion were true it would be impossible to build a car or bake a cake, because the products of those are more ordered than their starting ingredients." but this is not an assertion and would not prevent the building of a car or baking of a cake. see as the engreediants are not as complex, they are not the ones creating, we are. and a car is by far less complicated than we are. see, say in a given sysem there is 100 units of energy, now it goes through a cycle and is changed into a new proces (whenthis happens a level of energy is allways lost, and alltho not allways the same, it usulay is around 9-10% of the origonal amount of energy) and in this proses 10 units have been given off in head, creating less energy, forcing the system to get less complicated after every cycle as it loses 10% of its energy every time. in the instance of a car, we desighn and create, becoming part of the process. but alone you are corect, the matirials alone would never form a car on there own. now my oponent also argued that this law is only aplicable to an isolated system and the earth is not an isolated system, therefore making my argument seemngly void, and my oponent would be corect in that the earth alone is not an isolated system. however, the universe as a whole is, therefore making the 2nd law of thermal dynamics aplicable to everything within it. C2-my oponent said "Originally, everyone had brown eyes, then a genetic mutation occurred about 10,000 years ago....the eye color mutation has not been removed by natural selection...there was no genetic material for blue eyes" now i would like to ask m opponent the fallowing questions- 1-what is the point of this argument? all that may of happend is a eye collor change, what is the relevence unless it is an example that shows another spiecies being created? all youve shown me is an example of macroevolution. 2-in the same artical you referenced, there existed the fallowing phraze "...That is my best guess...", so it wouldnt seem that this is more of an assertion than an actual prooved fact? 3-how could they possibly know whaat eye collor people had 10,000 years ago? how could they know that blue eys didnt exist 10,000 years ago? C3-my opponent missunderstandsmy argument with the cambrian explosion, i thing i missworded it a little bit, sorry. my argument is basicaly that no reamains ,or proof of life is found before the cambrian explotion, if evolution where to exist, then there would be life found befor this point. C4-this doesnt deserve rebuttle, darwenstheory was contingent on 2 things, the tree of life and natural selection, both of wich are false and have been dissproved C6-my opponents answer to this arguent is laughable, basicaly he is saying: who knows how things came to be and who cares: my opponent is compleatly working around the topic at hand making circle arguments. the reson its more plausible that God was the one without begining is explaind by fallowing- 1.God created time, therefor, for god there is no time, wich meens no such thing as begining or end. 2.there are cirtian facters of the universe that could not be unless a power of much higher complexity in nature created them (such as the very existance of life) C7-i ask my oponent the allowing question, do you believe murdur is wrong? Answer to:n1- this argument doesnt prove or disprove anything, its an inconcequential argument. if science is ever evolving, then chances are that in the future that evolution will be replaced with another theory. additional args- C8-Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong (evolution is contingent on natural selection) The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense. C9-Species Without a Link disproves Evolution The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution. C10- Single Cell Complexity disproves Evolution Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. C11-Single Cell Complexity disproves Evolution Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. C12-DNA Error Checking disproves Evolution The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. - - - - Evolution is dead, God is Alive!