Evolution vs Creationism

I would appreciate if you laid them out more methodically in the future. Creationists always say, "Oh well, you can say evolution is a matter of opinion, it's still a theory. " Evolution is no longer a theory, but a scientific fact. Okay so lets look at some evidence…. If you look at the DNA of Chimpanzees to our DNA, they're pretty similar. This is your ONE piece of evidence to support MACRO-evolution as a scientific law? I will refute this, but you should give more evidence. You state from an unidentified source that the DNA of chimps and humans are pretty similar. However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA. In fact chimps are 95% similar humans (Britten, R. J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels. ’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635). However it should be remembered that this is the difference between 150,000,000 DNA base pairs! There is tons of differences. (sorry this refutation is kindof short, but I can give you a more indepth explaination in our next debate. .. right now I am a little short on time)Besides, I don't see how a magical man living in the sky and making everything is more logical than something that happens 100% of the time. This is not an argument for evolution: Your description “magical man” is hardly tenable. God is neither magical, nor a man. Concerning this “something” are you discussing MICRO evolution or MACRO evolution. I'm sure you'll argue on how the organisms to kick off evolution got here. Well, how did God get here? I could make that argument… Instead I’m trying to refute your claims about my position, which you hardly understand. Concerning God, He is eternal. That means that He has always been. He created the laws of nature and time. He exists outside of time. God is God, he simply is. You can say that I believe this based on non-reason. I would counter that I believe this based on faith which is based upon very practical and reasonable evidence. (which I would be glad to share with you. .. if you care) Besides, I have a question for you. How did we get different races if we just kept repopulating? Genetics…After the flood, the different children of Noah spread to different areas. As one group, say with mostly “short” genes interbred to become a short race at the same time other feature became emphasized too creating distinct races. Of course as people merge, and intermarry more today, these “races” have become much less distinct than they were say two hundred years ago. Adapting to your climate and surroundings pertains to Evolution. Besides, it's a waste of my time to try to explain to you that Evolution is a fact, it occurs 100% of the time, Don’t worry,, I’m not as thickheaded as you think, I believe in MICRO-evolution. This is SCIENTIFIC LAW which says that different species can change (e. g. from a wolf to a poodle). This is absolutely Biblical. For example: Genesis 6:20 “Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. ” The Hebrew word for kind in english basically means “species”. So this does not mean that wolves can only reproduce wolves. For example a dog is a specific “kind” distinct from, say, a horse. and there's no getting through to someone who believes in a thousand year old book than in data and observations. I ask the voters to consider whether this is a statement which follows proper conduct? I can show why the Bible is reliable, but to make this sort of claim without any support is unnecessarily rude. The point of this argument is saying that my opponent favors Creationism over Evolution. This is to state how ridiculous it is to believe in a thousand year old book rather than data. So basically you just want to show that I am an Idiot… I joined this debate to give logical and reasonable defense for my faith (and refutation of evolution). I do not appreciate name calling. My opponent has given hardly any data for the reliability of MACRO-evolution, and no evidence that this “1,000 year old book” (actually it is between 2-4 thousand years old) is unreliable.