creationism is unjustifiable

My opponent suggests that interpretation of information does not belong in this debate however the interpenetration of information is technically all that science is. It is the evaluation of information over time in an effort to understand the systems that exist independent of belief. He says that the Bible does not suggest that man is an Ape. Wow, where is that phrase written. I believe I have read it from end to end and no where in the Bible does it say, "Man is not an Ape" oh many have interpreted as such and they may or may not be correct. The point is that in the very act of saying that interpretation is not warranted my opponent interprets things to HIS understanding of what is or is not in the Bible. Science does not suggest MAN = APE rather that we are cousins and came about from an evolutionary process. My opponent misunderstands what the word theory means. Gravity is a theory. Ergo as scientists examine it they do so on a theoretical basis. The same is true about the understanding of Evolution and trait selection, it is a theory to which understanding is constantly being added to by time and discovery. This has no bearing on its truthfulness rather the concept is based on evidence. It goes back to an old argument that I had with a science teacher who told me that there was no backside to the moon. I argued vehemently that there was. The teacher calmly explained that there was most likely a backside to the moon but being that I had never seen it. This does not mean that all theory did not suggest that there was no backside, nor that it did not exist only that to know one would have to have experienced it. Ergo all things are theory until experienced. Something that my opponent should understand when one speaks of something being theory. Back when he spoke of Newtons understanding Versus Einsteins he was on the right track however in science they are both still referred to as theories even if they are 'fact'. It is unfortunate that he would quibble over this rather than move onto the actual content of the discussion. Hence yes at this time, evaluation is our best guess and seems logically in order, until more, or greater understanding of biological process circumvents, encompasses or surpasses it with a greater understanding. What is interesting in the final rebuttal of my opponent is the misunderstanding of the question of Universal Creation. I was not bringing into the equation that God formed the Universe ( nor do I believe he did contrary to what my opponent stated ) Rather it was to bring up certain questions of what is God and what is his understanding of God. He missed the point entirely. Nor did he pick up on the idea that science understands painfully little when it comes to the question of dimensional realities and the immense physical and meta-physical questions the 'Science' of this caliber brings to bear in the idea of Creation or its possible ramifications in understanding the physical world ( concepts like an item being in the same place at the same time ). I also noticed that my opponent disregarded the correlation of creation to what science has shown in theory to be evidence. Imagine a culture of at least 3,000 years ago to have it fairly accurate how the planet was formed, how the world was shaped, how it came about and gave life, first plants and then once the atmosphere changed enough in composition animals, and again finally Man. I have already said that if you were to take the story of Adam and Eve as strict adherence to Man being formed and Woman being taken from a Rib you start to have questions, however in my mind this is an artifact of storytelling and should well be considered a work of hyperbole rather than that of direct beginnings of man. Finally I again say that if you look at the 'Creation' Portion of the Bible it fits perfectly with science when one considers it is but a page in length. Heck try explaining to your kids in one page how the earth was formed and how life began in as many words as the Bible. Now do so without the connivance of the internet and the years of school and reading up on the subject and you have to admit it is a REALLY good explanation even today that fits very closely with what science suggests happened. I suggest that if you simply examine the first chapter of the book of Genesis it is easy to see that the concept of 'Creationism' is not against science nor does it contradict it, rather as I see the body of evidence it appears to me that short of the entire 'Adam and Eve' section which may be where my opponent really wants to argue over evolution existing or not, it fits pretty darn well. I also noticed that my opponent completely dodged the concept that God uses science to create things. For some strange reason people who dismiss Creationism seem to think that those who believe in it simply thing that God waves a magic wand and poof it happens. As I stated above It does not matter to a being of infinite time, if something took an instant or Billions of years to accomplish. Why is it that people who are intent on question Creationism get hung up on the idea that it had to happen immediately? It is as though they fall into the same trap that those who do not accept science and cling instead to dogma do. Just because something takes time does not mean a Creator was not involved. I challenge my opponent this question, where in the Creation does it state HOW God accomplished these things? If it does not state how he did it then why assume it to not be true? Especially when it follows popular scientific belief?