Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

I am happy and glad that my opponent has accepted my debate. I granted my opponent's wish. We are now to deviate from the debate topic and below are my arguments about the holy Bible and theism.On the Infallibility of the ScripturesThe Christian Scriptures are infallible because they contain no errors or contradictions. I challenge my opponent to give one explicit contradiction in the said book.Premise 1: The Bible says it.Premise 2: Evidence proves it.Conclusion: what the Bible says is true because it's verified by evidence.On the Interpretation of the ScripturesThe Christian Scriptures per se records that many will false teachers of the Bible will come and this is the reason why although there are many interpretations there is always one true interpretation that exists. As to how to know if someone's interpretation is the right one, we should consider the following:1) context of the text2) cultural and historical backround of the text3) intended meaning of the writer4) meaning which is not contradictory to other textsHumans are rational beings. God himself said "Come, Let us reason together" ( Isaiah 1:18) and the context of this utterance of God is about salvation of his people from their sins which are compared to obejcts and hues via figure of speech, simile: "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool." On the existence of GodGod means "the creator of all things, worthy of worship". The Christian God is One and this is the only one true God.This single deity exists as three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.I will only give evidence for the existence of God because this is the request of my opponent.Premise 1: All natural things known on earth has its originPremise 2: All that has an origin has a creator (whether it's a person or not)Conclusion: There's a creator who caused all natural things into existence.If my opponent cannot give an alternative explanation of the origin of life then theism has its veracity confirmed because my opponent cannot say " we'll know it soon as science progress" or the like. In fact, science cannot prove that God doesn't exists because science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.I challenge my opponent to present an irrefutable proof for atheism and against theism.Thank You!