Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

I must profess, I do not understand my opponent. He agrees that macro-evolution takes place. He cites additional examples to my own that it occurs. For example, the genetic mutation of Raphanobrassica caused between Raphanus and Brassica life. However, he then goes on to claim that this knowledge is not a posteriori but instead a priori. For those not familiar with the latin phrases: a posteriori knowledge means knowledge gained from experience, and a priori is knowledge gained from reason. Two common examples of these types of knowledge:1) It is a posteriori that a bachelor is happy. I can learn this to be true (or false) only by examining the world.2) It is a priori that a bachlor is male. I can learn this through reason alone: examination of the world is useless here. Does it make sense, therefore, to say that the scientific theory of evolution is a priori? Of course not: it requires examination of the world to test its truth. No amount of introspection of macroevolution will so it to be true or false. Only examining the world, and seeing how natural selection and genetic mutation leads to speciation (which my opponent agrees on) Secondly, my opponent claims that natural selection produces a maladaptive population. Of course, there are no examples of this: natural selection specifically selects for the most adapted to the environment. Indeed, this even is a priori, as it is part of the definition of natural selection: choosing the best. Finally, he claims that the addition of genes/information has never been observed (Muller's morphs however are observed on a regular basis, and constantly are the addition of gene functions and information), Scriptures are par excellence to 'this' (whatever 'this' means!), and a litany of scientific errors. However, I want to focus on one more clear essential point to my opponent's argument regarding evolution: none of what I have said has been refuted.Return to my argument for evolution:Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation = Diversification and Speciation.My opponent has agreed all these take place (an example being: "I do believe in speciation of an organism"). Though he has tried to push the goalposts further back, by asking for a genome speciation - in other words, the entirety of a species' genetic code - not only is this impossible, it is irrelevant. It is impossible because keep in mind the majority of our genes are shared with a banana[1], so an entire change is comical. It is irrelevant because speciation happens much earlier: it is the change of kind so severe that two creatures cannot reproduce with one another and make viable offspring. All my examples (with the exception of the cabbage, as plant reproduction is of course different!) are of species who cannot mate with each other's relations. My case for macro-evolution stands perfectly strong. Even if all my other arguments are fallacious to the extreme, my case here disproves the resolution.On the small matter of GodThe Problem of EvilI do not even know my opponent's objetion here. God creates people evil and unable to not sin; God wants to punish those who sin; therefore, God creates people knowing full well he will punish them for his glory (a synonym of narcissism). This creation of creatures to punish and torture is morally abhorrent. A parent who acted in the same way as The Father does would be locked up and vilified! This is not a God which exists: this is not a God which any true Christian ought honestly put their faith in. Another formulation of a theodicy to rebut my case, or another defence of God could plausibly protect him from my case. However, this formulation must be rejected, and we must agree that my opponent's deity is not a Christian one but instead a moral monster.Problem of TechnologyMy opponent's entire response here is the following: the punishment given to Adam and Eve was for their own sake, that is, for their own survival which is good. This includes the possibility of science and technology based on the reality of the post-fall.If anyone can explain what this means, please put so in the comments, because I cannot understand how to put this into a syllogism or what it rebuts or what it even means. I understand that my opponent's theology supposes that Adam and Eve learnt of evil, and by doing so they were punished by losing the rewards of the Garden of Evil, and this punishment for eternity is supposedly just. However, if the punishment is just, trying to subvert it with technological advancement to make life easy is immoral and wrong, surely? My opponent's case eludes me here, and I see no rebuttal to my problem of technology.The Bible Prophecy My opponent claims that the prophecy was fulfilled, because the term "many nations" refers to many different states. However, as any politics student will tell us, the terms nation and state mean very different things, especially in the past. State of course remains the political term, but nations refers to the different cultural background of a group[2]. To give examples, there is a Palestinian nation even if there is not a state. In the 19th century, there was an Israeli nation if not a state. To see this with relations to other words, think of Jewish Nationalism. Are we to say that Jewish nationalism did not exist until the fifties, for example? It refers to the vast number of people underneath Nebuchadnezzar, as clear by the context of the passage. If it meant many states over a few centuries, the context would have stated as such. Instead, it makes clear Nebuchadnezzar will do the deed. Take the passages following:"And [Nebuchadnezzar] he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers." (Ez. 26:9)"By reason of the abundance of his horses" (26:11)"he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach" (26:11)"[His horses] shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water." (26:12)In short, my opponent is taking the Bible out of context to prove his own agenda. Moreover, keep in mind the passage still has been stated:"I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again" (26:21) My opponent puts this down to "trash talk". That's just a comical cop-out! It's the kid in the playground saying "I would beat you up, but you'd be hurt so bad that I'd be thrown in prison" to the rugby team captain. It essentially means God cannot deliver. Indeed, how much of the Bible are we to take as "trash talk"? Ezekiel's prophecy? All of the prophecies? The entire book? Why not the entire Bible? It's not that large of a step, really, once we decide God is the kid in the playground making idle threats. After all, why not put "many nations" down to trash talking as well? And keep in mind that this is the God who commits genocide on his people's enemies, murders kings arbitrarily if they deviate from his whim, and more. MiraclesKeep this in mind with the above: my opponent has stated the Bible is inerrant. However, we see many times where we have to go throug some amazing gymnastics to retain even consistency, yet alone truth. Yet my opponent gets "truth" fromt he Bible, by assuming it is infallible. This is just bad form at this point: miracles are, as I've stated, impossible. My opponent, instead of engaging in reasoned debate, is presupposing his book's authority and proclaiming it on high. This is not debate: this is presupposing infallibility, which is rebutted by the fact that impossible events occur in the Bible. This point remains unrebutted.With all this in mind, I can close the debate. My opponent has not responded to my objections sufficiently to the Bible's objectivity, and has provided none to defend it. My opponent has dropped his arguments to prove his deity in the final round, while mine, I believe, are still strong. And finally, my argument for macroevolution stands perfectly strong. With this in mind, I urge a vote against creationism, and against the resolution. Vote CON.1 - http://genecuisine.blogspot.co.uk...2 - Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies; Andrew Heywood, Politics; Barbara Goodwin, Using Political Ideas; etc. for a very small list of examples