Evolution is true and the Big Bang occured.

"No, not all scientists agree. You should not assume that all scientists agree on one subject." I apologize to my opponent for the misconception. I retract the statement that all scientists agree on the evolutionary theory and submit in its place "The scientific community at large finds that evolutionary theory and the theory of the big bang to be validated by enormous amounts of evidence" "No, I am not going to "sit here and attempt to refute everything." I am GOING to refute. Also, I do not assume the Bible is true, I know it is." I find it excellent that you have such confidence. But as this is your last post, I doubt you will be able to live up to that goal. "Not really. Also, the same thing for the Big Bang. Here is proof. Okay, so evolution occurs through natural selection which occurs through mutations, am I correct? Well, the bacterial genome is what scientist believe everything evolved from. Correct? Well, the human genome contains much more information than a bacterial genome and through mutations, information is LOST! Not gained. So, how do you explain human genomes containing much much more information? That is just one fact that goes against evolution." Interesting concept, but one that I have seen many times before, and explained away with ease. It is a common misconception that information is lost and not gained through mutations. This is because many laypersons or middle-school level biology students don't cover much about genetics. However, information can both be gained and lost. The mechanism for mutation is highly tied in with protein synthesis. If you have a few months to spare, I suggest you read up on DNA synthesis, transcription, translation, introns, exons, the genome, and the proteome. In many university and AP level biology classes, these chapters are always stuck together. Understanding the mechanisms will allow you to overcome this misconception that mutations always ivolve less information. However, if you want a more succinct answer (as you have expressed irritation at me before about this matter) I will answer this: bacteria can trade genetic information that develops via mutation, allowing them to be protected against certain toxic compounds. This is how bacteria resistance to medications develops. Information is being added, not just lost. Therefore, your argument is totally and completely defeated. "Okay, so you have the certain proteins and chemicals that combined to form DNA right? So, who decides if the chemicals and proteins work together? We have a code that shows us how DNA is composed. But, who created the code? It's like somebody having the word BAT as a combination of letters. To people who speak the English languages, it's a word, but to people of other tongues, it is just a combination of letters that is useless. How did this combination work? Did it just decide that Adenine and Thymine pair up while Cytosine and Guanine work together? It is a useless code unless created." Very interesting question and I am very pleased to answer it for you. First of all, you must grasp this simple philosophical concept. Why is it necessary for there to be someone to decide it? Being a theist, your mind would skip that logical step because you believe in God. I however, have no bias, so I can ask as many questions as I wish. Your question is actually invalid. Rules of the universe are not rules of a manmade game, so why expect a creator? To do so is called "begging the question", a logical fallacy. I have no doubt that you will accuse me of not answering your question directly, as you probably do not understand the logic behind what I am saying, so I will simply say this: Not everything occurs because someone wanted it that way. The laws of physics are not passed in congress. They are just observations of what happens. If you can say "nothing came before God, God just is", I can say "Nothing came before the laws of nature, they just are". I will now answer your question about base pairing. Most laymen and elementary-school students who have no background in genetics would have trouble understanding why these base pairs are so specific. The reason is simple chemistry/physics. Adenine and Guanine are purines, which are longer than pyrimidines (Thymine and Cytosine). In a DNA chain, it would look weird to have long bind to long and short bind to short, DNA would not be able to exist that way. So naturally, short binds to long and long binds to short. That's why the base pairs are what they are. "I do understand the two subjects. It seems as though you have not done enough in-depth research to recognize the flaws of the two theories." It may very well be the case that I do not understand them very well, as I am continuously searching and questioning. However, I will make the bold statement that I know quite a bit more about the topics than you do simply because I have chosen to accept Biology and Chemistry as my bread and butter for the rest of my life. "I hope that others can see from just these two points I have made that evolution and life just arising from pretty much nothing is just not realistic nor logical." I also hope that others can see that your two points are not realistic nor logical. I have responded to your arguments and debunked them, but yet you don't seem to have a response to that. I hope you will address them if you choose to debate me again. "Also, not all scientists agree on the two theories and many are unable to answer or explain the two statements I have made." I disagree. The concepts are relatively simple and I learned them in high-school. Those who know the subject well enough to answer it don't need to, because to them, the question is ridiculous. But I find it pleasing to enlighten others. "Can you?" Oh, but I just did. "Evolution may not be so well proved and understood now is it?" Actually, it very much is. And I hope that you understand it better now as well. I sense that you assumed I would not be able to answer your question as this has a tone of arrogance in it. Again, I remind you that you should not anticipate an opponent's response with too much certainty. "We were not actually back when dinosaurs became extinct to say we know what happened. We can not make guesses about life from long ago and assume that it is correct." You had a great, great grandmother, did you not? And you obviously weren't around to know her. How can you prove that your great-great grandmother was a human and not a very large penguin? Of course your great great grandmother was a human, and a very nice lady, I'll bet. The moral here is that logic and science can determine the events of the past with evidence from the present. Observed phenomena are explained with a hypothesis, tested, tested again, tested by other scientists, tested by even more scientists, then declared a theory or tossed aside as rubbish. Otherwise, I would be free to say that your great great grandmother was a large penguin. *********************** I have cited quite a bit of data in this debate and my position hinges heavily on the extensive research my colleagues have done in the field of evolution and the theory of the big bang. I hope the voters understand that due to the vast amount of evidence, I am unable to give that and stay within my 8000 characters. However, I must emphasize that none of my opponent's attempts to disprove either theory had any strength whatsoever and I have responded in detail to every single one.