Creation (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Con said: My opponent's entire argument for creationism basically hinges on the Scriptures. Reply: Of course it does. How is that a demerit? You’d have to disprove scripture for that to be an objection. You provided no evidence against the scripture in your entire debate. Not a single verse was questioned, not a single source was provided against it. All my arguments remained directly unchallenged. Con said: However, he has not presented a single piece of scientific or conclusive evidence to support his position. The majority of his argument focused on trying to explain away evolution instead of describingand defending his own position. Reply: Actually, I provided several. Here they are again: Animals bring forth after their kind. Aprediction based on the Genesis account. (Observed, tested and proved). Farmers, dog breeders, pharmaceutical companies, etc. count on this fact of nature. All things wear out and break down. Nothing increases in complexity. All things tend toward entropy in a closed system. (Observed, tested and proved.) No single organism creates additional information. Even bacteria. A resistance to drugs is based on a loss of proteins, not a gain. Bacteria use lateral gene transfer to build resistance to drugs. This is done through the exchange of existing DNA. No new DNA is created. If this perpetuated, you would eventually homogenize the gene pool. If an island of white people and an island of black people were joined by a land bridge, the gene pool would homogenize into a uniformed mixed bloodline. No new DNA is created. The unique “white gene” and the “unique black gene” are lost. This is a decrease in complexity. [1] Con said: creationism also struggles to account for the expansion of the universe, vestigial structures, and the fact that there are no modern-day species found in the lower layers of the Earth's strata. Reply: Not even close to being true. Consider: New studies indicate the universe is not slowingdown in expansion, it’s speeding up. This completely destroys the Big Bangparadigm of “expand and contract”. [2] I asked for a list of vestiges. Con still onlyprovided the appendix, which is not vestigial. It’s a safe haven for “beneficialbacteria”. That’s where they hibernate during hostile conditions in thedigestive tract. We’ve known this since 2005. That’s not evidence for evolution, that’sevidence for a young earth. How could you expect complex organisms to sink intodeep strata within a few thousand years? Nota problem for the creationist. Con said: there is no reason to believe that God would have created the universe to be in a constant rate of expansion. Reply: See above reply. It’s not constant and it heavily favors anything but the big bang. [4] Con said: there are multiple vestigial structures in the human body. The primary one, however, is the appendix. It has little or no apparent function, even after hundreds of years of being studied. Reply: See above answer. There are so many “supposed” vestiges. Why dwell on the appendix? It’sbeen proved to have a function. You should have gone with wisdom teeth or the tail bone. (Which are just as easy to debunk.) Con said: If creationism was true, there would be more complex life found in the lowest strata of the Earth. Reply: No, if creationism is true, there would be no complex life in lower strata. Not enough time has passed. This argument helps my case; it doesn’t hurt it in the least. Con said: My opponent also claims that the Bible gives a description of how and why different species do not interbreed.However, he provided no source for this and I could not find it explicitly stated in the Scripture. Reply: Actually, you didn’t read my argument. The Bible uses the word “kinds”. The word speciescame 3,200 years after the Hebrew text was written. I also provided a scripturein Genesis which explicitly states that animals bring forth after their kind. Ignoring the sources won’t make them go away.If you accept a debate with a creationist, be prepared to debate the Bible.That’s what you agreed to do. You agreed to debate a Biblical creation. You have not provided a single shred ofevidence against the scriptures. This is why I prefer 5 round debates. I would love to dive into scripture anddefend it. You never even provided the challenge. Also, why would I providea source for something that you’re supposed to know as an evolutionist? Themule, the liger, the zebroids, the Dzo…all are infertile hybrids. If the genepool drifts too far, it is destroyed. That’s why a chimpanzee and a humancannot create offspring, yet somehow; we’re the same “species”. We’re definitelynot the same kind. Con said: if there is a constant reduction in the complexity of organisms, then why do bacteria develop a resistance to drugs? Certainly this is an obvious example of an increase in complexity. Reply: I addressed this in the beginning of my closing arguments. Con said: The progression of complexity in genes occurs over such a long amountof time that it is virtually impossible for us to see the changes in action.There is no possible way that we could observe the advancement of species fromone organism to the next in the form of speciation. Reply: No, the change does not occur over time, it occurs over generations. We haveseveral insect species that produce several thousand generations within asingle year. We should be able to witness evolution. We don’t. The same genepool persists, even after hundreds of generations. Yet humans somehow evolvedfrom cavemen to modern man in…. 6,000 generations (30,000 years)? Also, whyhave we stopped evolving for the last 10,000 years? Closing statement: My opponent was tasked with attacking creationism. Instead,he build a defensive case for evolution. Con has failed his burden of proof todebunk creationism. I have broken down every single argument from my opponent.Con never even attempted to recover his string theory or the big bang. He neveraddressed my list of limiting factors, he failed to provide a list of vestigialbody parts and his only objection of creation was that it came from the Bible. Con has failed to debunk creation. Con has failed to defend evolution. During my 3rd round I provided 17 external sources and 3 internal sources. Not one argument was challenged. Not one! No matter how you feel about this topic, Con has failed his objective. Vote Pro. http://www.icr.org... [1] http://realdoctorstu.com... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [4]