Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

Opponent's Contention 1: The argument from fine tuning. My opponent has not mentioned this argument; I am therefore forced to assume that he has consented it. Opponent's Note 1: Human evolution has not been proven. Once again, my opponent hasn't mentioned this in his post, so I must assume he has consented this. Opponent's Contention 2: The argument from information. Here, my opponent's refute is that DNA contains information and is not information itself. My opponent is both right and wrong on this. DNA does contain information, I won't deny it, nor have I. However, it is also information itself. My opponent makes it sound like:DNA isn't information, with the exception of a couple of "things" within it. However, it is quite the opposite. DNA is information, with the exception of "junk" (non-coding) DNA, which is information that has been "deactivated"[1]. So, it is more accurate to say that DNA is information than DNA contains information, because the fact that DNA contains information is made redundant when the DNA itself is the information. It's like saying:"Steel contains steel". It's pointless and redundant. Therefore, I can safely and logically extend my refute that the argument from information begs the question. (P1: If RNA exists, it is most logically explained by an intelligent creator. C: Therefore, RNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator. ) Illogical. Opponent's Note 2: Darwinian evolution is heavily damaged. I believe my opponent has misunderstood the definition of Darwinian evolution, which I gave last round. The definition is: "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "[2]. I also gave examples of this; I will give them again here. [3][4]My opponent did not address my refute. Instead, he resorted to:"The fact that we have not observed it makes it an unscientific theory. " My opponent either meant:a) Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Orb) New genes being created. By "it". If he meant a, then his whole response was merely a red herring, because he did not address my refute at all. If he meant b, then it is not actually a theory, making the whole sentence redundant. In any case, my opponent's response is refuted. To finish off, I would like to quote my opponent from round one:"If I do commit any logic fallacy as a main premise of any argument, I recant that argument and will reaccept the burden of proof to provide another argument for the I was trying to make if I become aware of my error. " I hope that I have shown my opponent's last two points, the argument from information and the gene creation argument to be invalid; I hope he will therefore refrain from using them again. (I'll assume that he has already done the same for his first contention and his first note, for which I graciously thank him. )Well, I thank my opponent for taking his time to debate this most entertaining and enjoyable topic with me. I also thank the voters, for voting, and the audience (with the voters) for taking their time to read this through. Many thanks - hugs all round! :DUntil next time and with kindest regards,JSource(s):[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...;