Creation(Pro) vs. Evolution(Con)

Okay then.... Not the response I was expecting. Let's not forget, I approached the first argument very nicely, and he wants to go and diss me, that's fine but he's the one who was born in 1961 and still single. Not to mention his horrible taste in music, he graduated highschool in 1980 and college in 1993, 13 years! That explains the 25k income. Did I mention he's single. I don't what I did wrong but apparently he doesn't like me, oh well. He says "Evolution is proven fact. Evolution is science." Evolution IS NOT a fact and definitely the furthest from science. Evolution's frame is based off of spontaneous generation which was only proven wrong 129 years ago. Evolution is a dying theory that's only supported on tax dollars. He says, "... he doesn't know what science is." I know science proves DNA has no mind of its own, science also proves that one species cannot change to another, the same science proves that there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code. NONE. So, that basically contradicts evolution because it is impossible for a fish to become a mammal without adding new genetic code. The law of biogenesis proves life cannot come from non-life. But evolution says ALL life sprung from non-life, so if you can, answer- How did the world begin? Do you believe in spontaneous generation? You believe WE came from a rock billions of years ago, don't even TALK about science. So if a living organism can't produce new information how can one gradually change? IT CAN'T, SIMPLE. You mention superbugs how they're becoming more resistant to antibiotics. You said, "...100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now." and you also said, "Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day.." Evolution is known to be a gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form, you just said they are evolving every second, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, that's not evolution. What you given was an example of natural selection, you cannot argue that the "super" gene was already present, they just passed the gene on until almost all of the population had it, that's not evolution that's a population change. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that "imported" from other bacteria). Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, "uphill" change. -http://genetics.thetech.org... "Supergerms" give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years. Back to science, the Bible is actually scientific too. If you care to read the Bible you should know: - Isaiah 40:22 - Job 26:7 At the time EVERYBODY thought the earth was flat, but the bible accurately says it is a sphere and hangs on nothing. It also talks about hygiene when surrounding nations knew nothing about those matters. What do you expect from a book of God? I don't have to "prove" the existence of God, because it's common sense, if you have a wife you don't have to prove her existence to someone else cause she's there and she's real, same with God you don't have to prove the existence of your loved ones. If you walked into a forest and saw a beautiful painting on a tree with no footprints nearby, no house would you predict a creator, a painter created the painting or it happened accidentally? It's simple. a watch proves a watchmaker, a car proves a car manufacturer, everything has to be created, (I already know what you're gonna ask.) We were created whether you like it or not. I'll say more in the next argument, but for now.....