God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

Thank you for taking me up on this debate. I would like to start this round off by saying that the lack of support by scientific facts, physical, or fossil evidence, does show that the theory is not well supported. That being said, why is it being taught in public schools? Though my opponent is not obligated to answer, since it is not relevant to today's debate, I would like to hear what he thinks about this. My first point was the lack of transitional fossils, and how it pokes a huge hole in the theory. Back when Charles Darwin had created this theory, many doubted it due to the lack of fossil evidence. Though that was a long time ago, we still have yet to find these fossils, since there should be countless millions. An argument that I have heard before to as an answer to this, is that they are buried deep beneath the Earth, and that we have only dug up about .001 percent of the Earth. We should not have to look too far down, as we have found thousands of extinct creatures in this .001 percent. We should have found many transitional fossils by now, and yet we have not. Next, I would like to go over genetics, and how it does not help prove the theory. The complexity of the genetic code is fascinating, and for this to just come about is mathematically impossible. It is said that the mathematical probability of evolution is equivalent to a thousand monkeys given a typewriter, and each typing Shakespeare without a flaw- Impossible. Genes alone also do not prove evolution, as the passing down of traits is JUST the passing down of traits! It does not mean that over time, that trait will be passed down far enough for a monkey to become a human, as some atheists would say (Or fish, amebas- I have heard many different theories and those who believe the theory cannot settle on one common ancestor). Next, I would like to go over the lack of explanation to the big bang theory. Scientist still do not know what was before the big bang. There are theories, the question still remains, as I had stated in my opening statement, what came before that? This, once again, pokes a huge hole in the theory. Also, though on the outside, the big bang theory may seem possible, but once again, the probability is low. If the big bang were to have happened, how did the planets become so spherical? Every planet, star, comet, ext, has a common theme: They are all circular! I do not remember ever hearing about a square planet, star, comet ext, but invite my opponent to tell me about strangely shaped space objects. Lastly, though I did not say that I would go over this in my opening statement, I would like to talk about the Earth's age and how it disproves evolution. Evolution is a theory based off of time, some billions and billions of years. Yet if the Earth were to be proven young, the theory would have no longer have time to justify why it is not happening now. Many facts about human history and discoveries, geology, the magnetic fields and about a HUNDRED more facts that disprove the Earth's current estimated age, say that the Earth may only be tens of thousands of years old. A fact that dates the moon at a younger age than previously expected is moon dust. Before we landed on the moon, we expected it to be a giant dust ball. This is because of the amount of dust that comes down to the Earth. When we landed, it turns out that there were only a few inches of dust, indicating a young moon. This is because if it was older, the amount of dust that would be falling off of the moon per year would basically make the moon a whole lot smaller than it is. Though this is the moon, and not Earth, we would probably know if the moon was younger than the Earth. These facts alone disprove the theory, and there are also many other flaws that can be pointed out in the theory. Charles Darwin knew them, and so did everyone he presented this theory to.