Evolution is not well supported

My opponent wants to ignore the topic of the debate, and debate a phrase instead, and then if he is successful in winning the debate of the phrase, he believes he wins the debate about evolution.I will just affirm my opponent is talking utter nonsense"Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection."http://evolution.berkeley.edu...Out of respect for the audience I refuse to be led down this path my opponent would like. I am going to focus on the topic of the debate: Evolution is not well enough supported to warrant the certainty and the stigma.I will deal with my opponents "proof", for evolution, which according to him substantiates stigmatizing skeptics, then I will introduce new information and arguments to solidify my case.First though, I must address:"there is no other scientific theory that explains how humans came about other than evolution. Creationism for example has no scientific foundation or scientific facts supporting it, in fact Creationism (Intelligent Design) is not even a scientific theory."Breakdown of my opponents reasoning:1: Im an atheist2: Nothing exists outside of science3: Science is the ultimate eternal truth4: The only way therefore to describe complex life, is through pigeon steps over billions of years5: Evolution must be trueI refer to you Will Provine, American historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics;"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."This isn't scientific, its dogma. Its fundamentalism. My opponents reasoning is inherently bigoted. Needless to say he cannot show step 1 to be true.My opening speech was clearly appropriate.Cons first relevent argument is:"its illogical as the evidence supporting evolution is enormous.(2) "And he cites TalkOrigins as a source."Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins from a mainstream scientific perspective".http://www.talkorigins.org...Nobody doubts what the mainstream scientific perspective is. This debate concerns whether that perspective is certain enough to teach as fact and stigmatise those who don't accept it. This source offers nothing we don't already know. It assumes evolution must be correct because science is naturalism and naturalism excludes supernaturalism, and there is no other way to naturalistically explain complex life."[we take the side of science] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism." - Lewontin.Cons second argument is.......three pictures of different creatures which lived millions of years apart, with nostrils in different positions.This is not evidence.The following is a mirror of my opponents argument:"I believe a unicycle must have developed into a car.My evidence for this, is a unicycle has one wheel, and a car has 4. Clearly the unicycle turned into a bike, then maybe a motorbike, then a 3 wheeled car, and finnally the family hatchback"This reasoning can only be founded on the assumption that no creator of transportation could possibily exist. Then you must believe a unicycle evolved into a car, there is no other explanation. Proof Arial washing liquid comes from Fairy (it must, because there is no such thing as a factory)This isn't science, its dogma. My opponent hasn't provided any reason at all to justify excluding a creator.Even if my opponent argues that science necessarily has to exclude a creator, it still doesn't justify why we should teach children the necessarily biased conclusions of science as absolutely true, and ridicule anyone daring to question them.The evidence for human development is exactly the same. Its conclusions are only relevent IF the premise is true that there cannot be a creator.It is important to note, if there were a creator, he could have made creatures to evolve and had it all planned out deterministically. The theist doesn't need to refute evolution but for the atheist, evolution must be true.For this reason, theists are more open to the evidence than atheists.My opponent then......goes about completely misrepresenting my argument" my opponent says then that humans cannot develop from apes, as the genes differ between apes and humans"No, I argued that for a lesser complex creature to develop into a complex one, more genes are needed. But the mechanisms by which our genome can acquire new information is completely insufficiant ."Then my opponent talks about he fact that the chance of evolution happen is impossible as it is too improbable."No, I have never talked in terms of certainty. I don't need to show that evolution is impossible, stop trying to build a straw-man.I merely have to show that evolution is not substantiated enough to warrant the compulsory indoctrination and ridicule.He says in response to the information from Barrow and Tipler"This line of reasoning is illogical, as it dismisses the fact that small genetic changes can cause a large phenotypic change.(7) "The source he lists, if you check it, does not mention Barrow and Tipler dismissing any facts at all. Con is just claiming it does and then giving an arbitrary definition. This is not an argument.He says " Additionally, maybe my opponent would like to explain how this is improbable when the mutation rate in a single chimpanzee diploid genome can be around 175 mutation per generation.(9) "Red Herring. This is only mutation, only lateral, only natural variation. Mutations aren't NEW genes, and NEW genes are needed for a fish to evolve into a human. This is the entire concept of evolution. We know that natural variation exists, it is reasonable, but natural variation is completely different from evolution. It is not as though evolution is an extrapolation of natural variation, variation occurs with mutation, existing switches turn on or off. Evolution requires new switches.With all of my original arguments intact and having refuted my opponents evidences for evolution, I have space to offer one more:The Cambrian Explosion:Suddenly, about 538 million years ago, there was an explosion of life known as the Cambrian explosion. During this very short amount of time. This explosion "define[d] the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong."http://biologos.org...How do evolutionists explain the sudden arrival of all the major branches of the tree of life appearing all at once in their complete form? In short, they cannot. It is completely at odds with the concept that things evolve over billions of years."The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life."Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf , p. 9.A paper published in the peer reviewed journal; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington DC, in 2004 concluded that intelligent design was the "best explanation", for the Cambrian explosion.Ofcourse, there was uproar from the congregation, known as the "Sternberg peer review controversy", with accusations claiming that proper editorial procedues had not been followed and the paper had not been peer reviewed properly.The editor of Proceedings.. was forced to resign but continues to maintain the paper was properly peer reviewed by three biologists who "concluded that [the paper] warranted publication".http://en.wikipedia.org...The scientific gatekeepers will reject any evidence against evolution. "Evolution must be true, because God isn't true"I look forward to round 4..