Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!Burden of ProofMy opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. In order to win the debate, he must provide justification for thinking that his assertion "Evolution has been proved false by scientific facts" is true. If my opponent is unable to provide such justification, then it can be reasonably concluded that the debate resolution is not true.Rebuttal"Micro-Evolution Small changes in an organism to better adapt it to its environment. Not through additive genetic mutation, but directed by natural selection."If there is no genetic mutation, then where do these "small changes" come from?"Due to many dating methods, and limitations we positively know that the earth is less than 10,000 years."This is absurd. Moreover, my opponent has failed to provide any sort of support (academic or otherwise) for thinking that this claim is anything but silly. The age of the Earth is uncontroversial among those who study it. Current estimates set the age of the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old. I have yet to see a single academic paper suggest that the Earth is anything close to only 10,000 years old. Below, I will provide 10 sources which support my claim that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. I expect my opponent to provide comparable sources (academic sources, not sources from biased creationist websites) to support his claim that "we positively know that the Earth is less than 10,000 years". http://isites.harvard.edu...http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...http://adsabs.harvard.edu...http://earth.geology.yale.edu...https://www.princeton.edu...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://abyss.uoregon.edu...http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu..."the moon and its tidal pull and its orbit getting further and further away in time, the electromagnetic field getting weaker over time which means every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago."Another unwarranted assertion. What's your reasoning for thinking that "every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago"?"Dating methods that give less than 1 million years radiocarbon-14 dating of supposed billion and million years rock (yes, you aren't supposed to be able to carbon date it, but the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old)"Again, unwarranted assertion. I'm not sure what to say other than that's completely false. What reasoning do you have for thinking that "the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old"?"Evolution requires additive mutations which have never been observed in nature despite the time and effort that has been applied to find them"This can't possibly be serious. Does my opponent really believe that mutations have never been observed? How about progeria? Hypertrichosis? Ectrodactyly? If these aren't mutations, then what are they? Below is a list of 5 sources from academic journals supporting the idea that mutations have, in fact, been observed:http://www.nature.com...http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...http://www.sciencedirect.com...http://www.nature.com...http://www.sciencemag.org..."The minimum number of mutations to turn one protein into its closest match is more than 7 and can be as many as 80 to the furthest protein away"False (and, might I add, yet another unwarranted assertion.) A single nucleotide deletion is an example of one mutation which can "interfere with the workings of the cell"."Genes that could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree of ancestors for organisms have been found across different species."(1) What's your reasoning for thinking that these genes "could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree"? (2) Have you considered convergent evolution? It's entirely possible that species can evolve similar traits independently. A common example is flight: Birds and bats both have the capability of flight, but this capability has evolved independently. "The likelihood of evolution happening mathematically is 1021 power"This is false and the "source" you provide ought to be completely disregarded as it is a biased, creationist source. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide unbiased, academic sources. Furthermore, even if you were correct, evolution would still remain the most likely explanation until a more probable explanation (which you've failed to propose) is found.SummaryMy opponent's opening argument consisted entirely of unwarranted assertions without the slightest hint of academic support. Until my opponent is able to justify these assertions, we have no reason to think his assertion that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts" is true. Thus far, my opponent has failed to shoulder the burden of proof that he is responsible for. As such, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that the debate resolution is not true.Thank you.SourcesI'd like to note the bias in my opponent's sources. Rather than use academic sources, my opponent has chosen to use all of his sources from biased creationist websites. This should be taken into account when considering the reliability of sources used throughout the debate.Here is a compilation of the sources I have used in my opening argument:http://isites.harvard.edu...http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...http://adsabs.harvard.edu...http://earth.geology.yale.edu...https://www.princeton.edu...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://abyss.uoregon.edu...http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...http://www.nature.com...http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...http://www.sciencedirect.com...http://www.nature.com...http://www.sciencemag.org...