Evolution is an unjustified axiom of faith

OVERVIEW: What is going on in the "debate"? In the "debate" by partner has surpassed the standard of forgiveness to benefit himself. WallstreetAthiest forfeited round 2 without any follow up whatsoever. I graciously contacted him asking him if he would like to continue the debate. He said that he was recovering from surgery and wanted to wait a few days. He shouldn't have accepted the debate if he was going to get surgery in a week, but I allowed him to post in the following round. WallstreetAthiest completely misrepresented the situation by suggesting the round 3 "forfeit" was an accident or a conduct issue on my part. I had contacted him DURING the time I was allowed to post so he knew I was online and ready to go but was unable to post anything new. All it does is put more attention to the fact that I couldn't post anything new because my opponent had previously forfeited. The round 4 forfeit was a complete accident because I simply ran out of time while posting it. I didn't use any extra time or space, but continued to post it in the comments knowing coincidentally that it was nearing the end of the debate. I asked for the comments to be substituted and WallstreetAthiest denied my request EVEN THOUGH I HAD JUST HELPED HIM OUT WITH THE SAME FAVOR. This is why I added an extra round-in case an incident like this comes up. This is every reason to deny my opponent of the conduct points. I really didn't want to turn this into a debate "debate" but my opponent showed poor conduct by not allowing the science of the debate to continue. … Now it is only fair for the audience to forgive me on the previous round just as the audience and I forgave WallStreeAthiest on the second round, so I will refer you to my arguments posted for round four in the comments. If you aren't comfortable with referencing my fair arguments in the comments, then dismiss one of my opponent's speeches as well to keep the debate fair. Evolution My opponent has also gone to great lengths in the debate by not representing valid evidence for evolution. Whether you believe in evolution or not-my opponent has maintained very weak support. My opponent has correctly established the Evolutionary Theory as widely accepted (not universally), but has continually missed the argument I have made throughout the WHOLE debate that the underlying assumption that the "masses" make are unjustifiable. I have said this in EVERY round: If my opponent cannot justifiably establish the long-term naturalistic assumption, then Evolution quickly falls away from any justifiable conclusion. Historical science is predicated on the assumption that the natural order has always been and that there is no need to question the God-like natural order. Without this assumption justified, in all seriousness, Evolution cannot be justified axiom-but only one of faith (on the God-like natural order that is, thus Evolution). However, the evidence still directs us away from a God-like natural order and more towards a God that created uncomprehendably complex and distinct species. Increasing diversity and (complexity?) Every single one of my opponent's examples (except for one) can only justify micro-evolution (adaptation, natural selection, inversion, recombination, viral substitution, and hybridization.) This, however, DOES NOT justify macro evolution because macro evolution requires transition from less complexity to ones of more complexity (not just fitness changes). Many fitness transitions have been observed to occur without NEW DNA because micro-evolution process can only shift DNA around. The DNA spawning all on its own is a completely different story. Again, these are just reiterations of what has been previously stated. For arguments to specific examples, please refer to the fair-game speech in the comments. There is an example my opponent brought up in the debate that could justify macro-evolution, but doesn't. I will further discuss this. He gives an example of an eye, however: •Seas Squirts •Lampreys •Types of Flies •Some Beetles Have all lost their sight under human observation (there are many other examples) and yet there are no examples of any species ever gaining complexity under human observation. [9] In a few generations, a species can lose hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary progression, yet we still believe that the good mutations spawn more than the degenerative ones. [10] "Eyes most likely evolved from simple to complex through a gradual series of tiny steps."-WallStreetAthiest Of course this is true if both your presupposition and theory is justified, but it isn't, in fact we have seen that it is going in the wrong direction. My opponent must give AT LEAST ONE example of more complex transition-that is yet to be reconciled a single bit. It absolutely makes no sense to make these statements without even an example. I have given several that counter (go in the opposite direction of) evolution in the debate. CONCLUSION My opponent has set a double standard in the debate that is excessively hard to complete with considering my arguments do not correspond with the primary axiom and I am newer to debate. So I had to bring up the fact that I allowed my opponent to continue his arguments after his forfeit, when I made the same mistake he denied my request, and then even so far as to misrepresent my first forfeit even though I clearly couldn't make any new arguments because he forfeited. Quite possibly my opponent felt pressured after reading my rebuttal, but now he has more to worry about because his arguments are still weak. All but one of his arguments supports micro-evolution as supposed to macro-evolution because they fall under inversion, recombination, hybridization, or viral substitution which does not allow a species genetically to transition from a less complex species to a more complex one. It only randomly SHIFTS the previously assumed DNA around to allow fitness My opponent has yet to give an example of a species that has transitioned into a more complex one under observation. I'm not talking about micro evolutionary processes, or theories on how the eye has evolved assuming evolution is true to intelligently make improvements to the eye! What only matters to your justification is the transition between a single species to one that is slightly more complex. It shouldn't be that hard at all for WallStreetAthiest to do because evolution is "firmly documented". Don't let my opponent get away without responding to this argument that has been made throughout the debate. Even if my opponent gives a slightly accepted answer to this, he still cannot JUSTIFY evolution's presupposition on LONG-TERM NATURALISM. Indeed this has been a hindrance for my opponent all along and he has yet to establish one. He has faith in something that inherently requires the supernatural because without the supernatural-why is there a beginning to the 20 constants that are precisely tuned to allow life to exist? The Second Law of Thermodynamics not only gives us insight that there is a beginning (as do many others), but also makes sense when we look at evolution in context. Evolution has no tangible support for it and as my evolutionist physics professor stated, "Everything in the Universe follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics except living organism." Oh ok, I will believe it when I have the proper evidence and interpretation for that evidence. 9. Stanley Caveney, 1986; The phylogenetic significance of ommatidium structure in the compound eyes of polyphagan beetles 10. Dr. Patterson, 2011; Evolution Exposed: Biology