Evolution

Rebuttal 1: Pro argued: "The evolutionist rebuttal still stands. Theories of biogenesis are theories of biogenesis. The theory of evolution is a theory of evolution. They are two different concepts entirely. Also, even if biogenesis was an important part of evolution, it's ok to not know the answer yet. There is no more evidence for intelligent design than there is for abiogenesis." My opponent has evidently failed to understand the following: 1. If something points to a creator, it points away from evolution. 2. If something points away from evolution, it points to a creator. Biogenesis, by stating that life can only come from other life, points to a creator. By pointing to a creator, Biogenesis points away from evolution. "There is no more evidence for intelligent design then there is for abiogenesis." Pro basically concedes because of this statement unless he refutes what he failed to understand in round 1. Rebuttal 2: Pro argued: "The silver fox experiment (and other artificial selection processes) presents a good artificial example of natural processes. Yes, evolution is generally slow. However, there are examples of evolution that we have witnessed naturally in the wild. Examples are the peppered moth, cane toads, Darwin's finches, and Italian wall lizards." Let us define the word "artificial:" : not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural : not happening or existing naturally : created or caused by people : not sincere[1] By calling the silver fox experiment "artificial," you negate the first half of your second response. Because evolution is generally slow, it should not happen fast enough, even in the wild. Plus, the "evolution" witnessed there could be merely a stronger will than that of others to survive mixing with the animals' psychology and/or brain chemistry so the brain would command all the DNA to simply evolve much sooner. This would, therefore, not be intentional evolution, which would disqualify it from counting as evolution. "Neither of your premises are related to the theory of evolution." Yes they are. Such a statement is analogous to saying that a single letter in a cryptogram is not related to the rest of the cryptogram. It is not the whole cryptogram, but it still helps solve the cryptogram. New Argument #1: The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution. The fossils do not show any change at all in each species. They show near-perfect matches, indicating that they did not evolve at all.[2] New Argument #2: No Vestigial Organs. Vestigial: 2.(of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake[3] Using new technology, researchers have actually found organs that were once believed to be useless and disposable were seen at hard work. Tonsils, spleens (in mice,) and yes, even kidneys[4][5]. Such structures have also been proven to serve a variety of purposes, such as fighting infection and making it possible to sit comfortably [6]. This points away from evolution by pointing to a creator, which debunks my opponent's statement: "there is no more evidence for intelligent design than there is for abiogenesis." Sources: [1]-http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]-http://m.youtube.com... ^ I would like to be able to display the actual video in my argument, but I am using an iPad and it will not display the video. [3]-http://dictionary.reference.com... [4]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [5]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [6]-http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...