There is no scientific evidence to support evolution

My opponent has not deigned to respond this round unfortunately; I was looking forward to what sort of rebutals could actually be formulated against the explanation of common ancestry I gave.Now, whilst I could easily use this turn in order to continue illustrating the thousands of predictions and evidential confirmations of common ancestry, I believe I have already presented more than enough evidence to convince any reader of this debate. I hope LittleBallofHATE comes back into this debate, as I am genuinely curious how a (presumed) creationist can justify away the predictions of common ancestry.A preemptive rebuttal that I comment on is the common "Common ancestry could have done it, but God could have done it too. Both scenarios are consistent with the evidence, so you can't claim common ancestory as having evidence but not creation!"Whether or not thi is actually my opponents position, I do not know, but if it is, or indeed of any reader may have encountered this response before, it falls apart once you realise the difference between being confirmed by the evidence, and being consistent with the evidence.Every unfalsifiable theory ever postulated has the vice of being consistent with any evidence. With creationism, God could have made it appear that organisms have common ancestors if he wanted to, but he also could have made it seem like they don't. With gravity, the replacement "angels are just pushing mass around to trick us" hypothesis is consistent with mass being proportional to gravitational field - but it would be just as consistent if this were not the case. Or to be even more absurd, consider if I claim I am a martian communicating with Mars via an antenna in my head. Even if you surgically inspected my head and found only brain, I can make my hypothesis unfalsifiable by claiming that the circuitry is organic and indistinguishable from my brain. Thus, finding no mechanical antenna and only human brain in my skull is consistent with me being a martian from Mars. But would we actually take the lack of finding a mechanical antenna to be evidence towards me being a martian? I doubt it.You see, the problem is that consistency means absolutely nothing when you are talking about unfalsifiable theories. We have to go beyond it, and get to confirmation. Evidence is confirmatory if is 1) true, 2) risky and 3) surprising. 1) should be obvious, but what I mean by risky is that the hypothesis has to make a prediction. And the more the hypothesis depends on that prediction to be true (ie if it is a core tennet and finding that the prediction does not match reality makes the whole hypothesis crumble), the greater the weight of the evidence. The evidence also has to be surprising - that is we wouldn't expect to find it if the hypothesis were not true. For example, I could claim that eating meat makes children grow taller. Whilst this certainly makes a prediction that can be tested, we would already (due to our knowledge of basic biology) already expect children to grow, whether or not the hypothesis is correct or not.Anyway, that is a very brief introduction into the difference between scientific confirmation and empirical consistency, and I hope it was interesting to at least one viewer.I shall now go back to waiting on Pro for his next post.