I can disprove evolution like i could disprove a book having no front cover.

"Right wow all you have done was disagree and reply inlogically, sure you wont see that because, YOU'VE been brain washed by your science teacher at school." ----> You've been brainwashed by your religion. And no - I learned most of my knowledge of evolution prior and outside of my high school biology class. "Moreover if eveolution is disproven then creation would be the only sulution" ----> I hope you mean "creation WOULDN'T be the only solution". Two letters can mean a whole lot of difference - LEARN TO USE SPELL CHECK. "I cant say to much as all you have done is said your personal veiw on this topic." ----> That's what most debate consists of. "Yes you have given some links about laws of science but that is just proving science laws not evolution." ----> My links were given where they were relevant. You have YET to supply an outside definition or source for any of the wacky things you have said. "Ok what i mean by a time limit, is that basiclly you can spend forever on the exsperiment otherwise you would never know if the theory is true." ----> I don't think this is even included on the requirements of an experiment. Isn't it just plain common sense?! Of course you can't test something that takes forever - you'll never get done. ==Counterarguments== >>>Evolution uses circular reasoning when using fossil record evidence<<< The beauty of evolution is that tons of different fields in science get the same answer. Geologists agree with the biologists, etc. etc. Even if we had no fossil record, we would STILL have ample evidence to support evolution. Anyway, radiometric dating are fundamental tools used by geologists and archaeologists and this is used in relevance to the fossil record. So NO, there is no "circular reasoning big time". >>>Some argument pertaining to my opponents "theory of the sun"<<< "Yes evolution uses gavity too" ----> WHAT? "yet because there is life and you dont believe in God you only, and i mean only can believe that life can arose is by evolution. Period!" ----> Not only is this not an argument against evolution (only against it's proponents), you are ONCE AGAIN committing the false dilemma fallacy. The explanations for the diversity of life are not just God and evolution - it can be a vast variety of things. Aliens, spontaneous speciation, etc. Whatever your mind can conjure is a possibility. However, we look at the EVIDENCE. And the evidence speaks for evolution. >>>Some argument pertaining to law of thermodynamics and gaining information<<< "the law of time evolution includes that" ----> WHAT in the world is the law of time?! Could I have a link? Now you could very possibly find a link referring to something called a "law of time", but if it has an relevance to what we've discussed in this debate I doubt. "the second law of phermeildinamics" ----> ..THERMODYNAMICS? That was almost impossible to decipher. And exactly how does evolution include that law? And how is it even relevant? The rest of my opponent's argument is once again a COMPLETE red herring. Evolution happens on the GENE POOL and upon GENERATIONS. Living animals do NOT gain extra traits during their lifetime - it is only their FUTURE OFFSPRING, their FUTURE GENERATIONS. My opponent's failure to understand this fundamental concept of evolution speaks bounds. >>>Mechanisms that can create new information<<< If I can deciphered my opponent's quirky analogy right, he is once again referring to ABIOGENESIS. How the first gene appears is of no relevance to evolution. How many times must the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution be made?! >>>A formula for evolution<<< "if evolution didnt need one why are they looking for one, and offering a Noble prize? " ----> Could you give me a link for this claim? Though I probably found a website where you got your arguments: http://darwinconspiracy.com.... What a ridiculous website. Gravity is different from evolution. Gravity is a natural phenomena (that means an observable occurrence) and applied to everything in the universe on a relativistic scale. The bigger you are - the more gravitational pull you will have. That is why you can have a formula, because formula's need to apply to everything they are designed for. Evolution is a PROCESS. It happens on account of a TON of factors: mutations, environment, gene drift, etc. We can not account for the myriad of factors that come into evolution - we need some incredible super machine to do so, which is leaps ahead of our current technology. Evaporation is also a process and it doesn't have a formula - you have yet to respond against this example. Should evaporation be considered unscientific? >>>Evolution is mindless and creative<<< "Ummm no ants are not the most sussesful animal on the planet, just because there is more," ----> I said they are ONE of the most successful animals on the planet. Ants cover almost every landmass on earth, and constitute about 15-20% of the TOTAL TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL BIOMASS [1]. THAT is called a successful species (in terms of surviving and producing future generations). "Lions exists in rain forest so do elephents" ----> The habitats of currently existing lions are the sub-Saharan savanna grasslands and some Asiatic lions live in dry savanna forest and very dry deciduous scrub forest - DEFINITELY not a rain/tropical forest [2]. "That whole parograph you tpyed was pointless and incorrect." ----> HAHA this phrase totally applies to YOU. Anyway, you have failed to refute the entire point of my "useless paragraph". If in the case those analogies were factually incorrect, then it doesn't matter. I can just research a little and find another animal that can't live in some different habitat. You have COMPLETELY DODGED my core point - which is that evolution is mindless and uncreative. What it produces are species best adapted to it's environment. Go watch "Planet Earth" and look at any major species of animal that hasn't been intruded by humans. Are they horribly dying? Are their numbers dropping and they have no hope of survival? No - of course not. Most animals have at least a few ways to escape their predators, and their predators have a few ways to kill their prey. It's all in a balance (until virus species and human interaction comes in of course). Evolution creates FIT species, not "superspecies". >>>Helpless baby argument<<< Sure, we can conceive of ways that species could be created better. Birds should be able to run on their feet or have sharper beaks, OR HECK BE ABLE TO SWIM. Why do humans have a bad backbone? Because it's made to be better for four-legged animals. Our why we have wisdom teeth, which is a painful and useless addition to our anatomy because of our smaller jaws (our fellow primates have bigger jaws, so wisdom teeth are part of their normal teeth). Or perhaps our backwards eye. Or perhaps the danger of having two pipes for eating and the other for breathing [3]. But guess what - we and many other species of animals SURVIVED AND REPRODUCED. Evolution doesn't create the best "equipped" species imaginable, it creates what have been successfully adapted. Evolution is mindless and uncreative, and your point fails. >>>3 questions my opponent asked me <<< 1. The universe is NOT conscious. It does NOT have a mind. Therefore it has NO motivation. Unless of course, you want to PROVE that the universe has a mind. Be my guest, that's quite a burden. 2. ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. STOP BRINGING UP THIS DEAD POINT. 3. Why isn't using aliens as a reason be a possible answer? Calling people "dumby" and saying "that's not right" isn't arguing - it's whining. Aliens is totally a possible answer, though as of now not PROBABLE. ==Conclusion== I have refuted all points and await my opponent's answer in eagerness. ---References--- 1. http://www.pnas.org... 2. http://www.asiaticl...