Evolution is a fact of science, deducible with logic, confirmed with evidence.

Thank you for posting definitions; I have no issues with those definitions of law or theory. However, I will state that I find both terms irrelevant to whether or not evolution is a fact. THE COUNTERARGUMENTS: "1- evolution conflicts with 2nd law of thermal dynamics" First, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth's biosphere is not a closed system; it is constantly bombarded with energy from the Sun. Does embryology also conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? (Not a red herring) Think about this... a host mother has an egg in her ovaries which is fertilized via a sperm. Over the course of 9 months, this host mother will take in food from her environment causing this single cell to multiply, grow, transform into other cells, and contort into hundreds of structures that we find in a human body. This all comes from a highly disorganized soup coursing through the veins of the host mother. How is it that such a disorganized mess can turn into something as complex and structured as a human being? An input of energy, The mother takes in chemical energy from her environment to fuel this process. This energy was likely taken from some living organism which may have taken it from some other organism, ending in plants, which took the energy from the Sun. One might think of a mutation as a form of disorganization. Whether the mutation has a negative or positive consequence (or neither), it is an imperfection nonetheless. This shows that although accumulated mutations may look like very organized forms to us, it is very accidental organization and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "2- laws of variation with in species debunks evolution... Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding... the line becomes sterile and dies out." We first see selective breeding in history a little more than 2000 years ago. I suspect that long-term selective breeding experiments have never lasted more than a few hundred years at an absolute maximum. This is not long enough for most multicellular organisms to accumulate the mutations needed for a much further increase in their own natural capabilities. If we were to lead the process on for a couple thousand years to no avail, THEN we might have a little problem. However, the timescale allowed in my argument is no obstacle. "3- the Cambrian explosion... No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously. so basically every species that ever existed was found in this time period and before this period, this debunks evolution because all these species co-existed in the same time period, but if evolution existed they would not be found in the same time period" First, it's false that every species that ever existed was found in this time period. We don't see rabbits in the Cambrian. We don't see dogs, turtles, chinchillas, dinosaurs, proto-whales, trees, vines, or flowers in the Cambrian. In fact, the only thing we see in the Cambrian is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were an accurate story of life: very simple creatures with very simple body plans and other characteristics which some later, larger groups have in common. Second... it appears that your conclusion is that the coexistence of these creatures falsifies evolution. You say that evolution asserts that these things cannot coexist. You're going to need to back this claim up. Evolution can perfectly account for their coexistence. No one in their right mind would say that the Cambrian explosion was the first life. It just happens to be the first life that we have fossil evidence of. There were almost certainly other species before the Cambrian, but because of their soft bodies, they were not well-preserved. "4- The "Tree of Life" is falling" I don't understand at all how the fact that some bacteria can exchange information with other bacteria in any way falsifies evolution. Please explain further. "The entirety of my opponents evidence can easily be summed up in 1 key point....The resolution is currently negated." It sounds like these two statements and everything in between are a summary of you taking down my argument? I didn't really understand. Please clarify if important. As a final statement, note that guitargod has not, at any point, shown my argument to be fallacious or my premises to be false. Therefore, my argument from the logic of evolution stands.