Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them.

My response shall be organized as such: 1. Preliminary notes 2. Recap of Epistemology I and response to Epistemology II 3. Recap of Fossil Evidence Interpretation I and response to Fossil Evidence Interpretation II 4. Recap of Transitional Fossils I and response to Transitional Fossils II 5. Conclusion PRELIMINARY NOTES: My opponent's response is lacking in many aspects. 1. My opponent has not responded to the various logical fallacies I have pointed out, nor has he commented on any of the sources that I provided, nor has he commented on the scientific data I have shown to completely contradict what he says. 2. My opponent's last round simply clarified all of his arguments in his opening, without taking into account any of my rebuttals. I will point out that it is not my fault that my opponent decided to waste an entire round by ignoring most if not all of my points, and as this is a three round debate, I reserve the right to make new arguments in the third round if my opponent decides to delay his responses all to the next round. 3. My opponent is trying to move the goalposts. He has stated that the three reasons he provided in the opening are each individually, reasons that Evolution is false. My opponent has conceded the debate with this sentence: "My first reason, if understood will break down evolution into a million pieces, not saying evolution is false but untrustworthy. " To say something is false is completely different from saying that something is untrustworthy. RECAP OF EPISTEMOLOGY I AND RESPONSE TO EPISTEMOLOGY II Recap and Motive: My opponent's argument as it stands was about trusting our senses: "how can we trust our eyes, nose, ears, touch and taste? " I have offered the explanation that our senses are fallible. My opponent has responded by changing his argument to say that if we evolved from lower life forms, our knowledge and thus, our theory of evolution itself would be flawed. His alternate explanation is that Intelligence is somehow divine. Logical Fallacies: All the same as the last one, because my opponent's "new" response is just a repackaged version of his older one. The overarching theme is epistemology, whether or not a flawed brain can come up with a "trustworthy" theory, be it existence or evolution itself. In Epistemology I, it was sensory perception. In Epistemology II, it is Evolution itself. My opponent switched arguments but luckily, my response was broad enough to cover both. All my sources and the logical fallacies apply to both of my opponent's Epistemological arguments. Nothing is known with absolute certainty and nothing needs to be known with absolute certainty. One additional point needs to be made: The fact that we evolved from single celled organisms does not show that we are "unworthy of knowledge" as my opponent stated. Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent assumes that knowledge must be separate from matter, thus logically reducing to the presence of a supernatural, when the discussion is about the validity of a purely naturalistic theory. RECAP OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION I AND RESPONSE TO FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION II Recap and Motive: My opponent's argument has become broader. He asserts that we cannot make claims on certain things because they are not direct fact, visible in obtained evidence. In addition, he asserts that scientists seek to disprove God as a preliminary goal, and that Evolutionists should ask "why" we exist instead of "how" to begin with. He then brings up global flooding again as an alternate. He also provides "evidence" showing that man and dinosaur coexisted. Logical Fallacies: 1. Flawed Premise All knowledge comes from interpretation of data, not data itself. The question is the extent of interpretation. This source completely addresses my opponent's point about the connection between fossils (evidence) and the things we infer from it (interpretation). . http://www.talkorigins.org... See also this source about bias and prejudice. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. Flawed Premise Scientists do not seek to disprove God, nor will they, nor have they ever. This source explains things very well: . http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. Begging the Question My opponent suggests that we ask "Why? " Instead of "How? " Asking "why? " assumes that there is inherent meaning and purpose, which reduces down to the assumption that a God exists. The argument is circular and tautological and I urge the audience to reject it. 4. Argumentum ad Nauseum . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent repeats his argument about Global flood when my response as well as my source show that mounds of data are against his unfounded, uncited, and fantastical assumption. 5. Flawed Premise My opponent's three pieces of evidence are all proven to be flawed, debunked, and widely rejected by people, Creationist or not. Here are three articles covering why they are all lies and misinterpretations. . http://talkorigins.org... . http://talkorigins.org... . http://www.talkorigins.org... RECAP OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS I AND RESPONSE TO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS II Recap and Motive: My opponent suggests that although he does not have any scientific reason to doubt the existence of transitional forms, he bases his conclusion on the fact that kinds cannot switch. He bases this assumption on the fact that no observed instance of this has happened. Logical Fallacies: The exact same as in Round 1. My opponent's argument is basically a response having not read any of my rebuttal. In my last round rebuttal, I have shown via extensively providing sources and logical arguments that my opponent's argument fails in many regards. 1. Semantics I First, my opponent did not comment on my rebuttal on the use of "kind". This is a designation that has absolutely no scientific basis. Assuming that a "kind" is some arbitrary grouping based on physical appearance, there may be many "kinds" in between two other "kinds" that have gone extinct after evolution took place. This is a very common occurrence as intermediates become out-competed by their descendant and ancestor species. 2. Semantics II Transitional fossils, as I have cited in that rather large list, exist. My opponent's argument was against going from "kind" to "kind". As I am citing scientific sources and using scientific terminology, my opponent should not expect my sources to detail and include such things as his imaginary classification of "kind". Thus, he cannot say that "transitional fossils cannot exist", I have given him a giant list. Playing with words cannot change fact. 3. Argument from Ignorance My opponent argues that because we have never seen the change from one kind to another, we cannot assume that it does. However, there is also no reason to assume that it cannot. If I can walk 10 meters, I should be able to walk across 20 meters, 30 meters, 300 meters, or 3 kilometers, unless there are obstacles like a door, wall, moat, or exhaustion, or SOMETHING that would limit the progression. Microevolution was seen, and now, macroevolution has been too. My opponent's argument would only be valid if he gave a reason why an obstacle exists for going from one kind to another, and Argument from Ignorance does not cut it. CONCLUSION My opponent has ignored almost all of my rebuttals in favor of making excessively wordy and uncontributive posts. I find this to be insulting as I pay attention to everything he says. So far, I have shown that his arguments fail completely and that the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response, and hope he will address my arguments next round.