Evolution is a fact

My opponent said "Really, everything they tried has confirmed evolution? What is "everything," and who is "they?" Surely you don't mean creationist scientists."I'd like to clarify. By "everything", I mean, every scientific experiment that has to do with evolution. By "they" I mean all qualified scientists in the field of biology, chemistry, geology and other branches of science that have to do with evolution.My opponent is right, I really don't mean "creationist scientists", because there is no such thing. A scientist deals with the natural world, not the super-natural. A "creationist scientists" deals with pseudo-science which is not science at all.I'd like to point out that everything my opponent has said against evolution has come from a creationist website, which does not deal with anything scientific.Under "What they believe", they admit:PRIORITIES The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. http://creation.com...In other words. Anything scientific is SECONDARY to what they believe. Believing something doesn't make it true. Yet, they will not allow scientific evidence to refute what "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" claims. The best possible way to get to the truth is through the scientific method, not pseudo-science or "the Gospel of Jesus Christ".There is not enough room here to post the overwhelming mountains of scientific evidence available that proves evolution, but I'll put some up that has something to do with my opponent's objections to evolution.My opponent claims "Homologous genes are poor evidence of common ancestry"According to scientists, "there are two basic evolutionary explanations for similarities: homology and analogy. Are these genes homologous (i.e., were they passed down from the common ancestor of all these different organisms) or analogous (i.e., did they all evolve independently through convergent evolution)? Based on the observations that all of these gene versions are remarkably similar in sequence, have related functions, and are incredibly widespread (animals all across the tree of life have them), scientists have concluded that they must be homologous and must have been inherited from the common ancestor of all these animals."http://evolution.berkeley.edu...As far as radiometric dating is concerned, My opponent doesn't know what he is talking about.Geologists use radiometric dating to estimate how long ago rocks formed, and to infer the ages of fossils contained within those rocks.http://evolution.berkeley.edu..."The flood" my opponent is talking about that supposedly contaminates rocks never happened. The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how marsupials wound up in Australia, and only in Australia.A single worldwide deluge cannot explain the distribution of fossils in the fossil record: Radiometric dating, geological layering (both fossils and otherwise), major extinction events, corrosion, and mountain range formation all line up to show the same age. Any argument that attacks a single dating method has to address why all of them show the same thing. Even if the dating method is not accepted as accurate (i.e. you don't believe a fossil is 250 million years old), every dating method shows the same relative difference. So to be successful, even an argument that attacks every dating method would have to show why they're all out by the same amount, to account for the agreement over the relative age. Given the distribution of fossils, even if fossilization were accelerated under high-pressure water, which it is not, there have still been several times when almost all life has been wiped out (we're talking 50-75% of all species going extinct, not 50-75% of all individual animals dying). No apologist argument addresses all five major extinction events. What about the complex ecosystems that would have been destroyed from the flood? All it would have taken is one animal dying and then the other couldn't reproduce and would die, and the animals that require that species alive for any number of reasons would have died, and subsequently would have killed off an entire ecosystem or more. A birth defect would have a remarkable chance of occurring which could have caused an outcome such as this.Considering that the waters from around the world would have mixed, the content of salt would have been altered resulting in the sea life being killed worldwide. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...There is much harm in denying the truth about evolution.368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages http://whatstheharm.net... I'm sorry, but my opponent's arguments are not credible, scientific or even worth considering.