Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Burden of ProofThe burden of proof is also on the Con, because they are asserting that my assertion is false. This is the first logical fallacy.[1]Rebuttal"If there is no genetic mutation, then where do these "small changes" come from?"This is the second logical fallacy. Fallacy of equivocation. I didn't say there was no mutation. I said there hasn't been any additive mutations observed.[2] Despite the use of the logical fallacy, the answer is that the DNA is already in the living organism's gene pool as either recessive genes or as endogenous DNA that is triggered and becomes active by environmenal or other factors."This is absurd. Moreover, my opponent has failed to provide any sort of support (academic or otherwise) for thinking that this claim is anything but silly. The age of the Earth is uncontroversial among those who study it. Current estimates set the age of the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old. I have yet to see a single academic paper suggest that the Earth is anything close to only 10,000 years old. Below, I will provide 10 sources which support my claim that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. I expect my opponent to provide comparable sources (academic sources, not sources from biased creationist websites) to support his claim that "we positively know that the Earth is less than 10,000 years"."The first sentence is a fallacy of incredulity[3]. The second part of the first sentence is flatly false. I provided references to scientific articles that include facts that back up my position. The next sentence is an appeal to authority wrapped in an ad populum argument. [4] Persons in authority on a subject can be wrong as well as the major population of such experts. Logically we must evalutate the science and the science alone without any outside influence from authoritative sources or large groups. Attacking a source is an known as an ad hominem fallacy specifically attacking the motive. [5] Where the arguer tries to discredit the source of the information rather than the information itself. Evidence and facts should counter evidence and facts. Its as simple as that.I provided several valid sources that provided scientific evidence for an earth less than 10,000 years old.The Con goes on to provide links to easily refuted websites that are known to discriminate against people with alternative views[6]The first link leads to a page not found error.The second link is the geological time scale. This one is easily refuted. 3D fossils and polystrate fossils both prove that each layer was laid down rapidly and that any layer with a polystrate fossil in it was laid down at the same time as any other layer that the polystrate fossil is in. Since almost every layer found to date has a polystrate fossil we know that most if not all of the layers were laid down at one time. If they were not the 3D fossils and the polystrate fossils would have decomposed long before they fossilized.The third article talks about uniformitarianism, the idea that long gradual unchanging processes formed everything. Unfortunately if we use the uniformitarian idea the electromagnetic field of the earth would have fried all life 10,000 years ago. [7]The fourth and fifth articles rest on the assumption that radiometric dating is accurate. I've already discussed the many ways that radiometric dating is innacurate. [8]The sixth article tells the history of the idea behind the age of the earth. Notable facts are that the age of the geological column was estimated long before it could be verified and then radiometric dating used the estimated dates to help calibrate them. This is known as reification fallacy.[9] They are basing radiometric dating on the geological column which has no real evidence to support it.In the seventh article #3 is proven false because we know that any strata that has a 3D fossil in it was laid down before that fossil could deteriorate and decompose. The rest of the article rests on radiometric dating, which we know is suspect as a time dating source.The eigth article is based entirely on radiometric dating which again does not give accurate dates.The ninth article bases its information on spontaneous generation which we know violates the law of abiogenesis.The tenth article is just a chart of the geological time scale which I've already shown is suspect.What we see is that all of these articles are either based on faulty radiometric dating, violation of abiogenesis, or various logical fallacies."Another unwarranted assertion. What's your reasoning for thinking that "every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago"?"This one I've already answered above, for completeness here it is again[7]. The earth's magnetic field is slowly decaying. 10,000 years ago it would have been strong enough to fry anything living on the planets surface. A billion years ago and it would have boiled the oceans and made the land masses molten."Again, unwarranted assertion. I'm not sure what to say other than that's completely false. What reasoning do you have for thinking that "the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old"?"Are you saying its completely false that they find carbon-14 in all layers of strata? If so you are mistaken. They find carbon-14 all the time. http://creation.com...Carbon 14 would completely decay and not be present in anything over 1 million years old. That's just basic science."This can't possibly be serious. Does my opponent really believe that mutations have never been observed? How about progeria? Hypertrichosis? Ectrodactyly? If these aren't mutations, then what are they? Below is a list of 5 sources from academic journals supporting the idea that mutations have, in fact, been observed:"Unfortunatley you continue to make arguments from incredulity[3]. Followed by false Equivocation[2]. You frame your argument against all mutations when I am talking about a subset of mutations known as additive mutations, which add new genetic data that wasn't previously there. I freely admit that neutral and harmful mutations happen, however that would actually disprove evolution because complex life forms would only degenerate into less complex life forms. As to your links:The first link talks about a degenerative non-additive mutation which I've already admitted, but which is not a proof for evolution.The second link talks about a mutation in a 'stop' gene that tells the cell to stop generating a particular protein or enzyme. This is also a harmful non-additive mutation which I have already admitted exist and which is not a proof for evolution.The third link assumes evolution has happened and is simply counting colagen types in each species. This doesn't prove evolution it assumes it.The fourth link talks about a harmful non-additive mutation that disrupts gene function. Again this is not a proof for evolution.The fifth link is also a non-additive harmful mutation."False (and, might I add, yet another unwarranted assertion.) A single nucleotide deletion is an example of one mutation which can "interfere with the workings of the cell"."You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying here. I was saying that one protein cannot mutate into another without going through 7+ mutations simultaneously. Not that mutations don't happen."(1) What's your reasoning for thinking that these genes "could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree"? (2) Have you considered convergent evolution? It's entirely possible that species can evolve similar traits independently. A common example is flight: Birds and bats both have the capability of flight, but this capability has evolved independently."(1) The genes are for complex organ functions which would not be needed and would have been selected against in less complex ancestors (which didn't exist).(2) Convergent evolution doesn't explain exact DNA matches across different trees.The rest is based on logical fallacies.SummaryThe opponents points rest on the assumption of radiometric dating being accurate and various laws of nature having exceptions without explanation for those exceptions as well as plenty of logical fallacies. Including the fallacy of appeal to motive (the idea that a source cannot be accurate because it has a motive). Unfortunatly if we were to eliminate all sources that have motives, we would eliminate all sources. Evolutionists have their sources which work on the assumption that evolution is true when not enough evidence has been brought forth to prove it. This turns into a circular argument.Thank you.SourcesI could say "I'd like to note the bias in my opponent's sources. Rather than use science based sources, my opponent has chosen to use all sources from biased evolution websites. This should be taken into account when considering the reliability of sources used throughout the debate.", however I won't because that would be the logical fallacy of an appeal motive. All of my sources use scientific facts to prove their points and several of the sources are from scientific journals or articles about scientific journal entries.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4a] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4b] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://answersingenesis.org...[7] http://creation.com...[8] http://www.earthage.org...:[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...