The theory of Evolution

Since round 3 is for rebuttals, I will be debunking Jonnykelly's arguments. Con's arguments were not very valid and without further ado, I will go ahead and debunk them.Arguments by Jonnykelly:A: Evolution provides no beggining? Evolution isn't supposed to provide a beggining, it doesn't have much to do with the appearance of Earth's first life forms. The appearance of the first life forms on Earth is known as abiogenesis. Jonnykelly provided a source that the first life could have been transported from mars through a meteoroid. However, this doesn't debunk the theory of evolution, it rather provides an explanation for the beggining of life. Just because life may have been seeded from Mars, that doesn't mean evolution can't take place. Scientists believe that life may have resulted due to chemical proccesses that triggered the first life forms. Scientific reasonining isn't as simple as creation theory but it makes a lot more sense. Creation theory says everything was always like this, so one theory explains everything. Observations and evidence point towards the Universe or Earth to not be static, everything came to be in many different processes. sourceshttp://origins.swau.edu...B: Evolution violates laws observed in nature?Nobody knows for sure how the big bang theory was created. How the big bang theory started is still a great mystery. However, this has NOTHING to do with Evolution. The big bang theory has literally nothing to do with Evolution, your point is completely invalid. The big bang theory is an explanation for the beggining of the universe. The theory of Evolution is an explanation for the origin of species.Also, the thing fueling the expansion of the Universe is not known, but the most commonly agreed on idea by scientists is dark energy. And second, what on Earth does this point have to do with Evolution being true? Mind to stay on topic? The law of entropry argument is invalid. Evolution isn't random or by chance, Evolution happens based on your enviornment. For example, some Asians have an "epicanthic fold" on their eyes This evolutionary traits protects their eyes from the harsher winds found in some regions in Asia, in which are not present in other parts of the world. sourceshttp://science.nasa.gov...http://www.nlm.nih.gov...C: Evolution relies on too many constants to be considered fact?Thousands of scientists calculate evolution by measuring distances to stars and expansion of the universe? Where on Earth did you get that from? Evolution has nothing to do with the universe's expansion or distance between stars. You don't have evidence or a source to support the fact radioactive dating is inaccurate. There are many methods of dating and they all work differently. They are in fact scientifically approved to be very valid. Your argument clearly shows that you have no idea of how scientists are. Scientists know more about science than either you or I do. sourceshttp://www.nhm.ac.uk...D: Evolution relies on fabricated evidence?Your source, (number 5) is NOT a reliable source. The source is simply a blog, anybody can make up false data and post a blog like that. The sources the blog posts are also biased sources made by psuedo-scientists trying to prove creation. The image I brought up is pure fossils, in no where is it an artist's filling of what it's assumed to look like. ConclusionJonnykelly has failed to prive any valid piece of evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. I have explained why in my rebuttal as he has not brung up valid arguments. Many of his arguments were also off topic and had nothing to do with Evolution.