Evolution is a strongly supported fact of science.

During this round, I will be talking about the many flaws in my opponents speech during the 2nd and 3rd round. I would like to start out by saying that my sources may have been SOME creation wesites, but in my opponent's 2nd round, he used wikipdia multiple times, an unreliable source for research, and in his 3rd round, he used talk origins for over half of his sources, or wikipedia. Talk origins is a VERY bias evolutionist website, that sometime's will even make up facts to support it's arguments! In the 2nd round my opponent talked mostly about misconseptions about evolution, and not evidence supporting it, wchich was what his 2nd round should have been about. The resolve is that evolution is a well supported fact of science, not that it has many misconceptions. He started off by agreeing that the fossil record is incomplete, and then went into how some creatures' complexity does not disprove evolution. As I said in my 2nd round speech, creatures like the giraffe are too complex to have evolved, and many evolutionists would agree. He then goes on to say that there is much evidence to prove evolution, though he has not provided any, and used the "Public's Ignorance" To give an explantion to why people see holes in evolution. Next, my opponent brings up that you can believe in both evolution and God, though this is completely off track of the resolve. In the following paragraph, he gives in that evolution is a flawed 'Theory', and many scientific facts can be used to disprove it, which I COMPLETELY agree with. In the next paragraph, he explains how evolution needs time, though hunderds of facts and dating methods would say otherwise. Lastly, he brings up vestigial organs, and if you read my speech in the 2nd round, I will explain to you how vestigal organs does not prove evolution. Now I will be talking about the many flaws in my opponents rebuttal to my 2nd round speech. My opponent starts off by trying to explain that I do not know enough about evolution, though this is not true. In fact, if my opponent knew much about evolution himself, he could have answered my questions. Instead, he either "Danced" around them, or said, "Look at my source." This is not a valid answer to my questions, and further shows that my opponent does not know enough about evolution to even answer questions about. Also, though he says that talk origons is "Peer reviewed science", he does not KNOW this as a fact, and therefore, he must ASSUME that what talk origins says is true, which explains to me his lack of true information. To start off, my opponent talks about how chance is a small part of evolution. This is simply ridiculous, and he only says this because he himself knows that the chances of evolution happening are extremely slim. My opponent starts his first paragraph about the first cell by saying that RNA COULD act as a simple replicator. Though, for RNA to have come to be, there must have been nucleotides, but the question still remains, where did the nucleotides come from? In his following paragraph, he says that the first cell is a different topic than evolution, which does not make much sense, since there must have been a first cell for the evolutionary process to begin. Next, he attempts to explain the compexity of the genetic code, but admits that, "The complexity of the genetic code is too gerat to have come out of nothing." This is true, and is a major flaw in the theory of evolution. My opponent then rushes to explain how different sexes originated, and fails by just saying that it was not complex. We KNOW that for two genders to have come to be, there must have been many reasons why sexual reproduction is the better trait, and like I said in the 2nd round, the chances of two genders branching off from an asexual organism and ending up so similar, is slim. He then tries to answer my question about the missing evolutionary tree for insects, by saying that my source was not reliable, though it is a SCIENCE website, and is surely more reliable that talk origins. He then asks an opinionated question, that I will answer to- Yes. The lack of an evolutionary tree for insects shows me that evolution can not show an origin for insects, and therefore does not prove how ALL life came to be. Then, he refered to his source instead of actually explaining to me how insects got their wings. In his next paragraph explaining the origins of the hear, blood vessels, and the blood, he merely refers to his source again, proving to me once more that he does not know much about evolution. Next, he explains how DNA came to be, and very poorly, in my opinion. This is because he tries to explain the origin of nucleotides by saying that, "Nucleotides, as the building blocks of DNA, spontaneously assemble from organic molecules spread throughout the cosmos by exploding stars.". I'm not sure what every one else thinks of this ridiculous hypothesis of how nucleotides COULD have originated, but he has described no evidence that this happened. He starts of his next paragraph by saying that my source was written by someone he knew, and therefore is not reliable (Strange). Then, instead of telling me how the giraffe does not disprove evolution, he simply says that it does not. He then tries to bring up an inteligent force, which is not relevant to the debate. My opponent then tries to explain DNA being on fossils that are supposedly billions of years old by saying that my source was bad, and that we have only seen one fossil with DNA older than 10,000 years on it. But, this is not true, we have hundereds of these, and I welcome viewers to research this. But, I understand my opponents confusion on the matter, as the information on the DNA being on fossils probably came from talk origins. Next, he answered my question about the evolution of the solar system by saying that it was not relevant to the debate, and to, once again, look at his source. The resolve says nothing about a certain type of evolution, as he seems to think. But, the solar system's supposed evolution, along with biological evolution, goes under the category of evolution. Therefore, I beleive that he did not know the answer to this question, and therefore tried to dodge it by saying that it was not relevant. My opponents next answer to my question about the second law of thermodynamics was to refer to his source. It seems more and more like my opponent cannot answer my questions, and therefore tries to avoid them, but this does not go unnoticed. Next, my opponent lies about the Cambrian Explosion, by saying, "It is a myth that the Cambrian explosion contradicts the tree of life, and it's a myth that trilobites and other forms mysteriously pop into existence". Neither of these are myths, and my opponent knows this, since he did not show any evidence saying otherwise. Next, my opponent talks about vestigals, starting off by saying that I am wrong because I did not check his sources. But, I would like to hear from my opponent why what I had said in my 2nd round speech was wrong, and not just another refrence to his unreliable soucres. He tries to say that my argument was a contradiction of a creationist claim, that vestigal organs are decayed remnant and not examples of evolution. What I said does not contridict this, it is actually just another argument to explain vestigal organs. I'm gald he brought that up though, because it is just another argument to prove that vestigal organs do not prove evolution, and it therefore helps my argument. Next, I would like to go over his final paragraph in his 3rd round rebutal. I have already explained why my sources are more reliable than his, and would like to say that he has not defended the foundations of the evolutionary theory, in the ways that I have just described. I would also like to point out that the resolve was not about defending the foundations of the evolutionary theory, but it was saying that evolution is a strongly supported fact of science, which I have proved, is not. I suggest that in any later debates on this matter that my opponent has, that you should stick to the resolve, and not try and change it like you have 3 times during your speech and rebutal. Next, he says that he has cleared up misunderstandings, which was once agian, off topic, and then attempts to say that I was off topic. I have proven that abiogenisis is relevant to this debate, and saying that I was off topic in our debate is ironic. He once more tries to argue that my sources were not reliable, but I have proven that they are and his sources are not. He then tries to tell me that I have been appealing to creationist propaganda, but if I must say it again, my sources were more reliable then his, and if anyone appealed to propaganda, and fake facts, it was my opponent. I have done a fine job of discrediting evolution, which was what I was supposed to do, and my opponent has surely not done what he was supposed to do, which is provide evidence for evolution. Also, the resolve was not for me to demonstrate a viable alternative, as in his first round, he clearly stated to keep religion and God out of this debate, which I have succeeded to do, and for him to bring up that I have not talked about a viable alternative, is a contridiction of the rules, and contridictions are something evolutionists are know to do. For these reasons, I believe that I have won this debate, and thank my opponent for inviting me to it. I am glad we could have it, and hope that my opponent and I could discuss this matter sometime again in the future. Thank you.