Evolution is a sound scientific concept

IntroMy opponent seems not to understand what "sound" means when dealing with logic. I only have to show one error in the Theory of Evolution to win this debate. I have provided many. I will continue to argue that Evolution is false on many accounts, because I only need one argument to go without refutation. RebuttalsTrancendental ArgumentMy opponent seems not to understand Evolution. Evolution presupposes that God does not exist. It is a natural explanation for how we came to be. If I can prove God exists, that dismanltes one of the premises for Evolution. My opponent then referenced some of the basic laws of logic. Umm. .. okay? He completely ignored my argument. As for this point, my Trancendental argument remains unrefuted. This alone refutes Evolution. Mutations and Natural SelectionPro says: "This is equivalent to saying I believe in inches but not feet. This is a non-sequitur. "Sigh. You have entirely inored my argument again and have misunderstood what a non-sequitur is. Non-Sequitur: a statement that does not follow from the premises. When my opponent argues that because we see mutations and natural selection, that means Darwinian Evolution is true. This is an example of a non-sequitor. I have already provided the argument that mutations and natural selection does not account for Evolution. Pro argued that my Gould quote was only found on biased sites. This is an argument from ignorance. Since my opponent's source has found this quote on Creation web sites, and he didn't see one on Evolution sites, then it must be false. I ask the viewers to notice that when I referenced my quote, I did not use a Creation Web site. I cited it's source- whoever else uses this quote is irrelevant. Pro also argued that my David Raup quotes were taken out of context. No, I quoted all of the relevant information and sourced it accurately. Here is the issue: There are some scientific Evolutionists that make honest statements about how weak the theory of Evolution is. Creationists use this because it is helpful for their arguments. When Creationists use them, they are constantly accused of out of context quotes, etc. because Evolutionists do not like their theory being dismantled. However, ad hominem acctacks are not appreciated here. My argument for lack of proof for Evolution besides the mutations non-sequitur still remains unrefuted. Time is Not the Hero of the PlotMy opponent completely ignored my arguments, saying that this is irrelevant. No, I have to disprove Evolution. If I can show that the earth is not billions of years old, then yes, Evolution would be proven false. My arguments remains unrefuted, so again, I have proved Evolution as a false theory. AbiogenesisMy opponent again ignores my argument. If abiogensis did not happen, then evolution could not have happened. There is no way around this. My opponent understands this, which is why he does not like this argument, because he cannot refute it. Abiogenesis is the premise for Evolution. Sound logic requires a true premise. If Abiogenesis is not true, then I have proved that Evolution is not a sound scientific concept. ConductMy opponent said "We can dismiss all of Cons quotes as they are not only arguments from authority but are also fabrications. " First off, this is not argument from authority, this is testimony from scientists who have observed the evidence. Secondly, my opponent has accused me of fabrication. This is an insult, and requires the loss of his conduct point. ConclusionMy opponent asked that we use logic in this debate, but has consistenly used logical fallacies, ad hominems, ignored basically all of my arguments, and then falsely accused me of logical fallacies. I don't think my opponent is taking this debate seriously.