The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

I have already done a post like this in the forums, but frankly I believe this is something that Medic, as someone who has been particularly prone of recent to being anti-evolution in his stance, should address. First, here's some definitions: Evolution - the change in allele frequencies over time, or in other words the changes in traits species inherit throughout generations. (3) Common Descent - the scientific theory that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor that lived 4 billion years ago, and is explored in greater detail in this source (4) Anti-Evolutionists - people who oppose the validity of the Theory of Evolution. May also be, but not necessarily, an advocate of Creationism or Intelligent Design Crippled - held back Undermine - make less credible Entire Case - the notion that the ToE is a hoax or part of a conspiracy by scientists. I'm gonna be pretty lax and say that we can start debating immediately, assuming Medic decides to take on this debate. As Con, Medic will need to be clearly and coherently answer the questions, as well as the cross-examination of his previous answers in order to prove that there is actually substance to his anti-evolution position, and my responsibility in this debate is to prove that the questions being provided are indeed something that proves the subject title of this debate. We should also both strive for good spelling and grammar, and naturally I ask that we steer clear of trolling and ad hominem attacks. So without further ado, here are the questions: 1) Have you not heard of the Lenski Affair? (1) The experiments that Lenski's team conducted in as well as their results proved evolution beyond a doubt and proved to be quite embarrassing for the Creationism supporting Anti-Evolution Conservapedia when Lenski took them to task for being ignorant on science. This was well over 4 years ago. So why even despite what Lenski demonstratively found are you still claiming evolution is false? 2) Speaking of Lenski, why don't you also address this little quote from him in his letter to Conservapedia and especially consider it in light of the elements of the Theory of Evolution you disagree with: "From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God"s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn"t that view insulting to God?" 3) What precisely do scientists who support the validity of the Theory of Evolution (or the elements Medic disagrees with) have to gain from protecting a false theory? What possible intrinsic benefit could there be for them? Surely it's the case, considering evidence of previous people who've challenged the scientific consensus on certain topics and have won (2), that it would be considerably more profitable to actually try and find something that may disprove evolution, which is why scientists do anyway when they constantly do new experiments related to evolution that they try to falsify? 4) Finally, don't you think it's the case that IF, hypothetically, the Theory of Evolution was a "hoax" as Medic among others describes it, that we'd know by now? If there's an argument against evolution (or at least the components of evolution that Medic disagrees with) that's super-duper convincing - as in GENUINELY convincing, as in free of arguments from authority, traditional beliefs, personal intuition, confirmation bias, fear/intimidation, wishful thinking, or a combination of some or all of the above - wouldn't EVERY scientist and layman know about it? Wouldn't this argument have spread rapidly, become a super-hot meme, and be all over the front pages of newspapers and websites that deal with science matters? I mean, if we managed to all know about the first ever "Simon's Cat" video within two weeks of it getting released, then don't you think that the Truly Awesomely Brilliant Definitive Argument Against Evolution would spread even faster and wider than some silly cartoon cat show? Evolution is a BIG deal in the field of biology, and even if Medic doesn't agree with all of the entirety of the Theory of Evolution, even he must admit the importance Evolution and many of its components have in the field of biology, so if we actually found something that disproved the stuff Medic disagrees with, it WOULD be HUGE news. I look forward to my opponent's participation in this debate. Sources: (1) http://rationalwiki.org... (2) http://www.expelledexposed.com... (3) http://rationalwiki.org... (4) http://rationalwiki.org...