The theory of Evolution

My opponent has again dodged my argument saying it has no logic. If the fossils are arranged in such a chronological order, why doesn't that prove Evolution? Evolution is the change of species over time. If older fossils are very different from younger fossils and there are some transitionary forms, we can clearly see that Evolution can be proven. If Evolution did not exist, this would mean new animals are always created on the Earth all the time. This is of course false because creationary theory states that god created everything and the Universe and Earth is static, nothing changes. Con is dodging the arguments and claims this: "1. Evolution takes a long time2. Earth must be old for evolution to be possible3. Scientists must prove that earth is old to prove that evolution is possible4. Scientists use dating from star distances as well as radioactive decay and others to age the earth and universe5. These dating methods rely on constants6. These constants have not been proven to be constant7. IF these constants are not constant, evolution's timeline is disproven"1. Evolution does take a long time, that is correct2. The Earth has been proven time from time to be around 4.54 to 4.6 billion years old. Life has existed for 3.5 billion years.3. The Earth has been proven to be old.4. Wrong, they don't date the Earth's age from star distances.5. For a fact, they do.6. Incorrect, these "constants" have been proven. These dating methods are in fact very accurate and proven by scientists. sourceshttp://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...http://www.space.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.nature.com...Young Earth CreationCon is seeming to lean towards young Earth creation. Since i've included scientific-based sources to back up my arguments, I would like to see Con do the same. You can talk nonsense about the Earth's age and dating methods all you want. However, they are proven to be accurate amongst scientists, the scientists know more than you on what they are doing. You can find scientific sources to back up millions of years. However, you can only find biased sources that attempt to prove a 100% literal intrepretation of genesis in the Bible. These are not reliable sources and in no way are they scientific. The scientific methods relies on getting evidence and drawing conclusions from it. I am not sure why my opponent cannot follow this simple train of logic. (Quick reminder to my opponent: this debate is about evolution, not evolution vs. creation. Stay on task.)Creation is currently the only alternative for the origin of species as opposed to Evolution. So I can prove Evolution by debunking Creationism and explaining why Evolution makes more sense.sourceshttp://paleobiology.si.edu...http://humanorigins.si.edu...Natural Selection Con claims that natural selection relies on mutation thus making it random. This is not the case and I am going to demonstrate how natural selection works. These colors all represent mutations. On the left is a cold enviornment with the "cooler" colors have an advantage over the "warm" colors. The opposite goes with the population on the right. Eventually, the organisms with the better mutations survive longer thus having more of the chance to spread their genes and live. After a while, we can see natural selection has favored those species with the better genes. This is exactly how life on Earth came to be. The organisms that had better genes adapted and survived to spread their genes. The other organisms however fail to survive thus becoming extinct. This is what happened with us Humans. Homo Sapiens had better genes to survive as opposed to Neanderthals. Natural selection favored us Homo Sapeins because our species had a genome advantage. sourceshttp://www.indiana.edu...Why I did better than my opponentThe rules of the debate states that at round 5, both of us must state why we did better than our opponent. I have done better than my opponent because I overall had more convincing arguments and better sources. I have given evidence of Evolution, con has failed to show any evidence for Creation what so ever. Con claims that this debate is about Evolution and that he does not need to prove Creation. I have however stated that Creation is the only alternative to Evolution and Creation can not be proven scientifically. Con has also failed to properly attack my arguments, I have proven why Con is simply using false reasoning. For example, my opponent states Evolution is false because it doesn't provide a beggining. I have stated why this is not a valid argument against Evolution because it doesn't need to provide a beggining. Abiogenesis explains the beggining of life on Earth, Evolution explains the origin of species. In Round 2, my opponent has also went off topic. He went on to talking about the big bang theory and the distance between stars. You can also see that my opponent completely dodged my argument on the fossil record. Not only did my opponent dodge that, he also dodged my argument on micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, rather with different scales for each. While both my opponent used proper scientific sources for the most part, con interpreted them with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I have explained why none of his arguments make sense. Con's only source against Evolution is simply a wordpress blog filled with biased sources. None of the sources there are proper scientific sources. In conclusion, I have provided logical arguments and explained why they are accurate. Con is using pseudo reasoning to disprove Evolution. 'More convincing arguments' should be given to be because of this. Sources should be given to me, con has only one source against Evolution, that source is not a reliable source.