Macroevolution is most likely true

My opponent states "Obviously an acceptance of evolution necessitates the presupposition that we exist, that life is real, and that we possess a general understanding of what life is." Then he states "According to science, organisms exhibiting all or most of the following characteristics may be considered alive:..."Again, PRO does not define life, he only gives general characteristics of what may be considered alive. Life cannot be defined. PRO's OWN SOURCE CANNOT DEFINE LIFE:"It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance."[1]A process of what? Good question. We do NOT have a general understanding of what life is. Science makes no claim to define life, only to study it. Science seeks objective truth, but is itself NOT TRUTH. If Macroevolution was to be true, then the Theory of Evolution would become the new Bible, and Darwin the chief Prophet. Macroevolution would become as true as any of today's religions. I believe the world's religions to be true only within the confines of their religions, for example:Given the Bible, God is the Way, Truth, and Light.Without the Bible as a core assumption, such a bold statement would have nothing to stand upon. For science, there is NO CORE ASSUMPTION. Therefore, there is no statement regarding "truth" for those like PRO that so desperately seek it in science.PRO later states that "the question being considered in this debate simply concerns the probability of macroevolution being true."Again, to suppose that you or I or anyone voting on this matter has a grasp of "truth" is a fiction and fallacy. Science is built upon the destruction and fallibility of its theories. Theories are constantly readjusted based upon new input and discoveries. To think that Macroevolution will stand as some sort of tautological truth for all eternity is a complete and utter fallacy, as much if not more so than believing that the world was created in 6 days because the Bible said so.Like what it studies, Macroevolutionary theory will evolve, implying that it will experience death and rebirth. Whatever it is today, will not be what it will become in the future. It may not even be called "Macroevolution". How can something that does not stand the test of time be held "true"? All I need to prove is that Macroevolution is NOT MOST LIKELY TRUE. I have accomplished this task.PS - Any debate topic that holds something to be TRUE with no base assumption will more than likely be proven false. Any debater advocating that their position is a source of truth will more than likely be proven wrong. For instance, is 1+1=2 true? Given the set of real numbers, and given the mathematical terms + and =, yes, 1+1=2 is true.But, without those base assumptions, 1+1=2 is just chicken scratch that has no meaning whatsoever. What is the base assumption for my opponent's assertion that Macroevolution is true? My answer is that it will in some way involve a definition of life, because Macroevolution studies life. LIFE CANNOT BE DEFINED BY SCIENCE. Neither me nor my opponent has successfully proffered a scientific definition of life. I challenge any voters to do the same.[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...