Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Missed RoundI missed the round due to health issues. I thank my opponent for also skipping a round.Burden of ProofYour assertion is that my assertion is incorrect. We are both making assertions. Therefore the burden of proof is on both of us. This is known as the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on both sides in a debate. It doesn't really matter though since I put forth factual data to support my assertion. I've provided the proof required by the burden, but my opponent has not. My opponent likes to use logical fallacies and misunderstandings to mask their lack of facts and true refutations of the facts I've provided.Rebuttal"But there have been additive mutations observed- several of them: changes in bone density, malaria resistance, and lactose tolerance are just a few that immediately come to mind."Your links make common mistakes:The first link assumes evolution happened, which is what we are debating here. It then goes on to describe a bone density decrease likely caused by a loss mutation. Not only that but the article doesn't mention mutations or DNA. It mentions measurements of bone density.The second link describes malaria resistance which is a loss of function mutation and is openly admitted in the article: " Many of the variants conferring resistance to malaria are ‘loss-of-function’ mutants and appear to be recent polymorphisms from the last 5000–10 000 years or less."The third link was already refuted by http://creation.com... which describes the gene that turns off the lactase production as being damaged which allows humans to continue to process lactase long after its healthy to do so. Besides the calcium in milk (Vitamin D is added artificially) there are harmful chemicals that cause arthritis and other ailments. Drinking milk past a certain age is detrimental to health."Nonsense. Referencing creationist pseudoscience does not equate to providing "references to scientific articles that include facts" by any stretch of the imagination. If you mean for your position to be taken seriously, then you ought to provide academic support for your assertions. Using creationist websites to argue in favor of creationism is circular reasoning at its finest."Once again you are attacking the source of the the proofs provided using insults and accusations. We already know that this an appeal to motive https://en.wikipedia.org... and is an invalid argument in any debate. If you were to actually refute the science then you might have the upper hand, but until this point you haven't even mentioned a refutation to any of the links I've provided. The audience should note the consistent lack of logical thought by my opponent, despite my multiple attempts to point out the logical fallacies used and give my opponent every chance to change their tactics. I could just as easily claim that the opponents sources aren't valid because they link pro-evolution websites and publications, but I don't. Instead I point out where the facts presented have been refuted or don't support the opponents assertion that my initial statement is not true.This is ironic, as each of my sources are academic references whereas each of my opponent's sources are biased creationist "websites."Each of your sources has been implicated in various pro-evolution controversies, I will leave it to the reader to research those. They also assume evolution of millions of years, even though they've been proven wrong multiple times by other sources. Again refute the facts I've presented instead of attacking the motive of my sources. Your sources are just as biased."My apologies. Here is the correct link, along with the others I provided:"The corrected first link is just a study of how 'geological time' should be discovered as well as the various things that happened. I don't disagree with the events described. I do however disagree with the conclusions reached especially since the geological time scale was invented long before radiometric dating and radiometric dating agreed with geological time exactly. This is because in their calibrations of radiometric dating they used the geological time scale as a frame of reference. If its wrong, then a lot of early radiometric dating methods could be wrong. We already know that radiometric dating is wrong because of the presence of carbon-14 in every sample of strata to date. Carbon-14 should not be present in anything that is 1 million years old or older, yet we find it readily available in supposed multi-million year old samples. What happened here is people rejected the traditional data and made up another idea, unsubstantiated by any real science, and then built on that idea with everything else and like a house of cards when you remove one of the cards the whole thing comes tumbling down.Your other links were already refuted unless you added more."If the geological time scale (which is universally accepted) is so easily refuted, then I'm sure it's quite easy to find unbiased sources which refute it? If this is the case, I kindly ask that my opponent provide these unbiased sources. If not, then I see no reason at all to think that the geological time scale is "easily refuted" as my opponent claims."The geological time scale is not universally accepted. There are hundreds of scientists that don't believe in the geological time scale. Again you make the fallacy of an appeal to motive. You should really focus on the facts if only to prove those facts wrong, rather than keep weakening your argument by trying to attack my sources with unsubstantiated name calling. As I've said before 3D fossils are found in every layer of strata meaning each of lose layers had to be put down rapidly. Then we have polystrate fossils that span multiple strata which show that the layers must have been put down at the same time. Just based on basic logic we should come to the conclusion that most if not all layers of strata were put down simultaneously which would render the 'millions and billions of years' theories nullified. Its a common tactic to ignore an assertion that weakens your argument, which you are doing here."I suppose this will just have to be a case of which sources (mine or my opponent's) are more credible. I'll let the readers make that decision."We don't have to. Any attack on a debaters source (as opposed to the facts provided by that source) is a logical fallacy of an appeal to motive and therefore invalid. Now if you were to try to refute the facts my sources provide, that would be a different matter entirely. Unfortunately you don't seem willing to do that. Your next argument is also answered by this."Well that's laughable. Neutral and harmful mutations don't come anywhere close to "disproving evolution". Does my opponent not know that these mutations are random? Does he expect (if evolution is true) each and every random mutation to be beneficial? What reason does he have for thinking that?"The first sentence is my opponent making an appeal to incredulity logical fallacy, by trying to invoke an emotion in the audience of incredulity over my statement. https://en.wikipedia.org... . If all we every find are neutral and harmful mutations and additive mutations are precluded by all of the systems in place to stop them, then we can safely say that evolution could not happen. There is not a single shred of evidence for evolution. No single line showing additive mutations in the fossil record. No bacteria showing any additive mutations over the hundred years of research done on them. No additive mutations found in fruit flies despite the large amount of time devoted to them. Not a single additive mutation ever found anywhere in nature despite the billions of dollars spent looking for them. They simply do not exist and without them evolution cannot have happened."(1) It's very bold to claim to know which traits could and could not have been passed down via natural selection, especially given changing environments, resource availability, etc. (2) That is, in fact, exactly what convergent evolution explains. That's the very point of convergent evolution."(1) You have misunderstood my statement. The way evolutionists have the tree of life designed some organisms further along the tree would have to inherit genes for complex organs from bacteria their last common ancestor.(2) Convergent evolution is not about exact DNA matches. It is about similar or the same functionality of organs. For instance eyes on humans and cats are very different but they are thought to have evolved convergently because they serve the same function: sight. It appears you don't even understand the definition of convergent evolution.SummaryMy opponent has continually denied the facts I've provided to fully prove my assertion by using a combination of logical fallacies which include but is not limited to: appeals to motivation, personal incredulity, and others. They did this rather than refute the facts I've presented. Not one link, fact, or piece of science my opponent has provided has refuted anything I've asserted. In fact the opposite, many of their claims have been refuted by the links they provided themselves. My opponent then goes on to accuse me of circular reasoning, which is false because circular reasoning requires the source to explain the result and the result to explain the source. The problem is many of my sources use outside sources such as the RATE project using evolutionary radiometric dating studies to prove their points as well as using the same companies that do radiometric dating for evolutionists to prove radiometric dating is false. Science is science and everyone has a motive. There are no unbiased views as studies have shown. https://en.wikipedia.org...SourcesAgain my opponent is making the appeal to motive logical fallacy and refuses to refute the science I've presented.