Evolution is only a theory and will not be fact. Creation is true.

Chromosome # 2Interestingly enough, my opponent did not respond to my claims regarding the failures of his objections to the Chromosome # 2 argument provided. Therefore, this argument stands as strong evidence for evolution, due to the same reasons outlined in my previous round. Directly Observed Evolution/ SpeciationThis section of mine was the smoking gun, yet it went unaddressed. The very fact that new species have been observed to evolve in laboratories directly over long periods of study, shows that evolution is a fact and not only a theory. Directly observed evolution/ speciation negates the resolution alone. Why is Creationism false?This section still went untouched by Pro, as it seems he is having a hard time keeping up with the arguments provided. This is no fault of mine however, and I urge voters to take this blatant neglect to my arguments serious when the voting process begins. Additional Claims Made By Pro (2) "Ok the Archaeopteryx fossil is ONE fossil name some others that have these same traits because there MUST be a ton others in the in between stages they COULDN'T have all gotten wiped out right? And how did its flight develop?"Fossilization is a rare occurance [1]. We wouldn't expect to find very many of these fossils, and not all fossils have been discovered yet. "Evolution states that life began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals."First off, this is switching the goal posts. The resolution here is with regards to Evolution, not Abiogenesis (the hypothesis pertaining to the origin of life)[2]. Regardless, Abiogenesis as improbable as it would be, becomes much more probable the more times the odds are played out. For example, rolling a 6 on a dice seems unlikely, but if you roll the dice over and over again, the odds of you getting a 6 become much more apparent. If we apply this concept to Abiogenesis, then it becomes rather plausible. Reactions involving chemistry have been playing out billions of years before life began (as far as we know), so given a certain amount of time, the chance that life will emerge is high."Natural selection is the idea that the fittest survive and pass along their traits to their offspring.Down below are animals no evolutionists have the right to claim that they happened by chance (In my opinion anyway):"Here lies the problem. Nobody is saying that "chance" is the main culprit here. It's a natural mechanism (natural selection) which functions in a way that leads to certain outcomes. It has nothing to do with pure randomness, like my opponent is trying to make it seem. "Consider the little fish, wrasses that act as cleaners. The mouths of fish accumulate food debris and parasites, and they have no toothbrush! So wrasses clean them up inside and out. They swim into the mouths of big fish amongst the vicious looking teeth. The big fish make no attempt to eat these little cleaner fish. Even the spotted trunk-fish that exudes a poison from its skin withholds that poison while its cleaned up. In 1977, Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi said in Synthesis Vol. 1: 1"None of the above observations support intelligent design, over natural selection though. Natural selection might not be only mechanism driving evolution for all we know. However, no reason has been given as to why this fish indicates sentient creation. "All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism. All this had to be developed simultaneously. The chance of this happening as a random mutation has the probability of zero."My opponent has not stated the contents of the variables used to make this particular mathematical conclusion work. The underlying assumptions have not been justified here."None of the pieces in this evolutionary puzzle have any survival value until the whole set is functioning together.... Plan, purpose, and special creation are far more likely than time, chance, and natural processes."Pro mentioned complex functions of a woodpecker as well, and then went on to say that special creation is far more likely than time, chance, and natural processes. He backs this up with the assertion that this evolutionary puzzle had no survival value. Lets say we granted that conclusion, this in no way this undermines evolution. This is because nobody is making the claim that evolutionary changes of this nature necessarily lead to a survival benefit of some kind. Just because this happens to be a main function, does not make it necessary for every occurrence. For this reason, my opponent's arguments here do not hold much weight. "If it had the heart and wondernet without the valves in the jugular vein, the wondernet would burst. All associated features must be in place simultaneously. The giraffe's neck is a testimony to special design and planning.."What warrant is there for the notion that all associated features must be in place simultaneously? The giraffe's neck being a testimony to special design and planning seems like a subjective claim here, more than one backed up by empirical evidence. "Imagine the first beetle evolving this system. If it had not evolved the inhibitor, the beetle would blow up! With any other of the component chemicals missing, the toad would have eaten the beetle. In other words, it could not have evolved gradually over time."This is a non-sequitur. "It could not have evolved gradually over time" does not follow from "If it had not evolved the inhibitor, the beetle would blow up! With any other of the component chemicals missing, the toad would have eaten the beetle.""In my opinion I think that Evolutionist take evolution (SMALL 'e') blow it up and make it Evolution (BIG 'E')"Big 'E' is a necessary effect of Small 'e' and time. If any things, creationists try to imagine a non-existent barrier which would prevent Big 'E' existing due to Small 'e' plus time for evolution to occur. Regardless, I already provided exampled of macroevolution in my first round, which went entirely unscathed. "If the world was MILLIONS of years old then why hasn't it suffered so much damage and how was it created in the first place? The BIG BANG? How did the thing that caused the big bang get there? Then HOW DID THE CHEMICALS GET THERE? It is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" First off, the Earth is billions of years old, not millions [3]. "I understand we have to be sensitive to people's feelings, but in all honesty there is no serious scientist who wouldn't acknowledge all the evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old..." - Francis AlbaredeAlso, asking about The Big Bang is switching the goal posts again. We are discussing Evolution, not The Big Bang. My opponent is all over the place, and is having a hard time keeping a coherent case together. ConclusionMy objections to his rebuttal to my argument with regards to Chromosome # 2 went untouched. Therefore, it stands. My section involving directly observed evolution/ speciation went untouched. Therefore, it stands (this negates the resolution alone). Also, my opponent also failed to address how unlikely it would be to not find older human fossils if evolution was false. The fact that all fossils are dated according to the evolutionary tree is strong evidence for evolution. My opponent then went on about how "chance" is too unlikely, but chance isn't the only factor at play here, which makes his probability arguments trivial. It's safe to say that Pro did not meet his burden of proof, while I met mine. Sources[1] http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.universetoday.com...