Evolution: True? (Continuation)

For in point #16 he notes: "there has yet been strong enough evidence of problems in the theory that would result in the need of a new theory"! In other words, evolution is an inadequite theory. Now, I seem to remember this topic being "Evolution: True? " If evolution is inadequite, as my opponent states, then it is not true and some other theory (I don't know which one, but that's not important) is true. 1 and 3. There is no evidence for either evolution or anything else. Since the evidence is equal, we must turn to parsimony as my opponent agrees. I have already provided many sources, particularly in the preceding debate, about there being no evidence for evolution. I'd like to cite Prof. DMS Watson, a staunch evolutionist writing a peer-reviewed article later published in Nature, in 1929. He said: "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. " Nobody has ever found a fossil in pre-Cambrian rock (. http://www.icr.org...). Later fossils are all disputed, by the many various sources I have cited already. Put it this way - evolution is just a theory, and not a particularly complete or coherent one. "The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model. " (. http://www.icr.org...) 2. "Once again this increase in genetic information came about through the processes of duplication and mutation. " - there is nothing in the processes of duplication (making a replicate of existing data) and mutation (changing existing data) that explains increasing existing data. All mutation does is create anagrams. All duplication does is write the word out on another sheet of paper. This process cannot add letters to the same sheet of paper. So again, how is it that the first organisms had only one pair of chromosomes when we have dozens today? What process added the chromosomes? 3. In addition to what I say for point #1 above, again, I don't need to provide another theory. This is my opponent's way of dodging the issue of observation, which I respectfully ask he comes back to. My lack of a competing theory is not connected to observation at all. But for the sake of argument, I'll reaffirm that my official theory that I advocate is the inverse vacuum fluctuation model. Even if my opponent destroys it, I still win the debate. It's not dishonest to debate for-and-against a model as opposed to for-and-for, like my opponent asserts (that's why we're called pro and con). 4. Why would the eagle not lose the same energy while flying and thus not have the same disadvantage? Please explain this argument further. Think about an ostrich without wings to get an idea of how much faster an ostrich could be. 45kmph is slower than a house cat (. http://www.cute-cat.net...). Capitalizing buzzwords (poor grammar, by the way) will not win you this argument. 5. The reason I did not provide a source for the Java man's fraud is that I have already done so, in the last debate. It's on numerous websites written by top scientists and researchers - ICR has a long, technical article, but I prefer . http://creation.com... 6. Paleontologists, without a DNA sample, are guessing just as much as you or I are. Yes, perhaps they look at bones a lot more, but they are just guessing that dolphins once walked on land. Personally, I think that any sane voter comparing both images would see remarkable similarities between the lizard and prehistoric dolphin skull. Believe me, there are experts who agree it's a fraud too. I'm glad I discovered ICR! 7. No, my dear voters, it's not OK to say "My theory is always right even though it doesn't yet explain the most significant event. " It only takes one outlier to break the rule. The Cambrian explosion is one hell of an outlier. 8. My opponent asserts that some giraffes could withstand the extra blood pressure on the head without having evolved systems to deal with this. Same with the bombardier beetle. My response is one word long - how? 9. "Energy would be wasted creating new blood vessels, supporting them, rewiring the brain, new nerve endings, new place for the occipital lobe. .. " hmmm - now we're talking! What about when wings got evolved? New blood vessels and supports, brains rewired, nerve endings and muscles created - yet the bird cannot even fly! Please, voters, see through this hypocritical argument. 10. Once you have created life, for that life to increase in complexity violates the second law. That is why the second law does not just apply to origin science. I wish my opponent would actually argue that point rather than saying I'm talking about something different. 11. Given the trillions of mutations that have happened in my body, the trillions that have happened in yours, in Barack Obama's, in Louis Theroux's, in Justin Bieber's or any of the other billions of humans now living, or any of the other humans now dead - at the mutation rate, the chance that a leg cell and all of its children does not mutate to blue or some other silly-looking color and not have enough children to be visible (like you suggest happens all the time) is statistically pretty much impossible (chance of null hypothesis < 0.01). This is just another way evolution relies on an ignorant, blind, impossible assumption. 12. The poll you cite asks which is preferable: intelligent design or evolution? That's not what we're interested in. This debate is about whether evolution is correct. My polls suggest most physicians think not. 13. I'll clarify my statement here: maybe we have helped the process, but there simply is not enough mutation going on to explain either the natural or our beefed-up artificial rate. I doubt that the natural rate is so low as to be lower than the marginal rate. See here: . http://www.icr.org... 14. Just because you don't know origin science doesn't mean my arguments for it can be ignored. Again, evolution and origin science are inexplicably linked. One suggests the other, just as evolution suggests mutation. 15. Earth did, nobody else did. That's an argument against evolution because it violates the Copernicus principle, suggesting some force positioned the Earth and by extension allowed life to happen, but did not allow life to evolve in and of itself. That was a natural process. Really this argument and the last one are arguments giving the same conclusion as argument #1. 16. Dealt with above. 17. Vestigial organs are those that appear because of birthing and growth DNA not matching body DNA, for instance it was once alleged that very young human fetuses have tails (now known to be false). However, these do not appear, despite evolution necessarily predicting them (see my source). My opponent's idea of vestigial organs (what I'd call useless mutations) do exist, but do not prove evolution. 18. Half ears do also not appear. Half eyes are totally useless. Half tails are not balancing like my opponent thinks because they do not have sufficient weight behind them to achieve that effect. Also most animals do not fall backwards so the cushioning is useless too.