There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

1. My opponent stated;"Contrary to my opponent’s claim, there is no limit to the variation of inherited characteristics over time." - Yes there is! "Farmers have been breeding pigs for a long time but you will never breed a pig the size of Texas, there are limits to the variations." - Kent Hovind 2. Ring Species. - THEY ARE STILL SALAMANDERS! you can get variations of salamanders but you will NEVER get a sala-MAN!!! (that's my line, pretty good eh?) 3. " Cladograms only demonstrate a nested hierarchy of biological characters; they tell us nothing about what produced the pattern. Many problems of phylogenetic inference that cladistics claims to solve still remain largely unsolved, such as distinguishing between homology and homoplasy. Perhaps the largest problem, however, is the illusion of evolution that cladograms and the language used to describe them give to the public. They both create the illusion of a resolved genealogy despite some cladists’ disavowal of any strict genealogical connotations." http://creation.com... 4. synapomorphies you ASSUME these arise through common ancestry. this could be evidence for a common designer. "Similarity in form does not guarantee a common ancestry, and this is an interpretation of the cladogram." http://creation.com... "there is no way to tell from the fossils if any lineage has been preserved. Cladistics doesn’t demonstrate evolution. Cladistics is a classification scheme, nothing more." http://creation.com... “But doesn’t the fact that organisms lend themselves to being arranged in nested hierarchies of polarized traits (that is, cladograms) itself prove that they evolved that way (or at all)? Hardly. Assuming evolution a priori, one could construct a cladogram that has an 18-wheel truck as its crown group, and which shows a clearly transition-filled, incremental appearance of ‘truckness’, beginning with the stem-group unicycle. Note also that the human, elephant, and bat is each highly-derived fish, just as an 18-wheel truck is a highly-derived unicycle. Such is the reductio ad absurdum of cladistic methodology.” Woodmorappe, J., Evolutionary cladograms and malevolent, strawmen creationists: a review of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero, J. Creation 23(3):39–43, 2009. This is an excellent paper on this subject here: http://creation.com... I think I have demonstrated that these arguments for evolution presented here are no where near conclusive proof of "evolution" nor are they the only interpretation of the scientific data. I can go arrange the boots on my front mat into some order and say look this boot evolved from this shoe over here. As is stated above: "the human, elephant, and bat is each highly-derived fish" IS the reductio ad absurdum of cladistic methodology.We may remain on this subject if my opponent likes or he can try another argument. Darwinian Evolution is simply not true. It is a lie and if you are open minded you may have to consider for a moment that you have believed a lie. The sooner you admit this to yourself the better. I believed it too for roughly 20 years yet where I once was blind, now I see. In Jesus name, amen.