Evolution more rationtal than creationism/god

Thanks to my opponent for a relevant and on topic debate. So many of these creationism/evolution debates wander all over the place and I am extremely pleased we did what we set out to do.In your opening statement in round three you set out the argument against evolution as not been a rational point of view in the following manner. 1) Evolutionists believe that all life evolved through natural selection. 2) However, that belief is a defeater for itself 3) Therefore, you cannot rationally believe evolution by natural selection to be true. I wish to address only point one in this argument, as if it is falsifiable then all the other parts naturally follow to be falsifiable. You said that evolutionist believe that all all life evolved through natural selection. This is false, as evolution is not a belief it is a scientific fact. It should be noted that a scientific theory can be classified as fact when the theory has been tested multiple times and has been shown to be accurate.(1) As such the scientific method of hypothesis, prediction, and testing has been applied to evolutionary theory multiple times and it has been found to be correct. (2) With respect to transitional fossils, the scientific method predicted fossils with different features between two fossils (as shown with the Gray whale fossils and human fossils in my second round). As such the scientific method has been applied to the transitional fossil hypothesis, and it has been shown to be a fact. It should be noted that there is also other evidence for evolution besides transitional fossils like DNA evidence as I pointed out in round 2.(3,4) I believe the above argument shows that evolution is not a belief or a theory as defined in the English language, but a scientific theory or fact.(5) Moving on to the Occam's Razor argument against evolution. You said that "Occam's Razor is the logical law that states that the "simplest answer is most often correct"." Fine, I accept that but let me explain why evolution is the simple answer. The other option besides evolution is creationism which requires the existence of a creator. There is absolutely no scientific evidence form the existence of a creator. In contrast there is scientific evidence for evolution. So the simple answer is the answer that has evidence to show it is true, this means the simple answer is evolution. Then in your last argument, you pointed out that evolution cannot account for three points. Let me address these points. Origin of life? This is not a question that evolution aims to answer and as such is irrelevant in this debate.(6) Origin of Gender? This implies male and female yet ignores multiple issues such as: asexual reproduction (which is a better means of reproduction), changing genders in fish, hermaphrodites, homosexuality.(7,8,9) I want to point out to my opponent here that the evolution of genders from hermaphrodites has been observed.(9) Also, asexual reproduction is more reliable, and as such gender evolution is in effect an "error". This "error" is what would be expected from random chance in evolution, whereas it would not be expected in creationism. Origin of consciousness? Again this is not a question that evolution aims to answer and as such is irrelevant in this debate.(6) This means, of you three major contentions against evolution two are irrelevant to the evolution debate and the third has been answered. Lastly, in your conclusion, you have said "The time-scale required for evolution to occur is far beyond the time the earth has even existed." However, you have presented no evidence for this. This statement then means nothing, as without evidence to support it, it is a baseless claim. In closing I would like to make the following statement. In the opening of his round three rebuttals my opponent stated "I am not going to deny the evidence that Pro presented for evolution", he then said " I will deny the reasoning used". However, I have shown all this reasoning is flawed so in effect my opponent agrees with evolution and the evidence presented fro evolution. Once again thanks to my opponent for a great debate. I hand the debate back to my opponent and the readers to decide. (1) http://www.livescience.com... (2) http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...(3) http://www.ncsu.edu... (4) http://humanorigins.si.edu... (5) http://www.nebscience.org...(6) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(7) http://news.stanford.edu... (8) http://www.sciencedaily.com...(9) http://www.nature.com...