evolution is false

First I would like to point out the many ways my opponent has gone back on his own logic. These are just some of his own statements: "Evolution is about subtle genetic changes in an organism's body." "Why does it matter if it's subtle or not?" These are his own statement he has just let his entire argument fall apart because he is going back on himself showing that his argument is flawed. Also, he attempts to point out my minor errors in grammar and spelling to cover up that his argument is flawed. And he points out that "wikipedia is reliable because it had over 270 sources for that particular subject," well if i brought 270 people to my opponent and said that cartoons are real would he believe me? From the looks of it maybe so. My opponent tries to protray me as "the bad guy" to that people will vote for him rather than pay attention to the facts of the debate. Also he accuses me of "challenging him to a fight of insults" when, infact, I pointed out to him when he entered the debate that i would be attempting to keep this debate friendly, but he decided to comment on my depth of knowledge and when I reply attempts to make himself appear like a saint when indeed he started the unkindness. Well im going to end it here any more unkind statements are on my opponents head. "Yes, it would take a long period of time. Evolution doesn't happen instantly. But, that is besides the point. My opponent has offered these numerous questions as a shield for what he asked at first. Why did birds evolve wings? Because wings gave them advantages over other creatures. They can fly and pick off insects, reach fruit, and sip nectar. I don't see how your questions disprove evolution anyway. When did natural selection state that birds with wings will die? They developed wings to get away from predators because very few predators fly, only other birds [1]. Natural selection states that the weakest animals of a species die off, whereas the strongest carry their traits on to their offspring. Clearly, the birds have survived, and the trait of the wings has been a strong factor in their survival." I would like to point out that my questions are valid and are very relevant to the topic at hand. Birds growing wings would be of absolutely no benefit to them until after they were developed enough to fly, but their would have had to been thousands of years of growth of these wings. If we humans randomly started to grow a poisonous tail until that tail was fully developed and could sting it would just be a lump of flesh growing out of our rear. This lump of flesh in our rear wouldn't protect us from predators until it was large enough to sting, which would take a very large amount of time. If we were growing this to avoid predators wouldn't those predators kill us off long before our tails were large enough to protect us? "Again, other cover-up. My opponent lets off on one argument, only to ask another question, hoping that I would fail in the response. And he even decides to make the falsified claim that you find shells and fish, but nothing between the two. Fish have changed throughout the millions of years so much. From jawless, armored Ostracoderms to bottom-dwelling, jawed Placoderms to our modern Osteichthyes fish [2]. Fish have been changing for years and years and will continue to." I feel no need to continue on my argument because my points are clear. While my opponent merely states untrue statements repeatedly and is trying to avoid the point of my debate. And once again, IT IS STILL A FISH! That still does not show me how a seashell turned into a fish so my opponent is once again avoiding the point. Also, my opponent has made multiple grammar errors. "Microevolution is evolution. If my opponent wants evidence that macroevolution exists, I shall supply. First of all, we there are transitional fossils, such as the famous Archeopteryx. I retained more qualities of theropod dinosaurs than it did of birds [3]. Ambulocetus is known as the "walking whale", it had attributes of a crocodile and showed the transition of a land-mammal to a whale [4]. In fact, just a thorough examination of the evolution of the horse, the most updated and completed evolutionary lineage of any other animal, shows many clear examples of transitional fossils." Ok so an animal has traits of a dinosaur and a bird, so? And the ambulocetus was basically a whale with legs point remains the same it is still a whale! It didn't turn into a pigeon and fly away! Also it was a horse then and it's a horse now. microevolution says that small changes will occur to a species over time to help it adapt, but one species wont turn into another completely different species. "This is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group." How is it a new population? If it can't breed then that species dies with that animal. So that statement is illogical. "It's a long line of evolution, of course. Neanderthals are some of our closest relatives, and apes our farthest. But we still came from apes nonetheless, as our genetic material is very similar. If you browse through the site I will soon list, you will find the fossils and evidence of evolution through man [5]." But earlier you said that we also came from wheat plant. And now your saying that our farthest relatives are apes. Once again your going back on yourself. The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory. Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile. Most of what I said is from http://www.abovet...