Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them.

Again, he has devoted the majority of his argument to deliberately mislead the audience and repeat arguments that I have already debunked. My opponent has also decided to comment on the layout of my argument, claiming that it is unclear. Thankfully, it is not my job to continuously reduce the level of my response to suit my opponent's ever decreasing bar. Since I am certain that the audience understands my layout and that it is clear enough, I shall thank my opponent for his advice but opt not to change my style. The layout of my final response shall be as such: 1. Final comment on "Epistemology" 2. Final comment on "Fossil Interpretation" 3. Final comment on "Transitional Fossils" 4. Darwin's History from Round 1 5. Conclusion EPISTEMOLOGY My opponent has said many things on this topic. Mostly, he has been rehashing his argument over and over again, with practically no changes. By rehashing his argument in mild amounts and accusing me of misunderstanding it when I clearly did not, he avoided responding to each and every single one of the fallacies I pointed out. Here they are in order: Fallacies: R1. Non Sequitor-Our senses need not direct us to ultimate 100% unquestionable certainty Flawed Premise- The fact that we cannot trust our existence/senses is irrelevant because even if we decide to accept God as validation that our senses are perfect, that does not erase the fact that people still do suffer from imperfect senses. R2. Begging the Question-My opponent says that humans would not deserve knowledge if they evolved from lower life forms. However, this runs under the assumption that knowledge is not a natural thing, but a supernatural thing. Assuming the supernatural is begging the question. R3. Flawed Premise I- My opponent says that we cannot trust our senses because we are individuals who have evolved, and that since we are individuals, we cannot rely on technology to validate our experiences. However, evolution deals with the species, not the individual, thus, this argument fails. Flawed Premise II- The above argument also has a premise that is unsubstantiated. There is technology that we can discover as individuals, thus, my opponent's restriction fails as well. Red Herring- My opponent brings up children thinking simple thoughts when this does not apply to his resolution. This has nothing to do with God or Evolution. INTERPRETATION OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE My opponent has also rehashed this argument several times. First, he says that fossils are useless because they do not provide exact information, only interpretable information. Second, he says that it is fallible because fossils have proven that dinosaurs and man have coexisted. In this round, he starts off stating that his proof stands, while completely ignoring the sources I cited showing that his dino-claims are completely false. He then cites that T-Rex blood shows that dinosaurs existed up until recently, and that tracks near trilobites fossils show a young human history. This section is more based on lies than actual logical fallacies. I will list them here. 1. Evolutionists struggle with fossil evidence- FALSE. There is no controversy or struggle, because science corrects itself. 2. Fossils represent just the individual organism- FALSE. Finding multiple fossils structured the same way and with small differences in strata of several hundred thousand years time shows that a fossil represents the species, not the individual alone. 3. The Taylor, McFall, and New Mexico trail show humans existed with Dinosaurs- FALSE, I have provided many sources debunking these. 4. The geologic column provides evidence for a global flood- FALSE, I provide many examples and a source detailing all the ways that it shows a geologic flood to be IMPOSSIBLE. My opponent only provided assumptions with no source or citation. 5. T-Rex blood has been found, showing that dinosaurs were not extinct that long ago-FALSE, this is the source my opponent did not cite, but has forced me to research on my own: . http://www.talkorigins.org... The hemoglobin was not intact, neither was soft tissue nor complete blood vessels. This is a complete and total lie, the bone was fossilized with remnants of what could have been hemoglobin fragments and an insignificant portion of organic material. The researcher himself said that all of the discoveries were tentative and should not be taken too seriously. The bone was also dated back to regular T-Rex age by amino racemization, a complex nonradiometric technique: . http://pubs.acs.org... 6. Trilobite tracks were found preserved in stone. This is again completely FALSE. Here is the source I needed to find myself . http://www.talkorigins.org... The tracks are nothing artificial, and were produced by natural processes. In addition, if it were a global flood causing this fossilization, the tracks would have been washed away by the flood. 7. There are fossils of creatures giving birth, fighting, and eating, thus, the flood must be responsible- FALSE. Things are dead before they are fossilized I don't recall any evidence of what my opponent describes. However, we know that his explanation is wrong because if the flood were the cause instead, all fossils would be of things DROWNING, not giving birth, eating, or fighting. 8. Fossils are misplaced, so the geological strata must be a lie- FALSE, things will shift due to natural occurrences. There are only around 200 fossils that are "misplaced" out of 250 MILLION fossils found and dated correctly, and of those 200 fossils, most of them are explained. TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS: My opponent refuses to clarify on a scientific definition of "kind", basically because there is none. A species is scientifically defined and evolutionarily relevant because with nearly no exceptions, life cannot produce fertile offspring outside their species. The designation of "kind" has absolutely no scientific or objective impact, thus, it has no barrier. My opponent's analogy of walking vs flying is a bad analogy because we can tell the difference between walking and flying. What limits microevolution from turning into macroevolution? Absolutely nothing that my opponent has stated. His final piece of evidence, that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional species, is useless because I never argued that it was. My source also did not cite it as a transitional fossil. DARWIN'S HISTORY Logical Fallacies: 1. Ad Hominem . http://www.nizkor.org... My opponent's argument is an attack on Darwin's personality and history, not an attack on Darwin's scientific contributions. 2. False analogy . http://www.onegoodmove.org... My opponent's parallels between Adam and Darwin are similar but not exact. Any logical conclusion to be drawn between them is logically invalid. 3. Flawed Premises and Biased presentation Darwin's father ultimately gave permission after he was convinced by his brother-in-law Josiah Wedgewood. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Darwin never concluded that there was no God, so my opponent's claim of Atheism is a lie. In addition, the death of Anne Darwin had no relevance. This source indicates that Darwin blamed natural selection more than God because he was concerned about inbreeding as he married his cousin. . http://en.wikipedia.org... *** And thus, my opponent has absolutely nothing left. Not even his introductory Darwin history. There is not a single point I have not completely debunked and provided evidence for, even though my opponent has decided to ignore over 75% of my sources. Since my opponent has not met his burden and I have made my point clear, I urge a CON vote. Thank you.