Evolution is a fact

I would assume the final round would simply be for rebuttals and defense of claims. I wonder why you did not address my point about homologous structures not being derived from homologous genes in many cases? You also did not answer my question about how the fossil record is supposed to vindicate genetic homology. There are too many things you did not address so I wont list them all, I think they will be obvious to the prospective reader. My opponent erroneously claims that he does not include creationists in his definition of scientists because they deal with "pseudo-science. " What a scientist believes about God is irrelevant to the science he preforms. Science does come second to faith as any honest evolutionist would tell you. Consider the following quote from Richard Lewontin, "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " There is bias on both sides, but this does not change the outcome of operational science within the framework of the scientific method. There are hundreds of scientists, many who have a Ph. D. , who believe in Genesis and yet are wonderful scientists (. http://creation.com...). I do not discredit evolutionists for their materialism/naturalism, but I consider their claims within the framework of the scientific method. To say there is "mountains of evidence" and then not provide it, is really quite silly. Concerning your homologous genes you say, "Based on the observations that all of these gene versions are remarkably similar in sequence, have related functions, and are incredibly widespread (animals all across the tree of life have them), scientists have concluded that they must be homologous and must have been inherited from the common ancestor of all these animals. " So evolution is assumed at the outset? And since that is the theory they are running with, all evidence must support it? Homology of any kind among organisms is only proof for evolution within the framework of the evolutionary model. Within the biblical creation model, homology supports a common designer. Similarity among animals is a bad argument. What about similarities among placental mammals and marsupials? Is this merely convergent evolution? African moles look just like Australian moles, yet since one is marsupial and the other placental, they are unrelated. How does the conclusion of the evidence of homology become "all organisms must have had a common ancestor? " Incredible. Nice rebuttal to my claims about radiometric dating, "My opponent doesn't know what he is talking about. " Radiometric dating is not used to date rocks, it is used to measure the ratio of radioactive isotopes within a given rock sample. This precise measurement is then used to infer an age based on the assumptions I mentioned. This is the problem. Radiometric dates are in no way unanimous and without conflict (. http://creation.com...). My opponent says the Flood has never happened. A bold assertion indeed. He first says the "flood story" does not explain the present geographic dirstribution of species, but then goes on to say that it cannot. I wonder if my opponent has ever checked out the Flood models of, say, Dr. John Baumgardner. My opponent is under the false pretense that all radiometric dating is in agreement, here's one example of the failure of U-Th-Pb dating at Koongarra, Australia (. http://creation.com...). You say, "What about the complex ecosystems that would have been destroyed from the flood? " Animals are amazingly versatile. All organisms have been given an amazingly versatile genome which allows animals to adapt to there environments. Ecosystems were destroyed, but new ones were made, and animals adapted. Some adapted better than others and thus survived longer, such as crocodiles, while some may have died out very early. You should study creationist Flood models before you ask questions like this. It is like me saying, "how would ocean fossils form, in the evolution model, if we don't see them forming today? " Here are some answers, if you are interested, to your claim about the Flood in relation to the mixing of salt and freshwater (. http://creation.com...) Your claim about the harm of denying evolution is ludicrous, I can claim more deaths by citing the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot alone, all of whom were heavily influenced by evolution. You say, "I'm sorry, but my opponent's arguments are not credible, scientific or even worth considering. " Nice cop-out. Clearly your definitions of credible and scientific are very subjective. Thanks for your time.