The Theory of Evolution Has Many Flaws

I would like to start out my rebuttal by stating the real definition of evolution- The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. I would like to note that my opponent starts out his speech by agreeing with the resolve, but then attempted to say that I have provided zero evidence for why evolution is flawed, but this is not true. During my second round, I have asked multiple questions and provided explanations to prove that evolution can not explain everything in the universe, such as the giraffe, how insects came to be, the genetic code, and therefore, I have proved that evolution is indeed flawed. Now, to respond to the responses my opponent has provided to my questions, I will start off with his first answer. Please note that all of his answers were opinionated, and he has provided only one source from where he got his answers. 1. The First Cell On a side note, mathematical improbability plays a huge role in why evolution is flawed. Evolution has many 'could haves' in it, such as; RNA could have come from outer space, there could have been a primordial soup, etc. To use improbability not being impossibility as an argument, you have shown that you do not know the answer to this question, and rely on it's slim possibility. The formation of life in the way that evolutionists have described it, it is very complex. No matter what viewpoint you see this from, the formation of the first cell by chance would be an extremely complex process and therefore, abiogenesis would be highly improbable. 2. The Genetic Code The complexity of something can be decided by science, and I as had said in my speech, science has revealed that the genetic code is extremely complex, and many evolutionists would agree that it could not have come to what it is today from random mutations. To say that the genetic code is simple because nature can do complex things, is ridiculous and a poor argument. 3. Two Genders Asexual reproduction is a much faster way of reproduction, as I had said before, many creatures would not be evolving for genetic diversity, but for survival. If creatures are identical, but can survive very well, it would be better than creatures that are not identical, but could not survive as well. My point is that nature would not focus on genetic diversity of defense mechanisms and much more useful traits. 4-5-6-7. These are not just missing pieces, but flaws in the theory, as I have previously explained. 8. The solar system You have no evidence of this explanation to why Venus spins backwards, but you use the argument that it 'could have' happened. But, even if this is true about Venus, there are many other accounts of backward revolving planets and moons, and saying that the sun could have been the reason for all of these planets and moons spinning backwards and providing no evidence to support it, is an invalid argument. Since this is my last round I would like to sum up why I believe I have won this debate. First off I have provided not only sources, but very reliable sources such as icr. org, whereas my opponent has provided one source throughout his entire speech. Also, my opponent has yet to answer four of my questions to prove that evolution is flawed, but instead he has simply said, "Like I said earlier, missing pieces. Doesn't disprove anything. " Also, almost all of his answers to my questions have been completely opinionated and two sentence answers, which do not even answer my questions, and I have explained why throughout my rebuttal. Lastly, my opponent has attempted to "Overrule" my arguments by trying to say that they were, "Logical Fallacies" instead of actually answering my questions. For these reasons, I believe that I have proved the resolve, that evolution has many flaws, and therefore I have won this debate.