The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

Thanks to Pro for a quick response. I ask that Pro, in the last round, clarify and ask clear, concise questions rather than claiming concessions. I have answered all questions thus far and have not conceded on any points that Pro has made. If he feels that I have conceded then let's clarify because there is an obvious misunderstanding on someone's part, that can be cleared up easily.LenskiPiltdown- I used that article [5] for a particular reason. It is a perfect example of what I consider to be "evo-think". No matter what the issue and circumstance, no matter what the evidence that is considered, evolutionists twist it so as to portray the theory and it's adherents in a positive way. Many times this thinking causes them to miss the original point, and misconstrue or totally ignore the importance of why it was brought up to begin with. The author wastes no time in getting to the main reason for writing the article, "... Piltdown inquest can be seen as validating science in general and evolutionary science in particular", and later, "...was proud of the detectives, who did honor to science by their fearlessness and their candor; they reflect credit upon anthropology by their skill and thoroughness." Even without reading it, you can see the tone and the focal point of the article from those two quotes.The fact that science showed an example of its ability to self-correct in circumstances where obviously conflicting evidence leaves no choice, is not lost on me, and I agree that the scientists who exposed the hoax deserve credit, however there is a bigger point that is totally being overlooked and in his rush to prove his case, Pro inadvertantly reinforces the point with his round 3 comments. It is that evo-think, the zest to provide supporting evidence for common descent which is clearly lacking, and a rush to judgement, is what allowed the hoax in the first place!!We have a right to expect accuracy in what is taught in schools and the public arena, and the scientific community has a responsibility to provide that accuracy by thoroughly researching new finds, rather than rushing to judgement to accept things that seem to support its pet theories. That important lesson seems to be lost on evolutionists though. By the evolutionist's timeline, 40 years is nothing. So what is 40 years worth of false teachings and a few tax dollars among friends, right?? We can easily spin doctor this into a positive for science, especially evolutionary science, and that is what is important.Haeckel- First, Pro says that similarities do prove CD, and he is making the same ASSUMPTION that is critical to the entire idea of UCD, yet there is no proof of that assumption, it is simply asserted as fact. I challenge Pro to provide valid scientific evidence that proves the assumption.Secondly, Pro proves what I'm saying about why these frauds are dangerous and mislead the public. He is simply repeating what he has been spoonfed to believe, that all vertebrate embryos show "gill slits" and even a tail, as a function of their evolutionary history. He is a victim of the continuing fraud, nearly a century and a half AFTER it was exposed. Scientists know that recapitulation theory is false [12], and the true purpose of these structures [13]. Yet alledged educational sources such as PBS are continuing to perpetrate the fraud, even putting it in coloring books for children!![14]. Even though the true function is known, the sacs continue to be called gill slits, in textbooks and by those who teach our kids. [15][16] Biologist and ardent evolutionist, Kenneth Miller, even uses Haeckel's fraudulent information in textbooks that he authors [17]. Apparently, evolutionary science only self-corrects when it's forced into doing so, unfortunately, with no oversight, evo-think is only forced into self-correcting when not doing so threatens the theory.Experiment- Pro continues to say that Lenski's findings, the bacteria using a new food source, is evidence for CD. No one questions that they are descended from the earlier bacteria that were used, obviously creationists do not claim that organisms are not related to their ancestors. What is at issue is the notion that all life came from a common ancestor, and that organisms can descend from different kinds of organisms. So long as Lenski's bacteria remain bacteria, then he has some valid findings and useful information, but he has not provided evidence for universal common descent.Genesis- I've already explained this, and just because Pro chooses a skeptic site to interpret a book they don't believe in, doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct, though they are free to believe as they wish. As for BoP, Pro is the one who made the claim that there is a contradiction of scientific evidence, regarding the initial light source, therefore the onus is on him to present that scientific evidence that is apparently contradicted.Single Common Ancestor- The existence of dna in all life forms is not evidence that all life formed from the same ancestor. That is again an ASSUMPTION made by evolutionists. That dna could very well be interpreted as the result of all life forms having a common DESIGNER, and that theory can't be disproved by factual evidence. There is no comparison of unrelated organisms that show that presence of dna is proof of kinship, therefore, Pro's claim can only be asserted, but cannot be supported by fact.Both sides can make predictions that are true. Though that is a part of the scientific method, it is not conclusive unless those predictions are unique to the particular hypothesis. As creation would predict many of the same findings as evolutionism, those findings are not unique. Though there are some fossils that are argued to be "transitional", there is no evidence to show that they are indeed just that. You can't line a set of bones up next to a similar set and show them to have descended from a common ancestor, you can only ASSUME that to be the case.I can indeed provide a coherent definition of kinds. A kind is a population that shares common ancestry [18]. I don't disagree that baraminology faces some difficulties in tracing down an exhaustive accounting of the original created kinds. Though not at all necessary, I think that it is a worthwile venture.Bias Pro again brings up his link to a generic website, and claims that science has refuted a long list of religious claims. I commented on this in an earlier round. I don't have space within this debate to take on an entire website. With due respect to Pro, if he wished to pursue those arguments, he should have made the said argument within the debate, and sourced it with a verifiable reference, rather than expecting me to chase down the argument from a questionable source.Falsification- Each individual can weigh in on what it would take to falsify something, in their mind. The author of the wiki site that Pro uses did just that, but he didn't reference anyone in the scientific community who has authority to speak for evolution in general, so rationalwiki is not a credible source to speak for the scientific community.UCA- My point about origins is not irrelevant. Claiming that identifying and accounting for the existence of the proposed original common ancestor is irrelevant to CD is ridiculous.Against UCD:Inability to identify or account for the original ancestorInability to show how that organism could gain genetic informationInability to show organisms can evolve to different kinds of organismsNo evidence for how sexual reproduction formedIrreducible complexity Sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record That is far from a complete list but some important points. Perhaps fuel for a future debate?? Why Hasn't Evolution Been Exposed Yet?As I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I never said that I don't believe in mass hysteria or cults. I've already addressed this point, we have falsified CD, but we can't force acceptance. All we can do is spread the word. You're up