Evolution is Real

First off, I would like to point out that in order for my opponent to win this debate, He would have to prove that evolution is true, Not just refute my arguments. I would also like to point out that my position has nothing to do with proving things, It is all about whether or not a belief is justified. I hold the stance that the evolutionist position is unjustified. That being said, Let's look at my opponents arguments. Fossil Record: It is hard for me to take your argument here seriously as you used wikipedia as your only source to back it up. Even so, There are still a few major problems with it. For example, The transitional fossils that you presented don't represent a very large transition. The fossils that you said represented the transition are all fundamentally horses. But furthermore, What evolutionist have failed to prove are the larger transitions from species to species that are necessary for evolution to be true. Yes, There are a few minor changes that are represented in the fossil record, But none that represent a legitimate transition from one species to another. The transitions have limits. A dog will always be a fundamentally be a dog even if it undergoes changes within it's species. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " Actually, In this case, That is not true. If evolution really happened, Then it is essential that it would be represented in the fossil record, But the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Quite simply, Evolutionists are using a cherry picking fallacy in that they are taking a field of study, (the fossil record) and picking small parts of it that support evolution and disregarding the large parts that refute it. Structural Homology: You begin here by quoting me for something I didn't say. I never said that because horses and cats don't have similar DNA, Evolution isn't true. I said that if certain parts of their body are similar to each other, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be somewhat similar, But they aren't. Although the DNA of a horse and a cat are quite different, There are certain parts of their body that are similar which is where the similarities in their DNA should be found. But when their DNA are closely compared, There are no similarities within the similar structures at all. Mutualism: The instinct would in fact have to develop at the same time the sweetlips fish got it's teeth. Otherwise, Their wouldn't be any teeth for the wrasse to clean and the process wouldn't work. It would have to happen within the same generation. My large point is that the motto evolution teaches is contradictory to reality. Evolution teaches, "survival of the fittest, " but then we see all of these other species helping each other. Interesting. You didn't seem to address my argument for molecular biology. Your ending is completely irrelevant to my position in the debate. Although I believe God exists, That's not what I'm here to argue. I'm here to argue that evolution is false. There is a statement that you made though that I really must complain about. "Who do you think is more likely to be true? Millions of scientists, Fossil records, DNA evidence, Or some holy book and priests? " This is a classic case of a straw man fallacy. You take the theist position, And make it something that it's not. I would love to argue more about that but it is beyond the scope of this debate. You said that millions of scientists believe in evolution but that doesn't matter. Millions of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation but it turned out to be wrong. While there have been some fossil records that have supported evolution, Others have not. There isn't any real DNA evidence either, Especially when compared with structural homology. In the end, Evolution is simply an unconfirmed hypothesis. It would take more than a little evidence here and there for me to believe it.