The theory of Evolution is well supported by science

"science also deals with observable evidence on which to draw these theories and hypotheses" Agreed. The theory of evolution was first proposed by Darwin after he observed birds (finches) being adapted to their environment. We observe speciation in the lab (two populations that diverge so much that they can not interbreed); we obviously observe mutation through generations (we are not the exact mix of our parents) and we found fossils. Evolution is well supported by observation. "It does exist, however not in quantities to show beyond a 95% burden of proof" Attributing a number to the burden of proof is useless; there is no way to establish what amount of evidence constitutes "95%".1) DNA"We think " If Evolution were true, how would things be? " and upon finding something that correlates we pipe that as evidence" Yes, if a theory manages to produce accurate predictions (which it did in the case of Tiktaalik), then it is considered evidence supporting that theory. ""If a Deity existed, how would things be? " Would not a deity have people create houses of worship to praise him? If so then churches and a God correlate. " Well that is a self-fulfilling prophecy, meaning that people actively worked towards that goal. In the case of DNA, scientists did not "create" DNA, they discovered it. When DNA was discovered, it could very well have destroyed the idea of common descent (if DNA was different in every living things), but it confirmed it. The fact that the theory of evolution was already in place when DNA was discovered is the reason why the analogy with theists fails. "Simply because we share similarities with other creatures does not completely support Evolution" I'm not sure what my opponent means by "not completely supports", but I will say that it does support evolution, because the existence of similarities (on the DNA level) is considered an accurate prediction, therefore increasing its scientific validity. "What's to stop a Christian from suggesting that god created all beings from a similar genetic mold? " Nothing stops them from doing that; if God can do anything, then everything "fits" with the idea of God and discussing his existence becomes meaningless. The difference is, the God hypothesis can not make any predictions and has no explanatory power.2) Fossil record"The Cambrian explosion is a phenomenon in the fossil record that carries an enigma of sorts. " The Cambrian explosion is a great mystery in biology, but not because the time window is too small (it was actually around 20 million years long); the mystery lies in the CAUSE of the Cambrian explosion. In other words, biologists are currently exploring the different hypotheses that would explain the origin of this event. . http://biologos.org... "The Hurdia is an aquatic animal that was originally marked as a Cambrian fossil after some testing. Later though, it was dicovered that this fossil actually belonged to the Ordovician time period" I will start by contesting the validity of the source provided by my opponent. The Institute for Creation Research is NOT a scientific authority and I will point out that the page he referenced is trying to argue that the Flood explains this problem (I will assume that my opponent does not believe that the Flood is a historical event). I would also point out that finding a fossil in two successive periods does NOT contradict evolution; it is possible for a species to remain static for prolonged periods of time if it is well adapted to its environment and if the environment does not change. On the issue of incomplete sources, I must admit that I have the same problem my opponent has; I am unable to go to the specific pages I wanted. This is an error on my part and, although I do not know how to correct it (I copied the whole link and it just took a part out), I will try to avoid it in the future. Please inform me if the same happens with the link I provided is this round. I await my opponent's response!