Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

NOTE: IF YOU ARE SKIMMING THROUGH THIS, IT IS VITAL TO READ MY ARGUMENTS FROM LAST DEBATE, AS THESE ARGUMENTS ARE BEING USED IN THIS DEBATE! http://www.debate.org...Rebuttal 1:I found this rebuttal quite rude, if you could call it that. Give it up with the biased sources. I challenged you to find something debunking evolution that is not from a creationist website. You failed to do so. Thus, we automatically assume that you couldn't find anything. If you can't find sources from credible scientific researchers (such as the ones I provided. Ex. Time, NatGeo, ETC) and your information can be only be found on creationist websites raises a huge red flag. I don't get my info from evolution.org. Why can't you get yours from credible scientific researchers. Con then adds a remark stating you don't see creation websites posting evidence for evolution. This was a stupid statement none the less. Let me put it to you this way. If evidence goes against everything my religion believes in, and I can't find any evidence to back it up, I'm going to make fake evidence. That is exactly what these websites are doing. THEY ARE FEEDING YOU PROPAGANDA! I am starting to wonder if this debate is a joke to Pro. Answer to her question: The evidence they put out is in-correct. You did not fulfill my challenge to you to find a website not affiliated with religion to back up your claims. You didn't put any. This makes me automatically assume you couldn't find any. No! Yours was posted in 2011 and on a forum post with no link to back him up. Mine was published in 2012 with links to back it up on a credible website. Who wins? Pro's mistake:If I give evidence that shows evolution in creation or vice versa, I automatically win the debate! Quote by Pro:"If Con can find me creation evidence in an evolution (or vice versa) website then I'll concede. Or even better, if he gives me a content from one of the links and refutes it straight out, then he has proved his point."Fine. Challenge accepted. Mike Duran, a leader of a Christian website admitted that theistic evolution should be accepted. (1) Quote from the article:"Secondly, biological evolution is not clearly ruled out in Scripture. Of course, many Christians would dispute this. The Bible’s aim, however, is to show us the origin of the Universe and the Beings who inhabit it, not provide a detailed description of the organic processes God may have used along the way. Man is created in the image of God. This is central to the Genesis creation account and distinct to historic Christianity. As long as a theistic evolutionist affirms that biblical doctrine (i.e., that Man is much more than an advanced animal; he is Divinely imprinted), how that Man was “assembled” should be peripheral." End quote.So, I have won the debate. However, I know Pro isn't satisfied. I shall provide her with more evidence with evolution later, after I refute all of her points.Rebuttal 2:This was aimed at your statement animals can't have feeling. The exact quote is:"Then why do we have emotions and feelings and concepts and language, while apes don't?"End quote.The most popular theory is that race was because of the Tower of Babel. (2)Side Question:Language came from basic association. They looked at something, and called it something. Easy as that. I skimmed through it. This is something you can bring up on our spin off debate.Rebuttal 3:LOLRebuttal 4:Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.Rebuttal 5:Look at the topic......Rebuttal 6: I look forward to an immediate rematch. You were rude, crude, and very uptight. No matter what, I would never get that rude in a debate. Thank you too.Rebuttal 7:I will prove this wrong.Challenge:My opponent is obviously not satisfied with the evidence I have brought forth on evolution's behalf, so I will add more.I just want Pro to read these links, so I'll just post them and leave it up to Pro to read. http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...Made by a fellow theistic evolutionist http://biologos.org...http://whyfiles.org...Note this is all up to you to read. I ask the voters don't read the links. If you feel totally comfortable in your religion, or are not interested in changing, I suggest you don't read these. She is right. I have been holding back. I could've brought up fossil records, the full history of the whale evolution, ETC. Good luck.Conclusion:I have proved:Pro used little if not any to back up her arguments.Al the sources she did use were from biased links, that put out biased information. For instance, Answers In Genesis, (A link commonly used by Pro), put out false information. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...Many challenges I gave to Pro were dropped.Many arguments were dropped by Pro.Pro attacked my character.I fufilled the challenge Pro sent me, and by her words, I win the debate because I fufilled it.Good luck! Vote fairly!1. http://mikeduran.com...2. http://creationtoday.org...