(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

Round 4 Defense"“The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete......Important links in the fossil record also remain unaccounted for, such as the ancient last common ancestors connecting entire phyla. Research into the fossilization process continues to illuminate just how much of the record we're missing......So, taken on its own, the fossil record is considerably lacking in many areas...” [1].How is the fossil record a test for evolution when we see such large gaps? A leap of faith is required to fill these gaps and believe that living things evolved from one type of animal to another. These gaps show how unique and distinct all types of animals are and that they have not evolved from one to the other." TheArtist"So, taken on its own, the fossil record is considerably lacking in many areas. Yet like fingerprints at a crime scene, it's just one piece of the puzzle. Fossils, cladistic and molecular sequencing work together to form a larger picture that correctly documents the evolution of life " [15]There are other forms of evidence including cladistic and molecular sequencing. " the absence of barking is at least weak evidence that the noises were caused by something other than the dog." [16]While your argument is correct, that the fossil record is incomplete, it is weak evidence. "This slick feat of molecular maneuvering is not an example of evolution. Please refer to [2]" TheArtistYou claim there is evidence within your link. Since it is more difficult to prove a negative than a positive and burden of proof it to be equally shared, my opponent has tried to put an unfair burden on me. My opponent wants me to prove there is no evidence within the link. I will not attempt to prove a negative, my opponent should have quoted and explained how the link was relevant thus meeting his/her burden of proof. "Burden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally." Stupidape round one."There are no references to any scientific studies or facts in this article. What is claimed here is purely the writer's opinion. As for natural selection, species can change according to their environments, but limited in scope to their pre-existing genetic pool. Natural selection means selecting something from a pre-existing set, not changing it, it should have been called natural invention. Mutations have been used as “proof” for natural invention, but creatures that have mutated have all been worse off in nature." TheArtistNatural selection is the process in which a mutation either A. Is advantageous and thus the non-mutated organisms are naturally selected out or the mutation is B. disadvantageous in which case the mutated organism is selected out. The end result is that the more fit to survive organisms survive and the others are selected out. "Natural selectionNatural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles: There is variation in traits. For example, some beetles are green and some are brown." [17]"End result:The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown." [17] "but creatures that have mutated have all been worse off in nature." TheArtistThat is patently false. As seen above the brown beetles have an advantage over the green beetles. [17]""This is the same experiment in which an E. coli population produced the ability to utilize citrate under aerobic conditions, which it couldn't’t before. This was widely hailed as an example of ‘evolution’, but it actually involved a breakdown in regulation, which increased citrate­utilizing biochemistry that was already present in the bacteria" [3]" TheArtistThis seems like an ad hoc fallacy. Evolution has been observed many times between super pests, super weeds, super bugs. All of which have resistance to drugs used to kill them, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics respectively."Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up." [18]"Herbicide-Resistant 'Super Weeds' Increasingly Plaguing Farmers " [19]"Fears of GM super-pests" [20]"But First: What's a Superbug?It's a term coined by the media to describe bacteria that cannot be killed using multiple antibiotics. "It resonates because it's scary," says Stephen Calderwood, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. "But in fairness, there is no real definition."Instead, doctors often use phrases like "multidrug-resistant bacteria." That's because a superbug isn't necessarily resistant to all antibiotics. It refers to bacteria that can't be treated using two or more, says Brian K. Coombes, PhD, of McMaster University in Ontario.Any species of bacteria can turn into a superbug." [21]"So in claiming that evolution is scientific as per your given definition, the assumption is made that what is being tested, observed and falsified IS in fact evolution, but my responses show that the outcomes of the observations and tests are not proof of evolution so it can not be scientific." TheArtistEvolution can be falsified not is falsified. It is very easy to claim you falsified evolution, very difficult to prove you have falsified evolution. Otherwise, there would be scientifically peer reviewed journals reporting, "evolution has been falsified."I beg to differ that you have shown that evolution is not scientific. Even if I argued badly, this doesn't mean I am incorrect.I don't have enough characters to quote you about slavery. I will respond anyways. The problem with quoting religious scriptures, including the Bible, is that there are many contradictions. Therefore, if you want to make the claim that God allows Christians to be brutal to slaves, there is evidence for that. Simultaneously, there is evidence that slaves should be treated with respect and kindness.These contradictions within themselves are puzzling. My opponent has made a new argument against Christian creationism by introducing these contradictions.Sources.15. http://science.howstuffworks.com...16. http://rationalwiki.org...17. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...18. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...19. http://www.usnews.com...20. http://news.bbc.co.uk...21. http://www.webmd.com...