Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

"My opponent has decided to forego terms such as this for his imaginary one; "kind". Notice how it is the same word used by convicted criminal Kent Hovind." ~I would respectfully ask DDO voters to NOTICE that I have NOT used the word 'kind' ONCE during this debate. I have, from the outset, consistently either used the word Family or Genus when suggesting how animals should be classified. The word 'kind' is a Biblical classification and so wholly inappropriate for a scientific debate such as this. I respectfully ask DDO voters to ponder the motive behind my opponents attempt to put this word 'kind' into my mouth. (and so tie me to a creationist viewpoint when I have not mentioned faith or the Bible ONCE) ~In round one I stated: "As we shall soon see, defining what Evolution IS and is NOT is where the real battleground lies." ~And if we are honest we have not progressed very far from this statement. If I allow that Evolution is nothing more than 'change within species' then I have lost. If my opponent allows the term 'Families' to stand, he has lost. Neither of us will budge from our respective positions. This is precisely were the whole 'Evolution' argument rests today. (despite what leading evolutionists would have you believe) If nothing else, I hope this debate reveals where the opposing camps are currently dug in. Now to my: ~FINAL ARGUMENT. ~My opponent has consistently stated that Evolution is NOT a theory of how life was formed but is merely change within 'species' over successive generations. ~Let us examine what Charles Darwin believed: "Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits." "It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. " ~Or Richard Dawkins: "For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria." ~Or Prentice Hall Biology: "Descent with modification also implies that all living organisms are related to one another. Look back in time, and you will find common ancestors shared by tigers, panthers, and cheetahs. Look farther back, and you will find ancestors that these felines share with horses, dogs, and bats. Farther back still are the common ancestors of mammals, birds, alligators, and fishes. If we look far enough back, the logic concludes, we could find the common ancestors of all living things. This is the principle known as common descent." ~So if you, the voting public, agree with my opponent that evolution is NOT an origins of life theory you must vote CON. ~The rest of my opponents strategy has simply been to post links to sites confirming his own view of 'speciation' etc. ~As we cannot even agree on the definition of classification of animals, all of these are of little or no value. And even if we did agree on classification my opponent would still have all of his work ahead of him: www.realfairies.net pjentoft.com/fairie6.html www.lucylearns.com www.amazon.com/Fairies-Real-Encounters www.askkids.com/web?q=Are+Fairies+Real&qsrc=6 ~Above are just a few of the sites devoted to people who believe in real life fairies. I respectfully ask the voting public whether simply POSTING LINKS to their sites adds weight to the theory that fairies exist? ~If it does, again you must vote CON. ~As my opponent has not brought ONE piece (or a SHRED) of evidence into the debate itself I fully stand by my statement: "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence." ~Thanks to my opponent for all of his hard work and dedication.