Evolution (speciation) is false

To briefly explain the structure of my final argument, I will first be pointing out the major, recurring flaws in your rebuttal and then going down line by line through as many of your points as I can. 1. The argument that plays a constant role in your rebuttal is that there is so much evidence and of course evolution is true. However, every time you talk about how much evidence there is, you still do not provide even one example. Simply saying that something is true does not make it so. 2. You seem to always be bringing up the point that scientists think it is true, so therefore it is. Let me just state a few of the obvious scenarios where that viewpoint didn't exactly work out: the geocentric model of the universe, the shape of the Earth, the luminiferous aefer, the theory of the eternal universe, etc. It therefore seems illogical to say that because some scientists (i.e. people who have put a lot of research in but make mistakes just like the rest of us) believe in something, it automatically means it is a fact. 3. You always end up dismissing my evidence without properly addressing why it is wrong, labeling it as either "irrelevant" or just flat out "false." Upon doing that, you continue to say that I have not provided even a "shred of evidence." With any type of debate, ignoring the opponent's evidence is never the proper structure in which to argue. 4. You continue to ask me for any competing theories, yet I am not responsible for that given the debate is solely over whether evolution is true or not. Starting from the very beginning of your rebuttal, you said, "As I stated before with my scientific evidence, we DO know that evolution is REAL." First off, the most extensive piece of evidence you gave was "there's so much it's hard to know where to start." This quote also lines up with your statement in your last rebuttal: "in my 'second paragraph', I did provide evidence, and generalizations are evidence." Saying that there is so much you cannot state any one example is not evidence. once again, saying there is evidence does not mean there is evidence; and saying something is real does not make it so. Further, you say that "you can't accuse me of this when you haven't provided a shred of evidence yourself." Just to clarify, here is the list of the in-depth evidences I used in my prior argument that were ignored: 1. The hypothesis of a whale's evolution 2. The beginning of life 3. The Urey-Miller Experiment You said, "The theory of gravity is not irrelevant in proving that evolution has been tested. Evolution HAS been tested with hundreds of years of research." This is not a logical procession of ideas because stating that gravity has been tested and evolution has been tested does not make them relevant to each other. Saying that the theory of gravity has been proven, so therefore it supports evolution having been proven, is not a fluid argument or relevant. "We know that offspring are usually born with mostly random variations due to science". What is meant by "science"? What pieces of evidence SPECIFICALLY support that? "If we don't reproduce then how do we exist?" This point is illogical given that in my prior argument I was only stating that it was impossible to know whether or not the mutated offspring would necessarily reproduce. It is logical to assume that not all creatures reproduce, especially those that are not like other kinds of their species, in both good and bad ways. "These variations are clearly helpful as they help to shape who we are [...] What offspring are you talking about when you ask whether they would survive or reproduce? People are born every sing day and I am alive so yes, I have survived." First of all, you could only know the variations were helpful if we know for a fact they actually happened. Secondly, this point is just taking the perspective of "We all exist, so therefore we must have evolved. We are all different, so therefore we must have changed." That is not science. It is a philosophy. Third, the entire theory of evolution is based off of the hypothesis that variations happen within offspring, and those offspring reproduce. Therefore, by offspring, it is obvious that it is referring to offspring that have those variations. Saying that people are born every day and you are alive is not evidence. 29,000 children under the age of five die every day from natural causes, so your irrelevant point does not prove anything. And unless you have some mutation that allows you to do something superior to other humans, you are not evidence of evolution. "It wouldn't matter if we didn't have [transitional fossils] [...] because it proves absolutely nothing. One piece of evidence (or more like assumption) doesn't prove an argument." First of all, this statement actually contradicts what you are trying to prove, because if evolution was indeed true, we would be able to find millions upon millions of transitional fossils. So, saying that it doesn't matter if there are fossils just proves my point, not yours. And yes, you need evidence to prove an argument that relies upon the physical world. "It doesn't matter if it's scientific. Scientists don't prove everything-fossils are the job of an archaeologist." This is an odd argument to make, given that evolution is supposedly a SCIENTIFIC fact (i.e. observable and following the natural laws [pertaining to science]). And archaeologists still fall under the basic category of scientists. They still investigate SCIENCE. As for my "strange example of this 'rabbit' [not proving] any point at all", "See, by observing that, say, a rabbit has a certain fur color that helps it survive, then assuming that therefore it must have changed over a long period of time to get to that point, is a philosophical viewpoint and not science because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis." These points actually do prove something-that it is not science. Once again, just because you say that "Science does have evidence that we have evolved over time" does not make it so. The more effective approach would be to just provide an example, instead of restating that over and over again. By saying that the whale argument is ridiculous because it is not a cow and actually a Pakicetus, that is nonsensical because the same points still apply: a land mammal would still have to evolve into a sea-dwelling animal. As for the "cows do not have teeth", that actually is not true: cows have molars on the upper and lower jaw, incisors on the lower jaw, and a tough dental pad on their upper lip. Anyhow, some scientists still theorize about whales coming from cows and even go so far as to put it in textbooks. In reference to you saying that the only properties would have to be the genetics by reproducing, that is still exactly what I said. You also did not address the 50,000 changes, which would come out if any scientist actually put their mind to calculating it. By saying that "One animal+ another animal= new species", if only it were that simple. That is a drastic over simplification that actually is not even what evolution is saying. They are saying that two animals of the same species create a new species, while you are implying that it is more like interbreeding. Also, adapting is essentially the same thing as changing, so your points on adaptations don't prove anything. "These changes do happen 'randomly'. But they do not occur in a perfect manner." How could we exist as we do, our organs perfectly designed and proportioned inside of us to work in practically any environment? Watch any video on the complexity of DNA, and how perfectly it works. My final point is that without knowing whether we were created or simply popped into existence, how could you theorize about how we developed? Our origins are far from irrelevant to this argument. As for the Urey-Miller experiment, you once again completely skipped over all evidence I gave. Thus, given my lack of characters remaining, I will conclude