Evolution cannot be proven scientifically

Wow, I thought people still used courtesy and basic manners on this site. Alright, so I will address my opponent's defenses of his case, and then move on to discuss what he must do in order to win this debate. (Since my opponent is against using arguments from an outside source, I will cite no sources. I don't understand his logic since he did himself, but I guess he just mis-typed?) --First contention-- PLEASE NOTE: He did not respond to my example of the lava flow. This has been tested many times with numerous methods, and ALL proved faulty. When attacking his first contention, I brought up several points. The first of these is the method used. He says that it is not correct. For your information, there are several methods, which all give roughly the same answer. So, this particular method may not line up word-for-word with my opponent's, but it is commonly used. Second, I said the decay rate is not constant. He disregards this completely as ridiculous. The fact of the matter is: Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different. Lastly, I said the original amount is impossible to know. He tries to counter with: "As stated before, if there is 100% parent elements, then that is the original amount." HOW DO WE KNOW? How can we possibly know how much there was originally? We cannot. Plain and simple, just the way i like it. ;) --Second contention-- He begins his defense with attacks on my sources. (I guess your cp is broken, because the video works on all of the computers that I have looked at it on) Please note he does not address my written attack, only the videos. He says that the second video is "propaganda," just because someone with opposing views to his said it. (Way to keep an open mind ;) Just because someone else disagrees with you doesn't make it ridiculous! The video was simply there to back what I said with numerous opinions of other scientists. (NOT all of them were creationists) That being said, his second contention still falls. --Third contention-- This has been addressed. It is quite obvious that, heaven forbid, there are other animals with similar bones. (Oh my! We must have evolved from them!) --My case-- He describes this as "hilarious." How droll. He also says that the site I use is actually against my case. I know that how they interpret the data is contradictory to my own interpretation. This is irrelevant. What are relevant are the cold, hard facts. The data. Its what you do with the data that makes the difference. Ironic? -His first attack-: "The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, which means that these process are NOT random like any other process (evaporation, etc.)." This misses the mark completely. We are not talking about evaporation, or any other similar functions. We are talking about the formation of new organelles, organs, and species. HE DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS. -His second attack-: "These early "living" building blocks were much simpler than the ones you give as example. Most of these simple molecules (even simpler than preprotobacteria) can have subunits of only around 30-40." 30 or 40 what? What evidence do we have of any "earlier living building blocks"? Of course they are not around today, so how do we know they even existed? WE CAN'T! -His third attack-: "Many of these early "living" molecules are capable of single self replication." Again, we don't even know they existed. Secondly, so what? Yes, they can self-replicate, as can almost every cell. We are not addressing this, but the formation of new organelles, organs, and species. Just because something replicates doesn't mean it will morph into something else. He also attacks my statistics. "Let's say I wanna throw a coin and make it heads 4 times in a row (HHHH). The probability of this would be 1 out of 16. While this does tell me the total possible events that can take place, it does NOT tell me where it will happen. For instance, I can get HHHH in the FIRST try or the SECOND try or the LAST try. So a super high probability won't dictate that something happens in the end." Even if this were plausible, it would take a horrendously long time. As I have shown, we don't know how old the Earth is. This debate is on scientific proof. If we don't have the facts, then you must vote PRO. So, I have upheld my own problems with evolution, while effectively tearing down his. To win this debate my opponent must: (1) Give undeniable scientific PROOF. Non-controversial evidence, that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution is the ONLY option. This what the debate pivots around. Because thus far I have denied all of my opponent's "evidence" then I have won the debate. WE MUST BASE THIS ON FACT, NOT WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. "Evolution cannot be proven scientifically." Affirmed.