I can disprove evolution like i could disprove a book having no front cover.

The human brain is extremely susceptible to illusory correlations and imaginations - never trust your senses. And just because you can't physically observe something without your 5 senses does NOT mean it's not there. We have a million scientific tools and methods, it's the 21st century bub. ==Counterarguments== "Remeber my theory about the sun being -100 in its core. Wouldn't you have to see that to believe it" ----> Don't use the word "theory". In scientific terms, which is detrimental to get confused in this type of debate, you certainly do NOT have a theory about the sun being -100 degrees - you have a wild hypothesis. I would NOT have to see the sun to believe it, because: first my eyes will burn and two there are many different methods of testing your wild hypothesis. This is how science works, and this is why your argument saying that evolution needs to be "observed by one of our five senses to be true" is horribly false. "Once apon a time long ago, a thunder storm was raging above water that Boom!!! Life arose. Mummy where did the life come from?" ----> What part of ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION do you not understand? "Sorry i didn't actually watch links since its not your debate. But i say this again and listen/red close, with no formula to the theory it is not a law of science." ----> Oh brilliant response. So you disregard my entire rebuttal and just repeat your claim again? I doubt this is how a DEBATE is supposed to be. Ladies and gentlemen who are the voters, I will NOT refute his point again because he has simply NOT refuted my argument. It would be ridiculous to type up another whole argument when I already have one that is unanswered. "Evolution is still a theory" ----> Have I not already explained what a scientific theory is?! Have you even read my arguments?! I will not refute this point for he hasn't responded to my argument pertaining to this preposterous claim. "Its only a theoy because people would like it to be one as people hate the fact of God's existance." ----> Again, I've stated that you are committing a false dilemma fallacy. Evolution and God/Creationism are NOT the only two explanations for the diversity of life. You are simply glossing over my arguments. >>>Argument pertaining the universe and love<<< This can NOT come from a college student. The brevity of the RIDICULOUSNESS in this argument is amazing - by bounds unknown. The voters can disregard this entire argument for TWO reasons. One, the universe HAS NO MIND. IT IS NOT CONSCIOUS SO IT CAN'T LOVE. Secondly, this is in NO way relevant to evolution. >>><<< "About the time limit thing, You need to take a piece of evolution (macro) and play around with that maybe chane a dog into a tiger in 10 minutes. Otherwise you can not prove it." ----> What is a piece of evolution? A piece of a change, of a process? Again a ridiculous notion from creationism. And if you really think evolution claims that a dog can change into a tiger in 10 minutes, then you are RIDICULOUSLY WRONG. Evolution works on GENERATIONS, which means the current dog will NOT change into a tiger - only its future offspring might. Secondly, EVOLUTION AIN'T THAT FAST. We never said it to, so stop with the strawmans. >>>Argument pertaining to geology (fossil record)<<< So once again, my opponent dodges the point I made about radioactive dating and strata layers and talks about the Bible. He hasn't refuted my point with science or heck with anything reasonable - I will not waste my time again when my arguments are not refuted. >>><<< "The sun burns 500,000,000 tons on Hydrogen a second if the sun was 30 million years old the sun would be touching earth and there would be no Venus or Mercury. Evolution has no formula i bet theres a formla for that." ----> First of all,that handy fact you have has nothing to do with evolution. Second of all, you once again HAVE NOT REFUTED MY ARGUMENT PERTAINING TO A FORMULA. You just repeat your claims over and over. >>>Argument pertaining to time<<< WOAH WHEN DID YOUR SPELLING SUDDENLY IMPROVE? Probably because you copy-pasted. Anyway, the common analogy of the monkeys pressing random keys is a strawman. Evolution is NOT RANDOM. Evolution is the process of randomly varying mutations being chosen in a NONRANDOM WAY. Your point about DNA is irrelevant - THIS IS NOT ABIOGENESIS. "The universe is only 6000 years old " ----> You say evolutions takes forever to happen and can't because the universe is only 6000 years old. Well HMM, maybe the universe is NOT 6000 years old but rather 13.5-14.0 BILLION years old [1]?! "So give me a genetic avantage/possitive mutation that you could add to a fish." ----> Mutations are neutral. It's when you incorporate the environment to the formula (hehe joke intended) that you can you see whether or not something is advantageous or not. >>><<< >>>Mechanisms that can create new information<<< My opponent has not refuted my argument pertaining to mechanisms that create new information, but rather given me another ridiculous argument. Life having muscles? If this is MEANT to be abiogenesis (which *sigh* aint evolution) I don't even know what it means. Life having muscles...WAH?! >>><<< "Yes but the general meaning of evolve remains the same. According to evolution, creatures change, over time, but the creature transforms. Why dont you keep changing to word "evolution" in your case?" ----> What? The creatures themselves don't change during their lifetime - only the gene pool. "I can not believe you say animals are uncreative, Since you believe evolution has no spirtial mind, show me a better design than a lifing animal" ----> An animal that can lift object with it's mind. "Like i said man is copying the design of Gods creature, like the eyes as in the cars windows and the tears as in the water spray to clean the window screen, and the heart as the engin and the oil like the blook, for goodness sake you can even see a facil expression when you look and the front of a car, not matter what car or any man made means of transport." ----> It's not relevant to evolution. And I don't even wanna pick your analogy apart, it's just... "Oh and why have dung bettles been around for 230 million years, why have they not evolved?" ----> A species doesn't NEED to evolve. Similarily, there are perhaps species that have evolved from the dung beetle, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the dung beetles are dead. It just means there are several species now. "Alian only move it the problem else where." ----> As I've said, putting your hands over your ears and claiming the same thing over and over again while not refuting my arguments is NOT how to debate. ===CONCLUSION=== VOTERS, the obvious vote is for CON. My opponent has dropped MANY argument, and hasn't refuted MANY of my rebuttals. He constantly adds new arguments while leaving his previous ones behind, ones that I have already answered. For example, where's the argument pertaining helpless babies? From votes to spelling and grammar to convincing arguments - vote CON. Though I can understand if I get marked down for conduct - frankly, conduct is a stupid and irrelevant point anyway. ---References--- 1. http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov...