Evolution is a scientific theory not a fallacy

I am not arguing the definitions; I believe the definitions are fine. What I am arguing is the fact that these terms are used incorrectly to describe the wrong things. I have already stated above how the actual terms cannot apply to the evolution belief. I do not even contend the "definition" of evolution; I just contend with the accuracy of this belief. And, yes, I did refute the evidence you brought to this debate. The bacterium evidence I refuted already; I'm not saying it is false, I'm just saying that the wrong conclusions were inferred from the facts. Your statement about evolution being "very clearly biological" shows only a small percent of the actual theory of evolution. Yes, the odds of biological evolution happening is nearly impossible, the odds of the stage being set for biological evolution to happen is an even smaller percent. "If the population passes on this being "accustomed" in successive generations (which it did) then by the above definition it is an example of evolution." The African Americans have darker skin than Caucasians or even Orientals, but that doesn't show any evolution or development of new species. This is one reason I hate the term "micro-evolution" so much: it is improperly connoted. It is simply variations, not evolution of a new kind. "An inference is the act of drawing a reasoned conclusion from observed facts." Sorry, I guess I improperly defined evolution's "inferences"; you say that it is a reasoned conclusion. "They were simply trying to induce a rare event specifically to test a hypothesis." The one problem I have is that these "rare event"s would have to happen in relatively close proximity of each other to carry on the genes. And if it was just to test a hypothesis, then it should not be shown as evidence for evolution. "Are people the same kind as a chimp?" No, they are not. But in pro's statement, he shows that the one DNA is 1.2 millions years older than that of the other. Since when have DNA chromosomes carried around dates!! It is amazing that anyone would argue this point. How can someone tell which is older. The questions from this are, "How did these species keep from intermingling when they were still fertile? How did they make sure that the correct traits are passed on? If we have chimps and we have humans, where did the intermediate species go? If we have been evolving for billions of years, where are the bones from these creatures?" These are questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer. And this is just for human evolution: how did it happen for fish, dogs, frogs, and birds? Where are all of those fossils? Also, the rest of the article that pro cited had some interesting features. There were countless "might have, probably, seems to have." This is not science. Science is made up of "did and does," not could, should, and would. My favorite is the statement "must have belonged". Well, of course it must have, to prove evolution correct. But the fact is that, it was never observed to have happened, and if the most they have is "If some of those hybrid females then bred with proto-chimp males, some of their male offspring would have received a working X from the chimp side of the family", I am sorry, but it will take a little more to convince me than IF. My final statement is just simply this, the only arguments made are: variations in a kind, and if, could,would. There has not been any solid proof, just proof that can be interpreted different if someone is trying to proof a theory they are biased to. I would like to say that I appreciate my opponent issuing me this debate. I wish him guidance and wisdom in any debate he has in the future and would like to clarify that there is no malice from me to him at all.