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

The title of this debate may be a little confusing, and my opponent hasn't explicitly stated anything in his opening argument. However, unless I am horribly wrong, it is implied that my opponent attempts to disprove evolution. I will gladly go through each and every point of his and refute them - he is PRO and has the burden of proof. I will now try to sift through the collective arguments and their challenging spelling&grammar. .. usage. ***NOTE*** My opponent talks about Creationism in his argument. Creationism has nothing to do with "disproving evolution", because presuming that these two explanations for the diversity of life on earth is a false dichotomy. Therefore, I will not refute/address my opponent's claim about Creationism, because they are simply irrelevant. ==Counterarguments== "Science means testable repeatable, and exspimental testing which would have a time limit, based on that, evolution will remain a theory. " ----> First of all, what do you mean by time limit? Secondly, from your very own definition of science you already fail in your understanding. As obvious from your phrasing, you seem to imply that evolution "only being a theory" is somehow a scientific defect of evolution. This of course, is NOT true. Colloquially, a "theory" means a guess - something people use in their everyday language. However, in the realm of science, a "theory" is the STRONGEST level, if you will, in science. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Look at number 5 for definition of a theory, in the context of science. "the theory of evolution has no formula unlike many of the premoted theories which has the right to become a fact to the law science" ----> I know this is trivial, but the lack of understanding you have on the very BASICS of science is daunting, especially when you posit to use "science to disprove evolution". A FACT is simply a VERIFIED OBSERVATION, the weakest thing science has. A LAW is simply an analytic statement - it tells us WHAT happens but not WHY it also happens, which is the role of theories. Subsequently so, a theory can be comprised of SEVERAL laws. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of fact. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of law - see number 6 in context of science. >>>Evolution doesn't have a formula<<< Two points I have in refutation of this argument. First of all, even if evolution didn't have a formula, IT STILL WOULDN'T BE FALSE. It is my opponent's burden to explain why if evolution had no formula it would disprove it. Secondly, evolution doesn't NEED a formula comprising of numbers. Evolution is simply CHANGE in the inherited traits in a gene pool of a population. How does this change happen? Primarily by the PROCESS of natural selection. A clear-cut dry "formula for evolution" wouldn't work because evolution takes place in the context of an environment - and environments are never the same. And because natural selection partially depends on the environment, you will have different results with different species almost every time. There are TONS of other theories and laws in science which do not have formulas with math. By your own reasoning, is the process of evaporation unscientific and disproven? Of course not, and the same goes with evolution. Of course some of these theories/laws have some formulas but neither has an over-encompassing formula that explains the entire thing. "You can not just use words in science since word vary between different languages, and numbers do not. " ----> We live in the 21st century - language is really no longer a burden, and you don't see scientists talking in Latin all the time now. Every biologist on every planet knows the meaning of "natural selection" or "mutation", whatever language it may be in. "I mean who questions Newton on gravity? " ----> They do when applying it on grand scales in the universe i. e. massive as heck celestial objects. >>>Genetic mechanism that creates genes<<< You are only talking about point mutations - which are definitely not the only type of mutations. The field concerning this is growing, but there I can already give you two examples of definite examples: transposons and polyploidy. A transposon are sequences of DNA that can move around within the genome of a cell. In this process, they can create/change the amount of DNA in the cell. When two transposable elements are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme, it can very efficiently lead to the creation of new genes [1][2]. In polyploidy, the total number of chromosome can double or one chromosome can duplicate itself [3]. >>>Abiogenesis<<< This is a COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT. Abiogeneis =/= evolution so MOOT POINT. >>>Helpless babies<<< I don't know whether to give credit to this for it's originality, or disdain for it's idiocy. Either way, it fails ONCE AGAIN to even understand evolution. The problem with 99% creationists is that they don't even know evolution or how it works - which a simple high school biology class would suffice to refute this argument. Evolution is mindless and uncreative. If it truly were a conscious being that had the mandate to make every successful generation as fit as possible, then us as humans would be able to fly, swim, and run faster than a cheetah. But no, evolution is a PROCESS. We are ADAPTED to our environments - with the exclusion of modern humans since we have used our intellect to use technology to rule the world. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it is "survival of the FIT". Take for example ants. They are one of the MOST successful species on the planet! And yet, for each colony there is only ONE who can reproduce! Each different type of ant are adapted for their indigenous surroundings, as is every other animal. Try this experiment: take the lion and stick it in a rain forest. Chances are, it will die out. This is because it's big and clumsy. Being in an area tons of trees, it sticks out with contrasting colors and will got spotted by prey (and maybe predators). It likes to nap a lot and if it can't do this without sleeping in the tall and crazy trees, then again another blow to it's survivability. In a rain forest, it will utterly not survive. "Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy. " ----> HAHAHAHA PROVE IT. ==3 Questions my opponent asks== 1. WHAT? This question makes no sense at ALL. The universe is mindless and needs no motivation. 2. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. And besides, who ever said it was effortless? Or fast? 3. Saying aliens created life on Earth is as likely or perhaps even MORE likely than saying "MAGIC MAN DONE IT! " ==Conclusion== I have refuted all my opponent's points - since it is his heavy burden. I have responded to his 3 questions, which I have yet to see their threat to the evolutionary theory. I view my defense of it satisfactory as of this moment, and will wait for my opponent's response. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.micro.siu.edu... 3. . http://www.polyploidy.org...