Evolution is false

My argumentMajor Premise: Evolution is change (stated by my opponent). Minor Premise: Hughe Masakela, African musician, says that "everything must change, nothing is forever"Conclusion: Everything must go through evolution. My opponent has not proven that everything doesn't go through change. GlueAs I said, the glue argument is highly contradictory to this debate. The only was to prove that the particles are dying in glue is through carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating proves that evolution is true. Therefore, Pro has lost this debate by default because he has not tried to make reason with this statement. He is trying to say that glue disproves evolution by using evidence that supports evolution. Also, I want to challenge the validity of that statement. How can you prove that it takes 20,000 years to break glue down when it was invented in 1750? The only way is through carbon 14 dating! Large Numbers LawSo you are saying that a person can get younger, can change back to his adolescent years or even become a baby again? The last time I checked, age is the only thing that can go up that never goes back down. This has been refuted. FlagellumMy opponent says that taking an organelle out of flagellum kills it. He also says that because when you remove an organelle from a flagellum it dies, therefore it justifies evolution's falsehood. But my opponent has failed to realize that this statement proves nothing except that it needs to have all organelles to survive. The man in the quote asserts that just because it dies, it is made by a all mighty being, but the man fails to prove how this disproves change over time. In fact, as I stated earlier, if you remove a heart from a man, it will die just like if you remove the organelle (which is not specified by the man) from the flagellum. As you can see, this argument has been easily refuted as he relies only on what this man said. Also, my opponent said that the statement about the flagellum is not even true, unless if he is simply grammatically incorrect. He said that It's not false because someone says it but because evidence shows it. As you can see, he just stated that this argument is false not because the man says that but his argument is false because there is evidence to prove it is false. MatesHis argument made no sense and asserts the only way for evolution to be true is if every time a baby infant is born if it has the same reproductive organs as its ancestor. The baby will get those organs, over time, through a short period of evolution. As that baby gets older, he will have those reproductive organs. He makes no correlation to what thermodynamics has to do with this debate except that things'll disorder, but because he concedes to my definition of evolution, which is change over time, and sometimes change can be disorderly, therefore evolution can be disorderly and can comply to the second law of thermodynamics. CreationwikiBecause he posted that in the last round and usually in the last round you are not supposed to post new arguments, I will not argue that. Excuse the fact in the third round where I said that Africans lived in cold environments, I meant to say warm. As you can see, my opponent did not rrefute my argument of an example of evolution. I proved that over time evolution is apparent through Africans get hairy legs to withstand the harsh coldeer climates of North America and Europe through the African slave trade. I am assuming that Pro has conceded my argument on an example of evolution which is a true example. Pro has not met the BoP.