Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them.

Since the above three points completely and totally summarize my opponent's resolution and burden, I will be arguing such: A: That my opponent's "proofs" against Evolution are flawed B: That there are no more than (if any) 3 reasons why Evolution is false. C: That the reasons my opponent has stated in his opening argument are not reasons that show that Evolution is false, by any means. I shall now begin the debate by summarizing, analyzing, and critiquing my opponent's opening remark for clarification on the part of the audience as well as myself. My opponent's argument can be broken down into 3 parts: 1. Epistemology 2. Fossil Interpretation 3. Transitional Fossils EPISTEMOLOGY Motive: My opponent's motive is a standard Reductio ad absurdum argument in which he tries to show that the acceptance of Evolution yields an absurd conclusion and thus, should be rejected. His argument is that if we accept evolution, we cannot be sure of our senses, and since this is an absurd situation, evolution must be absurd. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Logical Fallacies: 1. Non Sequitor . http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) My opponent's argument does not follow. Evolution does not imply that out senses are inaccurate. Our senses have evolved in order for us to be able to react to our environment, not so that we can find ultimate truth. The fact that our senses are adequate prove that this point is enough to invalidate my opponent's entire proof. 2. Flawed Premise My opponent's argument assumes that the inaccuracy of our senses is an absurd situation. However, this is not the case. People are unable to detect things that we know to be there through technology. People also see things that are not what they appear. The inaccuracy of our senses is not an absurd situation, it is very commonplace. In addition, his alternative of saying that our senses are god-given do not imply that they are accurate either. If this were the case, then we should have perfect senses since God is perfect. Why is it then that there are so many flaws with our senses? My opponent's argument is the one that reduces to absurdity. This source addresses my opponent's argument directly. It is well documented and archived, thus, it can be debunked conveniently through this site: . http://www.talkorigins.org... Conclusion: My opponent's argument is lacking in logical structure, fatally flawed, and easily disproven with a few examples. Thus, it is not an acceptable "reason" for judging Evolution to be false and should be rejected by the audience. FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION Motive: My opponent suggests that fossil evidence is interpreted incorrectly; we cannot know whether a fossilized specimen reproduced, so this invalidates fossil evidence as evidence for evolution. Logical Fallacies: There are no logical fallacies, but many errors due to distortion and reinterpretation as well as ignorance of scientific principles. 1. My opponent states that science "struggles" with what he stated. I find that there is no struggle and since he offers no citation, I place my own credibility on the line as a Science student against his word. If there truly is such a "struggle", then I respectfully ask my opponent to offer proof, or else we can assume that this statement is not credible. Fossils are not seen as individual specimens. Rather, they are representative of their species. We can say with a relative amount of certainty that the specimen was part of a species if we find more fossils of its kind. This is very common occurrence. Furthermore, since fossils from the same species are found in various levels of strata, this indicates that reproduction in the species has occurred if the species continues several thousand years after the first specimen. My opponent's allegation that we cannot infer reproduction has taken place is thus, incorrect. As per my opponent's alternative explanation, I do not see any citations. I respectfully request that my opponent give his source. However, I see that the main core of my opponent's argument is that the Great Flood deposited the geologic column. This site directly addresses this issue, debunks it, and provides credible citations as well. . http://www.talkorigins.org... The main gist is that aside from fossils, the geologic column shows a vast amount of history in great expanses of time. For example: Climate change that matches recorded history, footprints, mud cracks, raindrop imprints, layers of sediment formed in ways that require long periods of time, and various other things. Please see the source. In addition, my opponent talks about water seeping in from the earth's crust. Here is another source tha dictates how this is also impossible for several reasons, involving the temperature of the water, the physical practicality, and counter geologic evidence. . http://www.talkorigins.org... Conclusion: My opponent's second "reason" has absolutely no citations, and thus, I cannot judge its accuracy. However, I have provided two sources which show that what my opponent has suggested is incorrect based on scientific fact. Thus, I urge the audience to reject this reason on the basis that it is factually incorrect and a result of assumption and random guesswork. TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS Motive: My opponent is suggesting that there has been no observed evolution between "kinds", and that transitional fossils do not exist. My opponent then concludes that because of this, Evolution is making unjust claims. Logical Fallacies: 1. Semantics My opponent uses the word "kind", which has no scientific merit whatsoever. There is no legitimate distinction between "kinds" and it is not taxonomically accepted. Furthermore, there has been no indication that something prevents changes from building up over time. My opponent probably knows that microevolution is true, thus, he admits that changes do occur. However, since he has not provided a reason as to why these changes cannot build up, it casts doubt on his assertion that kinds cannot change. Please see the following source, which provides more reasons why this "argument of kinds" is simply untrue: . http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. Argument from Ignorance . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... My opponent suggests that because Evolution has a lack of 100% evidence, we must assume it to be incorrect. However, this does not prove that Evolution is false, it only shows a lack of evidence in a certain part of Evolutionary theory (if it were the case that my opponent's assumption was correct anyway, which it is not). 3. False premises My opponent's argument assumes that what he says is correct. However, there are plenty of transitional fossils discovered. Here is a list of transitional fossils . http://www.talkorigins.org... And an explanation as to why we do not see too many of them: . http://www.talkorigins.org... Conclusion: My opponent's assertion that there has been no transitional fossil observed through time is just founded on false facts and antiquated Creationist propaganda. *** I have thus shown that all three of my opponent's reasons do not meet the resolution. None of my opponent's provided reasons show that Evolution is false and thus, the resolution is effectively negated. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's response.