Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"we have witnessed the mutation of many species of viruses, bacteria, and insects that developed immunity to antiviral medications, antibacterial medications, and insecticides." I hope that you have some concept of science here. Evolution is the "gaining of knowledge" within the DNA of a living creature. Mutations are the loss of information. This is not evolution, but mutation the "downgrade" of information. The bacteria that survive don't 'evolve' but instead mutate through damaged 'replication'.  http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html  "please, feel free to look at the evidence for evolution and determine what is flawed about it" Ha, you can't be serious. Did you even look at that site? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_02  There fossil evidence they provoke is holes in a shell. Which they don't know if it is from a mosasaur or limpets, that is a major discrepency. Then you have Nicholas Steno who rendered a "drawing" of an extant shark. What was his evidence? It was just a tooth! Do you see how absurd that is to view as 'evidence'. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081014134015.htm  Here I will find evidence for you. This is an article about a fossilized "flying insect" which had no wings. Ever wonder why scientists find fossils in mud rock layers? As if they were buried in sediment and water. Like a global flood for example. "I apologize, this was not conducted with carbon dating, but with Uranium-lead dating." I know about the parent-daughter radiometric dating method, I just wanted to be smarmy. The rates of these methods rely on constant decay rates. This if from the time the fossil was alive to the point it was dated. There are too many unknowns here. For instance what was the original amount of 'parent' element in the fossil when it died? The amount of magnetic field strength (allowance of cosmic rays) which would determine the amount of 'nuclear decay' at the time the fossil died. What about rocks formed out of volcanic activity? How rapid cooling drastically changes the parent-daughter ratio. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp  "Whenever evolutionists make assertions about the limits of convergence, they do so on an after-the-fact basis.68 As ever-more-detailed examples of convergence are found, evolutionists are forced to backpedal, thus ‘moving the goalpost’ of conceivable convergence. For a long time, evolutionists had tacitly supposed that detailed convergences of clusters of traits (modules), such as the independent acquisition of cetacean-like teeth in mesonychids and cetaceans (Figure 5, right), were a virtual impossibility. What is there to stop the evolutionists from saying, in case of the discovery of a mermaid-like chimeric creature, that even more pronounced convergence of modular units can occur than previously supposed? Evolutionary theory is so plastic that any observation could be fitted into it. The apparent absence of extremely-chimeric creatures cannot, by any standard of reasoning, be accepted as evidence for evolution. To the contrary, the existence of less-extreme chimeric creatures, notably ‘fossil whales’, argues strongly against a common evolutionary ancestry of living things." This is in reference to your source's transitional forms.