Bruh you cant even spell it right...i suppose i would be asking too much to expect some kind of synopsis of what the "debunking" consisted of
Again
you can pretend all you want that something doesnt exist but thats not how reality works
Which is irrelevant since incomplete does NOT equal incorrect
BTW this contradicts your statement above that there is "no evidence" now you say "its incomplete"...which is it?
All i said was you dont understand what youre talking about.....
...one would expect someone making such bold statements to have at the very least a rudimentary grasp of the subject material.
Your arguments so far are completely unsupported by the facts...and the logic is even worse...creationists keep making the mistake of assuming they will win by default
See even if we take every piece of scientific evidence off the table it still doesnt prove that YOUR God created the universe..you would still need to prove that case on its own merits
1. As one poster mentioned earlier, instead of dealing with the arguments against neo-Darwinian evolution you name call, ridicule, and throw shade.
2. A typical tactic of evolutionists is to play the semantical game of changing definitions which you have done repeatedly when a pillar of your precious cac evolutionary theory is debunked.
3. You posted F.A.M.E. for your argument for the evidence of evolution, so I will deal with each one.
F. Fossil Record. Repeatedly, because I know you are fully aware of it, the Fossil Record has always been a deathblow to evolutionary theory.
Paleontology — The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”
5 Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”
6 Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”
7 
A. Anatomical (Structural Body Parts)
Homology - CORRELATION DOES NOT = CAUSATION (circular reasoning)
If homology is defined as similarity due to common descent, then it is circular reasoning to use it as evidence for common descent. Biologists have known for decades that homologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown.
M. Molecular Evidence
Biochemistry — Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
3 Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
4 
E. Embryology
The facts show that the embryos start out looking dissimilar, converge somewhat a few stages later (though not nearly as much as Haeckel depicted) and then diverge again.
Unfortunately, Haeckel’s depictions are not mere errors. In 1997, a panel of international experts systematically compared Haeckel’s drawings with actual photographs of embryos.
[5] Summing up the panel’s findings in an interview with
Science, the study’s principal author said of Haeckel’s drawings, “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.”
[6]
It looks like your science god(s) have played you like a 1989 Nintendo Entertainment System (NES).
But, I'll COOK some more
Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
1 Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
2 
Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal
Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”
8 A 2011 paper in
Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”
9 and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”
10 
David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091. "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved… Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."
Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.”
Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701. "A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution."
It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in Darwinian evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new developmental studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079) The important point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show. Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, since the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue.
Now what's that about my so called preacher feeding me lies stupid negro?
If it is a white man's religion how is it that you have Messianic Jews in Israel (Jerusalem) who lived by the Torah as well as the New Testament? How is it that you fail to grasp the basic historical TRUTH that Judaeo-Christianity was in AFRICA hundreds of years before any cac showed up. Your revisionist history teachers recognize they have found another GULLIBLE sheep in you. 
