Wortfish wrote:I had expected the evidence and arguments for evolution to be much more water-tight. Instead, I found a leaky boat.
So, let's take this from your OP as an example of your finding against evolution:
Wortfish wrote:6. The biogeographical distribution of species and the physical isolation of species provides compelling evidence for evolution. The marsupials of Australia, for example, show how an isolated region seems to produce unique animals that are not found elsewhere. (Score: 3)
Counter: Biogeographical anomalies may be caused by migration rather than by evolution restricted to a particular location on earth. African and Asian great apes, for example, are very similar anatomically but live in very different habitats and have different lifestyles. Extinction can also explain why some species are geographically restricted: Lions used to live in Greece and the Balkans 2000 years ago. (Score:4)
So what you've done here is noted that what we observe in reality is consistent with and explained by evolutionary theory. You've then noted that other explanations are possible, without evaluating the credibility of those other explanations.
After all that, you've decided that in terms of whether each theory explains geographic diversity "maybe" beats "yes", 4 to 3.
So much winning! We're going to get sick of all the winning! Wortfish has the best points! It was a landslide in the Points College the likes of which has never been seen, even though all the pundits reckoned Evolution would win. Evolution won the science vote, but it's the Points College that determines the winner!
by 
