DNA, IC, natural selection and debating a Creationist

[Anymouse]

1) There is no evidence natural selection can lead to evolution.
2) Natural selection and mutations cannot create DNA, (new or otherwise) meaning new organs cannot be created, fins cant turn into feet and apes cant turn into men (LOL)
3) No evidence for organisms 'climbing' up Darwin's Tree of Life

1) Yes there is. There might be no evidence that a creationist would accept, however. (Don't confuse me with the facts lalalalalala)
2) Why not? Everything from misdivided chromosomes to radiation can alter DNA. (And thorium, a radioactive element, is present in all earth. It can be found everywhere. Ever hear the "background radiation" on a Geiger counter? Tick, tick, tick, DNA being altered.)
3) Yes there is. See 1) above.

There is no debate. The creationist starts with "my theory is equal [or superior] to yours; don't confuse me with facts." Therefore there is no debate.

I have a humourous flow chart that shows how to debate a creationist on my hard drive, but I don't know how to insert it here. Essentially, it is a set of rules for logic and rhetoric, and states there is no debate unless the IC promoter agrees to use them (no ad hominems, no argumentum ad hitlerium, must change position if shown to be invalid or false, cannot reference already disproved positions as evidence, &c). Of course, an IC proponent would never agree to use the rules of a true debate, so in reality there is no debate.

Call the IC'ers position as it is. Religious belief. Belief is not worthy of debate, as religion is not based on facts. You might also point out the Doubting Thomas story to your IC'er: blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. If you could -prove- religion, in that instant it ceases to be religion and becomes science.