"stellar evolution"

Not related to the theory of evolution.

"macroevolution"

To posit a difference between micro and macro evolution, you'll first need definitions of both, and then an explanation of why there would be a line between the two, and then finally evidence in nature for the mechanism that causes that line.

"Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven."

You're confusing empirical and historical sciences. The emprical sciences such as chemistry and phyics are indeed founded on repeatable experiment. Historical sciences such as geology and archaelogy are based on "natural experiments".

Evolution is both empirical (look up the many speciation experiments) and historical. Darwin's original theory of evolution posed a large number of hypotheses for natural experiments. For example, according to evolution, we would expect to find species with certain body shapes in certain strata of the earth. Later paleontologists consistently found the predicted forms.

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??"

You're confusing causality with mechanical force. Newton's third law has nothing to do with causality because it states those two opposing forces occur simultaneously.

"Why would we evolve into two sexes??"

To protect against disease and other "enemy" organisms. The reason we can fight off infection is because when we have a cold, all of the bacteria in our bodies are exact clones. Once our immune system can fight off one, it can fight them all off.

The same thing is true in the larger world. Sexual reproduction makes a collection of organisms more diverse, which equips them to survive a changing environment.

Besides, not all organisms reproduce sexually.

"If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through."

The liner. Do a little reading.

Both participants are able to give consent.

No, of course not. To be classified as a mental disease, it must be shown to interfere with the person (and those around him/her) living a complete and happy life. There are many happy, productive homosexuals. Therefore, it's not a disease.

By analogy, drinking alcohol is in itself not a disease. It only becomes the disease alcoholism when the alcoholic's need for alcohol intereferes with his or her ability to hold down a job, maintain a family, etc.

"I believe that you were the one who argued this for the opposing side. I think you should get your side situated man."

There's no need for a participant in a debate to personally support the side they are arguing for. If you learn debating in school, you'll often be given the side to argue for, regardless of your personal preferences.

Outside of training, arguing against your position is helpful for learning more about the subject. The goal here, is to learn more, not just line up our little soldiers against the other guy's.

Creationism includes both the beginning of the universe, and the origin of species on Earth. Evolution addresses the latter. (Cosmology addresses the former.)

If creationism only said "the universe began when God created it but then who knows where us and the animals came from?" then it would not be in conflict with evolutionary theory.

Can you provided a definition of "kind" that isn't a tautology?

"Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas."

There's a few, Mendel's come to mind. But it's hard to break down something as statistically based as evolution into something with nice algebraic terms.

You're a little mixed up in your terminology here.

"In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven."

Incorrect. Hypotheses in science are proven when the scientific body as a whole reaches consensus. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is proven. There is no stricter sense than that in science. Wide consensus + much other subsequent science based on it = proof.

"All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable."

You're confusing math with science here. Mathematical theorems are based on axioms. Science is based on repeated observations of the real world, experiment, consensus, etc.

Bible quotes are never effective arguments. If your opponent believes the Bible is an infallible source of truth, you have no disagreement to begin with. If you opponent does not agree with you, he does not believe the Bible either, and the quote carries no weight.