1-Observational data Fail
There is no witnessed accounts of evolution, at best even Richard Dawkins admits that he relies on fossil record which could be different species and not example of transitional fossils.
Incorrect on all counts.
(1) Speciation has been observed in nature and in the laboratory.
(2) Direct observation is not the only valid way to obtain accurate information. Inference from indirect evidence is valid as well. Both direct observation and indirect inference can vary in reliability.
(3) The fossil record is only one of the evidentiary lines for evolution. Others include morphology and genetics.
‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’
Incorrect. It has been observed while it's happening.
2-Accurate predictions Fail
Evolutionary biology is a historical science. It looks at the past, not the future. It has made a very large number of remarkably accurate predictions about the past -- that is, about the kind of evidence that would be expected to turn up, and subsequently has.
We cant predict when an evolution is to occur since none have happened.
You're assuming the conclusion: this is fallacious.
3-Logical Fail(depends on how you look at it)
Well, at least you did hedge this one.
True evolution as known to scholars of evolution and are shown in the fossil record is when several mutations occur. It is difficult for me to fathom how this happens and it has never been done in lab environments.
No, it isn't, yes, it clearly is, and yes, it has.
So, what's your take on the Punk Eek debate?
Outside this forum, tell an evolutionist that it is possible he is wrong nad you get called an idiot without them backing themselves up why it isnt wrong.
Not exactly. You'll get called and idiot, and then they'll point out exactly why you're wrong, but being an idiot, you won't be able to understand the argumentation.
5-Accurate information Fail
If by "accurate" you mean "invariably correct," certainly fail -- but that's true for all science. But then that's not what we mean by "accurate" when talking about science, do we?
There have been a lot of lies made to further the agenda of evolutionism. For example Haeckels drawings.
And these same lies have been debunked by... evolutionary biologists. That's the beauty of the scientific method, you see -- it recognizes that humans are fallible, and provides a mechanism with which these errors (including intentional lies) can be caught and corrected over time.
6-No presuppositions Fail(depends on how you look at it)
Good, you hedged this one too.
(Where did this "no presuppositions" thing come from, by the way? There are always presuppositions. For example, the scientific method presupposes that there are regularities in nature that can be understood through argument and experience -- which is a fairly large assumption.)
This is about how evolutionists make the assumption there is no god. Which is a presupposition which can potentially taint the research.
Evolutionary biology makes no statements about God whatsoever. The topic of God is not within the scope of the subject. That's why there are plenty of people who believe in God but who have no trouble understanding and applying evolutionary biology.