Evolution is a lie

Hi there. I'm a proponent of one of the Abrahamic religions, and I am also a scientist - so I think this will add an interesting dynamic for this debate! Firstly, I've taken the challenge of being "pro" your proposed lemma, however I'm not 100% certain that Evolution can be declared a "lie" based on the available evidence. I am arguing more from a position that with my "scientist hat" on I have several issues with the theory of Evolution as a self-contained explanation for the existence of life and species on this planet. Ironically enough with my "theological hat" on, it genuinely makes little difference to me whether the Evolutionary theory holds or not. A deity could have created the Earth as it is, or he/she/it could have created the cosmos with the knowledge that the Earth and diversity of life could have arisen over aeons of time - Evolution just being one part within that whole process. To my mind creationism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive at all. Secondly, I used to blindly believe what I was taught at school about Evolution and just accepted it as fact. It is only having studied the theory in more detail as an adult that I have severe issues with several of its facets. I think Evolution is true up to a point, but the extent of that point is probably much more limited than the current popular view seems to be. I will debate this in more detail in later rounds, but in a nutshell if you're talking about evolution from the point of view of say: ancient version of fish eventually becomes a more modern version of fish which has become more adapted to its surroundings over time - no problem. I'm less convinced at the suggestion that evolution could cause one species to become an entirely different species over time - there is little sensible evidence that sufficient information to allow for this could get added to the genome through mutation and evolution, so to get the whole way from single cell organisms to primates doesn't actually make any sense through standalone random evolution (it also goes against the grain of entropy). Then finally, to get from some primordial soup of chemicals to the simultaneous creation of RNA and DNA and the sudden "coming into being" of a self-replicating cell through some process similar to evolution - this really ought to start sounding alarm bells in the mind of any self-professed rational scientist. But then even if I could suspend all rational scepticism at this point and accept that this primordial soup scenario was actually plausible, it still wouldn't explain where the matter and energy of this universe came from in the first place. Thirdly, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers. To my mind every human being is on a constant journey of discovery of knowledge (and dare I say "truth"), and it is healthy to regularly review one's position based on the information and evidence we come across in life - and most importantly by debating with people who hold different worldviews and to consider their position with reference to that of our own. I believe the biggest mistake anyone can make is to think that they are definitely correct in any given position to the exclusion of listening to other worldviews - that is misguided, and this will only serve to stunt your own learning capability if you adopt that type of stance. In short, you never learn anything if you think you already know everything. I'm greatly looking forward to the debate, and I await the opening arguments of the "Con" side of the debate in due course.