It is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution

Thank you Yvette for providing the debate. My introduction: Before I begin there is an important lesson that we must understand. And it is this, having evidence for something is different from convincing someone of something. Many people are convinced of things without evidence, yet people are also not convinced of things even with evidence because; for one, they might not like what they are hearing and two, they might lack an understanding. So lets see, when we apply this rule if it were to this so called 'evidence for evolution'. Firstly Yvette has given no evidence for evolution so far, all she has done is said where the evidence (if any) may lie. "Large amount of supporting evidence." - So where is this evidence? I would like to know in the next round. "If the issue is complex and the individual does not understand it fully, the reasonable thing to do would be to trust the judgment of those who understand it." - This is a fallacy, if the individual does not understand evolution then they are mentally troubled because evolution is very easy to understand. And if someone does not understand evolution, why then would they trust someone who does? The fact that someone can trust another would mean they can trust themselves, hence they would trust their own understanding of evolution, despite if it is wrong. The Evidence: Now like I said above, there is a difference between providing evidence to someone and convincing someone something is true, fact's do not count as evidence for evolution, this is clearly understood because if facts did count for evidence then we would all believe in evolution. Yvette has given a list of 'evidence' which aren't at all evident for evolution. Fossils - fossils are facts, and they are down for interpretation like all facts are. We observe fossils and evolutionists pose their pre-interpretation mind (which has been already decided that the earth is 4.5 billion years old) on top of the fossils, when really they are looking through a veil which has 'Evolution' written across it. The fossils are not evident for evolution. Comparative anatomy - By saying that the anatomy of each creature can be compared, does not given any evidence for evolution, all it says is that each similar 'looking' creature compared with the bone structure perhaps can be compared with other creatures with a bone structure. There is no evidence for millions of years of evolution. Given that you take-away that veil covering your thinking. Evidence is universal, not subjective. Time and space distribution - (quoting from http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) "We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime..." If we are told what to do, how to think in a certain way, then we are being tuned a certain way. Evidence is universal, so if we must understand to think in a certain way to understand the evidence, it is not evidence at all. But instead psychological manipulation. Computer simulations - now if I thinking what you are thinking, this is just laughable. Art does not count for evidence, and the better the simulation or art work the more convincing evolution is, remember the difference between convincing someone something is true and giving evidence for something? Observation - observation is empirical, and like before, facts derived from observation which gives room for interpretation, it is simply this, if you remove the veil of an evolutionist, you will put on the veil of someone who believes in the Bible. For example; God cannot deny Himself the Bible says, so this is why contradicts are fallacies. Why are contradictions wrong in your world view? "Evolution is well supported by evidence" - I don't think so. I am am to attend everything Yvette has said, I would need more characters. But she has given no evidence so far, all she has said is what people think is evidence and where evidence (if any) would be found. "Can my opponent name a better theory?" - Creationism. Derived from the Word of God. Everything is absolute and nothing is self refuting which secular beliefs are. Here is a link to an evolutionary tree of life: - http://warforscience.wordpress.com... If you scroll down on the link you will find a diagram of dinosaur evolution, the inflated areas which are white show the dinosaur through the ages. They are the facts, the fossils. The black lines joining up the white inflated parts is the story, the fiction or in your understanding, logical connections. A story can be logical to reality, like Lord of the Rings for example, J.R.R Tolkien said the the Lord of the Rings universe is a lost world to our actual reality. It has just been forgotten about. Did Lord of the Rings actually happen? No it did not. Why is evolution incoherent with reality? Morality, lying for instance is morally wrong, but why is it? If evolution is correct all what is happening in the brain is two chemicals reacting with each other creating emotion, I believe this too, but if evolution is true, instead of keeping to an authority such as God's Word, why do you keep yourself from yourself? If you are in charge of your self and you decide the rules, why is lying wrong? If all we are is re-arranged cells which are led by chemical reaction in the brain, lying shouldn't be wrong. And if lying helps you, then why not lie? Let me give a better example; a girl is shot on the street and she dies. That is evil in my view because God says it is. But in an evolutionists view it isn't evil, since according to evolution we evolved due to death and suffering. So you say, "Oh no, why would that man do such an evil thing?" when really all that is happening is two chemical reactions occurring in the brain. So why arrest and punish someone when all what happened was two chemicals were reacting, you wouldn't punish vinegar and baking soda if they react together, why then do we, according to an evolutionist punish a man for murder if all it is, is two chemicals? You wouldn't arrest a lion for attacking an zebra, why arrest a man for attacking another human? If you say, "Well we want a society which gets along and which is happy.". Yes you can say that, but there is no way of telling what 'getting along' is and what 'happiness' is from an evolutionary world view, since all what is occurring is chemicals in the brain reacting once more. There is no meter on us which tells how happy we are, and how much we are getting along with each other. So what is happiness, what does getting along mean? And if not being happy or not getting along helps your survival, why not get along with each other, because why should you care about a chemical reaction in the brain of another individual? You don't care if baking soda and vinegar mix, right? Same thing is occurring within our minds, and these chemical reactions create emotion. And if you belong to yourself, why do you conform to other authority? If all we are is evolved reorganised chemicals and cells. Why should we love? It just makes things more the complicated. If there was no love, wouldn't things be more simple? No fall outs, no arguing, no fighting, no giving etc... The fact that these things do exist reflect our image of God. When you talk about evidence, you are relating to a universal need. God is universal, and yes you might say the same about evolution, if it does exist, it can exist everywhere, that is true. But if evolution is true there is no standard for what evidence should be and therefore if one person thinks this is evident for something and another person thinks otherwise, who is right? The fact that you are saying there is evidence for evolution says that there is a standard, yet evolution does not have one, so by simply saying there is evidence, calls out that God exists, and that evolution does not either.