It is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution

Ok, firstly I am not trying to prove creationism through fossils or rock layer or anything like that. I am trying to prove creationism by showing Yvette that if she tries to prove or give reason to believe in evolution she will contradict herself. Now this is how she will; if we have evolved over millions of years as Yvette is trying to give prove, we belong to ourselves (despite if God exists). Therefore we decide our own truth, (this maybe true for you, but not for me). In that case, if I choose not to believe in evolution that is my own truth according to her. Not me because I don't believe in evolution. Simple as. If there are no absolutes as a result that we decide what truth is, then evidence is also not absolute. For it would not make sense if evidence is absolute and truth isn't, visa versa. So if truth is absolute, so is evidence. Yvette claims to have evidence of evolution, she says it is absolute and that it is the same for everyone. She is trying to convince you that evolution is reasonable to believe in. You are convinced then that is ok, but she cannot give you evidence since evidence is subjective if evolution is true because we belong to ourselves and decide what truth is. People can be convinced without evidence. And some people do not accept evidence because either they are indeinal or they are ignorant of the subject matter. "My opponent makes an almost totally incoherent argument that evidence cannot possibly support evolution." - Untrue this is not what I meant. I am saying if evidence does support evolution is does only according to people who believe in evolution. Therefore evidence is subjective because evolution says we belong to ourselves and thus we decide what truth is and therefore evidence will follow through with our own subjective truth. I believe in creationism, the Word of God is my foundational belief and therefore there are absolutes. Truth is absolute and therefore so is evidence. "My opponent admits in the Comments that even with "universal evidence" (...), people would still either be ignorant of it's meaning or deny it's meaning." - True. From here on, Yvette attempts to prove evolution even though if she does, it would mean there is a universal truth and therefore universal evidence, however that would mean she is contradicting herself since evolution determines that we make our own truth. Therefore Yvette hasn't give reason to believe in evolution, however she may still convince you that evolution is true without evidence. For the argument's sake I will continue. We can observe micro evolution, but not macro evolution. Since evolution is exceedingly slow in our life time we don't see macro evolution occurring, but only micro evolution, therefore as Yvette called it, speciation, we don't observe it. "we ARE seeing evolution occuring with each generation..." - She only believes this because of the fossil record. With her pre-decided mind that evolution is true, she therefore interprets the fossils to show that there is a pattern of evolution occurring with each generation. When in reality it is just interpretation. Bacteria evolution, bacteria are singled cells, if they remain singled celled organisms after they have 'evolved' they are still bacteria and therefore have not evolved. That's it as far I am concerned. "My opponent either misunderstands or misrepresents. I am saying the evidence is the fossils..." I said that you said fossils are the evidence is the fossils, but you said also I misunderstood. Contradiction much! Yvette said that the experts can trace the changes of fossils back from the modern animal. She uses the horse as an example. I understand that scientists can match up fossils by their similarities, I am not denying that, but it isn't evidence, it is a interpretation. Society and morality; if evolution is true then society has come together by chance that we each agree that certain things are true, such as murdering is wrong and chocolate causes cancer. Get me explain. If we decide our own truth via evidence. But if truth is our own, so is the evidence our own. Cancer is caused by chocolate, I do not know that is true, but let say it is. If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that. Most things are discovered by accident, plastic for example was, and maybe the fact that chocolate causing cancer was also? If so then evidence for the truth that chocolate causes cancer was found at the time time as the truth claim that chocolate causes cancer. By accepting that you agree with others who accept it. However if evolution is true was make our own truths. So someone could say, "My truth is that chocolate does not cause cancer." And if society tries to prove to him that it does then there is a universal truth that says chocolate causes cancer when really we decide what truth is our selves. And thus the evidence will follow through with what we know is subjectively true. It is self refuting because it is relative. Is murder wrong? I know it is because God says it is, rather it is apart of God's character to reject murder as good because God is righteous and good and murder is not righteous nor good. But if someone's moral code says murder is good then it is good for them because we made our own truth. To say that scientists have observed monkeys getting along with each other is true, they have. But I am not saying that we cannot get along if evolution is true, I am saying that if evolution is true there is no right and wrong objectively only subjectively. So it is an opinion that murder is good, it is not a fact that murder is good. Therefore if it is only opinionated then there is no reason why people can say murder is good. Even if someone wants to kill 10 people for no reason, for that person it could be a good think to kill 10 people once a month. Conclusion; Yvette has given no reason to believe in evolution because her reason for believing in evolution is subjective (her reason to believe in evolution is right for her, but not for me), if she were to give a reason it would have to be absolute which would contradict evolution, in that we decide what truth is. If she proves evolution or gives evidence she is being self refuting. In other words, Yvette has tried to disprove air while breathing air to make her argument that air does not exist.