It is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution

Ok I will not waste time. http://www.youtube.com... "Con's statement is irrelevant." - Not really, you are trying to convince people that it is reasonable to believe in evolution, but you don't just want to convince them, you want to give reason why they are convinced right? Isn't this whole debate about that? Before I go further, I will claim that the fact that she is able to argue at all proves evolution wrong. Since if we belong to ourselves due to millions of years of evolution and there is no higher authority (God) then evidence is not universal, so Yvette can only convince you but not give evidence. Because according to evolution, we belong to ourselves, there cannot be an absolute definition for evidence but only our own personalised scheme which decides what evidence is. It is a form of relativism which is self refuting. So if Yvette gives any evidence at all she is contradicting herself, because creationism and evolution cannot both be true. But if she gives no evidence, Yvette has not given reason to believe in evolution. So I will ask Yvette, is evidence universal and why if there is no God? (Vital question). Ok, that wasn't part of the debate so much but by saying that, she willcontradict herself if she gives any evidence at all. "What rule?" - The rule that we must not only convince but also give reason why they are convinced, and that reason would be a show of evidence. It is a rule of logic that if not followed leads to self contradiction. "...Fossil records, homologies, etc, ARE the evidence." - Ok I see what you mean now. So your saying the facts are evidence for evolution? But again you are contradicting your own world view that evolution is true. If we have evolved over millions of years, then who decides what evidence is? I know what evidence is because I as do you, reflect the image of God and God cannot deny Himself false. Therefore the Word of God cannot contradict it's self. But in this case you are saying the evidence is the fossils, the fact that they exist is evidence of evolution. No, if that is so then we must be able to empirically see evolution (macro evolution) take form. In fact I watched the movie Evolution (2001) today, and the movie is about a rock that crash lands of earth, and evolution happens at a exceedingly high rate. In one day you have 200 million years worth of evolution in the movie. In that scenario fossils would be evident for evolution. If fossils are evident, we would not need fossils because we could see macro evolution happening around us, when really all we see and observe is micro evolution. The only difference between a fossil and a living organism is that the fossil was once alive and moving as a living organism. However the age of the fossil is not fact but it is down to interpretation. This argument is relevant for her other 'evidences'. "You cannot look at the fossil record without seeing descent." - Oh no? Of course I can see that, I understand what you are saying, but in the same way, you can also not look at the fossil record and not see design. There is no scientific method of discovering how one species which belongs to one family can evolve into another species belonging to another family. In other words, there is no evidence showing how a cat can become a non cat over time or due to mutation. The evidence and the facts say that cats have always been cats, and whales have always been whales. I would love to take a class on evolution and I cannot wait to visit a museum next. I do not believe in evolution myself so why would I trust the words of someone else saying evolution is true? "We've seen bacteria and viruses evolve so much that the fact that they're evolving isn't news, what they're evolving *into* isn't news..." - Bacteria is a singled celled organism, is it simple? Not at all. Is the bacteria still bacteria after it has 'evolved'? Yes. The bacteria may develop new techniques but like with larger organisms (cats, mice, bears) there is nothing new adding to bacteria. In the next round would you mind telling me how bacteria evolve, because according to this site (http://www.physorg.com...) they don't know. And if you cannot tell me how, there is no evidence for bacteria evolving into non bacteria. "Evolutionists did not decide the age of the earth. Geological scientists have calculated it based on dating of rocks and the age of the solar system." - But evolutionists agree with these geologists who say the earth is 4.5 billion years old? So they have that veil on which says the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution written across it. Evolutionary scientists do not rely on psychological manipulation, but they are psychologically manipulated. There is a difference there. For an example there is the a video above, which shows million of years of evolution, with cool effects it seems to be very convincing, but where is the 'beef', where is the evidence? All it is, is a story based on facts, which people who believe in evolution have created a fictional video clip to show how evolution might look like. Not even that, it is as if a creature has the ability to adapt quickly and the numbers have been placed beside the creature to make it look like it is taking millions of years. "Con doesn't seem to have made any argument against time and space distribution..." - My point was this, before you claim to have evidence why must I or anyone else adjust their mind in to an evolutionary world view if it is evidence? We shouldn't, we should just be able to see it as evidence and have no queries. For example; why is there no erosion between rock layers? If rock layers take millions of years to form, why are they flat without erosion? "I fail to see how computer simulations are simply, or even at all, "art"." - Art work or simulation is not evidence for evolution, despite if they reflect nature that doesn't matter. Like I said with J.R.R Tolkien, Lord of the Rings wasn't real, yet it is said that Middle Earth once existed as a nation but has been long forgotten in reality. Just because something includes realism, doesn't mean it is real. The Moral Animal? Why then do people say to misbehaving people, "Stop acting like an animal."? We are the only beings which have a moral code, in the animal kingdom there is no way not to behave or act. If two lions fight and one kills the other, the other lions won't react in a way showing that it was a wrong thing to do, rather they will see the winning lion as more dominant, living alongside with that lion, they will have more of a chance of survival. Knowing they do not think that, but it is instinct. When we kill other humans, we are punished. Why is that fair if all what is happening is two chemical reacting within the brain? An accident does an accident, and the accident is punished because it did an accident? Yvette says the reason we have societies is because we benefit from them, yes that is true, we do indeed. But she isn't understanding that the reason why we have societies in the first place does not support the evolutionary world view. If each of us belong to ourselves why then would one of us begin to help the other? It makes no sense. It is self contradicting because if we are our own masters why would we serve someone else. Because the best is for ourselves, since it is all about survival for us and the fittest. "I will not waste space on these irrelevant and false accusations..." - I wonder why? Extra thoughts: "Richard Dawkins has convinced himself that his purpose in life is to say there is no purpose in life." - I thought that was pretty funny. "If evolution is true, the words 'ought' and 'should' should not make sense." - Should they not? (Self refuting). "If evolution is true, we can do what we want to do, so don't tell others not what to do." Self refuting once again.