Debate: Is there sufficient evidence to believe in evolution?

[Esquilax]

Opening Statement

I maintain the position that there is no scientific evidence for the theory of macroevolution. In order for my opponent to claim that there is, he needs to provide observational evidence for the theory. In biology text books, students are taught evolution as if it is a fact, when it isn't. I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion. It is based on faith, speculation, and relies on the unseen. No one has ever seen macroevolution occur, but we are told that long ago, when no one else was around to see it, these things happened. The reason why no one has ever seen it occur is because "it takes so long for it to occur". Evolutionists use "time" to fill in their gaps of knowledge, and if the God hypothesis is taken out of the equation, evolution is the only game left in town, so it must be used by naturalists as a way to explain why there is so much diversity in living organisms.

The problem is, there just isn't any evidence to support it, and I will make that evident (no pun intended) in the debate.

"Blatant misrepresentations are not a good basis for an opening statement."

Honestly, I could let that sentence stand as my rebuttal here, given that not a word my opponent stated even touched upon the truth. But since I have the floor, and more to say, here I go:

Before we get too deeply into the minutia of my opponent's opening, I'd first like to point out the contrast between our approaches. Where my opening statement was a lengthy piece supported by plenty of links out to other, reputable resources in order to justify my position with evidence, my opponent's was little more than a glib series of assertions with nothing to back it up. The question under discussion is one of evidence, and yet my opponent offers none, yet seems to dismiss all of mine out of hand.

My opponent references macroevolution at one point, and though this seems to be the lynchpin of his entire argument I'll address if further in my next response, since it is addressed in much more detail there. I will say one thing here, which essentially sums up my thoughts on the topic: if you have to make up a new kind of evolution in order to argue against it, then you don't have much of an argument.

Unfortunately, I don't have much else to say here, since my opponent didn't see fit to include much of a point in his opening. Blanket dismissals of evolutionary theory on the basis that "we haven't observed it" don't carry much weight in the face of the fact that actually, we have, and the accusation that evolution is a religion simply smacks of desperation. For one thing, religions require a lot more than just believing in a thing by faith; I don't see my opponent calling the concept of luck a religion, despite sharing the same criteria he applies to evolution. It's an inconsistent attempt to drag down my position to his level- let's not forget that he's all in favor of religion when it's his- by ad hominem rather than an actual critique of the theory. Name dropping Kent Hovind only makes this seem more worrisome; anyone who has actually seen Kent in action knows that he trades on misrepresenting evolution, instead of honest dialogue.

I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but suspected it anyway; my opponent seems intent on arguing with a manufactured fantasy of what evolution is, rather than the actual theory. On the one hand, this makes my job much easier, but on the other, there's only so many ways to say "that's not true," and I fear I shall become repetitive before this is over. As I close out my response to my opponent's opening statement, I would only request that you remember one thing going forward; macroevolution is a distinction without basis, a straw man that exists only in the minds of creationists.

My opponent wishes that you engage in untruths to make his job easier. Don't give him the satisfaction.