Debate: Is there sufficient evidence to believe in evolution?

[His_Majesty]

"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.

To bad my opponent thinks that....however, my main point was macroevolution has yet to be observed and demonstrated...which is the truth.

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

I have a few things to say about this...first off, what my opponent fails to realize is pointing out links don't mean anything in this debate, because I can just as easily post links that backs up my position, and there are plenty out there. So at the end of the debate, who wins? The one that posted the most links? No. My opponent posted links with people that already agree with his position, so go figure.

Again, my position is based on the definition of the scientific method...science is supposed to be based on what we can see/observe...and what can be verified by repeated experiment. No one has ever seen/observed any large scale reptile-bird changes in any kind of living organism, nor is there an experiment that you can conduct that will allow such changes to occur. We only see animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

There are no amount of links that my opponent can post that will change this...if he believes in evolution, he has to accept it on the foundation of faith, because by accepting evolution he is relying on the unseen, the same thing he would accuse theists of.

my opponent's was little more than a glib series of assertions with nothing to back it up.

I feel the same way he feels, vice versa.

The question under discussion is one of evidence, and yet my opponent offers none, yet seems to dismiss all of mine out of hand.

I told my opponent in pm that I will be disputing the evidence that he presents for evolution, not that I will be giving evidence for non-evolution. This point was understood by him, yet here is accusing me of not offering evidence?

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.

There are two different types of evolution when it comes to living organisms...macro...and micro........macroevolution is the one I am arguing against...the reptile-bird kind of thing...the one that has never been observed not only just in the lab, but in the history of mankind.

Microevolution is small scale..such as how the breed of dog (leonberger) was eventually "produced" after careful and selective breeding. This is science...we can see it...we can experiment.

Reptile to bird? Not so much. Not at all.

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.

"We haven't observed it" is a damn good point if we are talking about a methodology that is SUPPOSED to be based on observation.

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.

I thought I responded to the little "evidence" my opponent did present for the theory, which wasn't much.

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've watched Kent Hovind intellectually own three evolutionist at one time in a debate. That was enough for me to jump on the bandwagon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIg-TyDm-g

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.

The theory is that all living organisms share a common ancestor, a theory that was supposed to be drawn using the scientific method.

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.

I'd like to ask my opponent one very simple question...what is the SINGLE most BEST evidence you have for the theory of the reptile-bird (macroeovolution)?