One problem with creationists is that they haven't evolved from monkeys. If asked, that's what they are going to reply. And by judging how they usually come in screaming into threads like this and start throwing shit around, it's hard to disagree them.
What everyone entering these debates (actually even the "console wars" debates), is Gödel. The Gödelian logic is pretty much the basis for scientific thinking.
Raymond Smullyan is known for popularising Gödel, so his production would be a good place to start. "What is the name of this book?" is easy to grasp with lots of logical examples/puzzles.
For the topic, there seems to be lots of fallacies (as expected) in the thread. Evolution and theory of evolution, are two different things. As all theories, theory of evolution explains the mechanism of a natural phenomenon, in this case, evolution.
Micro- and macroevolution are just rhetorical tricks to argue against evolution. The only evolution that exists, is "microevolution". In a timeframe long enough, evolution causes an isolated population to become a species its own.
Also the question in the title is a bit flawed, since it assumes that evolution is something very complex and it has very simple evidence to back it up, when the case actually is the complete opposite; it's simple that is backed by complex evidence. When simplified, evolution in itself is "change" and everyday life in genetics (which isn't debatable anymore btw.). Theory of evolution is the complex one, with a set of constructs that are results of evolution.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
