Anyone who has looked at layered rock formations, i.e. The Grand Canyon, can see the evidence. The lower layers contain fossils of more simple life forms and the higher you go, the more advance lifeforms show up. This shows a clear timeline of evolution.
Creation, on the other hand, is based on a book of fantasy. If you read Genesis 1, the story of creation, you can see that there are serious errors in how it describes things. According to it, there was light on the first day even though the sun was not created till the fourth day. The fourth day also has issues. According to it, God made two lights, claiming that the moon also gave off it's own light. Seeing that only the two lights were created, it dismisses the knowledge that the stars are also more distant versions of our own sun. Seeing that it was described as being God's story of how he created the earth and he got many things so obviously wrong in his description, clearly it did not create the earth. If I claimed to have invented a machine yet described how it worked completely wrong, would you believe I built that machine? Clearly the story of creation was just a made up story meant to give their god credit for life on earth and the reason for the errors is because they did not understand the forces involved.
With mountains of evidence on the side of evolution and nothing but a fictional story on the creation side, obviously I would have to agree with the theory of evolution.
If you look at all the animal species there are, there are thousands of variations of singular groups of beetles? How is this? Evolution. You cannot say God created everything, because there is no proof that God exists. There is proof, however, that evolution is the reason we see everything the way we do today.
I shall make a concise argument against evolution. Adaption/Natural Selection. These happen, but not to the extent for evolution to be true. Adaption is a population that begins to display and outwardly express beneficial traits already contained within the organisms' DNA. Never will this adaption occur to the extent dor Animal A to become Animal B. You cannot get another species from another. It is impossible. You cannot change the DNA of an organism to get a bird from a reptile or iguana from a fish for examples. The evolutionists excuse for this is quite often mutation. Far more times than not mutation is harmful, and for the the rare beneficial mutations to slowly add up to re-arrange 60,000 proteins within an animal perfectly to get a new animal is virtually impossible. Time doesnt make it possible. Also for the odds of millions of proteins and DNA and genes to rearrange in every animal in existence to evolve into something different is not possible. Speciation is another argument for evolution. While it has been observed in plants it hasn't with anything else, not even simple bacteria, the more basic organism in existence. With all the perfect factors and conditions scientists couldn't recreate it with bacteria to a succesful extent. Another point, if a fish were to "evolve" into a land animal, according to evolutionists it would have to slowly, over millions of years, develop useless stubs of feet until it could have a advantage over its other fish counterparts. So it would have to transition from gill breathing to lung breathing and develop useless stubs for millions of years I get an advantages. COUNTLESS generations developing something USELESS for an eventual advantage. This is completely counter intuitive to the concept of evolving to gain survival advantage.
The Bible is true. However, the language used to describe the creation of the world leaves much to be interpreted. Often, the statements are not what literally happened, but are representations, for the sake of man's limited understanding. God has yet to directly contradict the theory of evolution, and until such time as he does, we should use those means available to us to find the truth of the matter.