I accept evolution because it makes sense of a vast array of biological data, and because no other explanation even attempts to do so. If someone comes up with an alternative that explains the data as well as evolution, I will consider it seriously; if someone comes up with one that does a better job, I'll adopt it. Until then, I'll keep using what works.
As for the religion bit, it's complete nonsense. I have a religion, and evolution isn't anything like it. My religion has a founder whom we revere, and whom we quote and discuss every week. It has a set of scriptures, ancient rituals, and a wide range of ethical teachings and philosophical positions. Evolution has none of that. Practicing biologists almost never quote Darwin professionally (I've never read any of his books, come to think of it) and couldn't care less what you think of hiim, no holy writings or rituals (other than drinking beer), and no ethical or philosophical teachings. Evolution is just science, indistinguishable in its main features from any other science I've encountered.
quote:
Now, I, by no means am trying to come off as mean or disrespectful here
Guess what? You succeeded without even trying.
quote:
I am just honestly curious in what would convince someone that a theory with an extremely insignificant amount of evidence could be true.
There are two possibilities here. One is that you are actually familiar with the tens of thousands of papers in genetics, paleontology, microbiology, comparative anatomy and all of the other fields of biology that support (and are supported by) evolution, and that you have evaluated all of the evidence in those papers and concluded that it doesn't hold up. The other is that you are not in a position to make the judgment you just made. Which is it?