any books where  i can learn the theory?

Declining gives White some advantage so best you can do is "accept".

Actually, the Evan's Gambit seems to be a fairly good line for

White so you will have your work cut out for you.

ok

You seem confused, Buddha-Bud.

It's up to BLACK whether to accept or decline the Evans.

He's saying that if black declines it, this is objectively better for white.  Therefore, accpeting it is the best solution, theoretically speaking.

I'm not sure I agree, but the statement is perfectly logical.  I declined it quite happily back when I still played 1...e5.

Although my rating is low...been quiet on the forums...I personally feel black should never even try to go up against the evans gambit. I prefer to just sidestep it since white gets many dangerous attacking chances  and a strong bishop pair on the A3-C4 diagonals whether he accepts it or not, white will stand better imo.

When I said declining leads to slight advantage for White-admittedly I was going on only what I have heard. So pfren may be correct on this that Black can equalize with fairly normal play.

There is a 3rd option.  Play the two knight's defense instead.

That's not really a third option, since you can't very well do it once the Evans Gambit appears on the board.  If you want to call the Two Knights a third option, you might as well call the Sicilian a fourth one.

Does the sicilian start 1.e4 e5? 

I think I make a good point here.  If you want to play e5 then after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3.  Bc4  play 3...Nf6 instead of 3...Bc5.  If they play the mainline 4. Ng5 then you get to attack.  Now do you think that the majority of the players on this site would be better off giving their opponent the option of a dangerous attacking gambit, or having an attack of their own?  Club players aren't known for their defensive skills.  The initiative counts for more at the lower levels of chess. 

Tim Harding wrote a good book on the Evans Gambit. I believe it is called Play the Evans Gambit. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

  A player seeking to play the open games with 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 will likely find themselves trying to choose between 3...Nf6 or 3...Bc5. The OP was wondering whether he should accept or decline the gambit, and my input was that he had the 3rd option of simply avoiding this decision altogether and deciding on a different 3rd move while preparing his repertoire.  My opinion is that the black side of the Two Knights is easier to play then the black side of the Evans.  If someone intends to play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 as black then they typically pick one of those two moves. 

  For some reason you have a semantics issue with my calling this a 3rd option.  Choosing a different 3rd move so that you don't have to encounter an unpleasant situation on the 4th move is an option, a choice, and I don't know how anyone could argue that it isn't or why they would waste energy doing so. 

...isn't the best way to refute a gambit to take it?

Not so in Queen's Gambit.

Vincent-Valentine:   you have pretty eyes.