Evolution, it seems, is ingrained into the educational and informational fields of our society.  As a consequence, until a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that evolution was possible, and likely was the path of which everything living today took en-route to existence.  I have believed in God my whole life, but I had thought that evolution somehow fit into Christianity.  After all, public schools teach it, it’s displayed in museums, and it’s reported in the news.  How could all of these people possibly be misled?
Then one particular day, I caught a news headline:  “Creationists build museum dedicated to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.”
My initial response was something along the lines of “Less than 10,000 years?? They’re crazy! After all, ‘everyone knows’ that the Earth is billions of years old, and it’s common knowledge that we probably evolved from simpler life-forms.  Those crazy creationists.”
The phrase to make note of here is “everybody knows.”  It occurred to me that I believed evolution was true because other people believed in it.  I had never seen or read of any evidence for it, but because people referred to it as fact in public schools, science textbooks, publicly funded museums, and many magazines, I accepted it as an established fact.
I have always appreciated and enjoyed science, so I decided that if I’m going to adhere to a theory about where humans came from, I should base it on some reliable, provable, scientific evidence.  So, with the preconceived notion that evolution was probably true, I set out to discover why it was true, and come up with the scientific evidence supporting it.  After all, who in their right mind could possibly believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
The logical way to approach this research project is to start from the beginning.  Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism.  Where did the single-celled organism come from?  Evolutionists say primordial soup.  All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and how it was formed, and we’ll have the origin of the single-celled organism.
This proved to be rather impossible.  As it turns out, evolutionists all believe in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever existed.  They do not know what chemicals it could have been, and it has never been successfully reproduced in the lab.  People are still searching for a way to explain it.  Well that presents a fundamental problem, doesn’t it?  I guess we’re off to a bad start.  Since no college professor, “scientist,” or anyone else has any idea about the first phase of evolutionary theory, lets move past that issue and try to figure out the next steps instead.
Next, the unknown inanimate matter morphed into a simple, single-celled organism.  Sounds feasible enough, since “everyone knows” that single-celled organisms are the simplest form of life.  All we have to do is research their limited complexity so we can figure out how non-living matter formed life.
As it turns out, single-celled organisms are extremely complex.  Did you know that a single-celled organism can have thousands of parts, can reproduce, eat, expel waste, move, and respond to stimuli?  There’s no way I’m going to ever figure out how inanimate matter can suddenly turn into a multi-thousand part, self propelled, eating, moving, reproducing, structured, organized cell.  But it looks like I’m not alone.... evolutionists can’t begin to explain it either.  This is probably because it’s genetic information would take up all the pages in a 1,000 page book, and have to be laid out in the right order.  How much genetic information do rocks and other non-living matter have?  None, of course.  That’s akin to using zero letters of the alphabet, and watching that turn into the first 2 Harry Potter books, all by random chance.  That’s a pretty impossible leap, but that is what evolutionists claim happens.  Non-living matter would’ve had to jump from no genetic material to over a thousand pages of it, a cell structure would’ve had to somehow spontaneously form all at once, and the cell structure created would’ve had to magically come alive.  This is what evolutionists believe in, although they cannot explain how it happens or why.  With all the millions of dollars put into the varieties of science experiments studying this issue, never before has life formed from non-living matter.  Evolutionists just believe it happens.
I guess we’ll chalk that down as another leap of faith by the evolutionists, and keep going.  Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe in it.  But, let’s keep going.  We’re bound to find some evidence eventually.
Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely different things over time.  If that’s true, we should find an abundance of evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of science must have observed this happening.  After all, with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!
Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well.  All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms.  There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans.  There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously.  But we find none of that.  The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds.  If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:
3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...
and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists.  Everything would be a transitional species, and we’d find abundant evidence for it.  In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario.  The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the “missing link” fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds.  It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird.  They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country.  Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil.  Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil?  It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever.  
Nothing ever in the history of scientific research has ever given birth to something that adds genetic information to its species’ genome, and yet that is the fundamental principle behind the theory of evolution.  Of all the billions of fish on the planet, not a single one is becoming a walking, air-breathing lizard.  There are The only thing that ever happens (and it happens constantly) is variation of EXISTING genetic traits, which simply means that offspring can have different physical attributes than their parents, such as size, weight, hair color, eye color, etc, all while using information already present in their species.  Dogs produce a variety of dogs, and tomatoes produce a variety of tomatoes.  This, however, does not add any genetic information to a species or allow anything to transform into a different organism, and thus doesn’t provide any evidence for evolution.  Again, evolutionists have no proof for evolution, they simply believe in it.
Support for Evolution:
Faith-based beliefs:  3
Pieces of scientific evidence:  0
While most people would have given up by now in the process of researching evolution, I was determined.  There was one more thing that “everybody knows” is scientific.  The fossil record.  “Everybody knows” that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, which proves the Earth is billions of years old, because that’s what they teach everybody in schools.  I guess all I had to check is the method they use to date the fossils to make sure it’s scientific.
One of the methods fossils are dated by is something called Carbon Dating.  The amount of carbon-14 left in a dead animal is used to estimate it’s age, by figuring out how much is left in the remains.  I guess the only problem with this is that it assumes that the Earth is older than 30,000 years, which would be the length of time required for the levels of Carbon-14 to level off.  Because it is based on unprovable belief, yet again, it becomes again faith-based, and coincidentally is fundamentally flawed.  If the Earth was more than 30,000 years old, this method might be more useful.  If the Earth is less than 30,000 years old, and older fossils have less Carbon-14, it would be a sign that maybe carbon-14 levels on Earth are actually increasing over time... and coincidentally, they are, according to all data we have gathered in recent history.  Along with the the faith-based assumption, this dating method is very prone to errors.  Sometimes living creatures are dated to be thousands of years old, and sometimes different bones of the same fossilized animal are dated to be tens of thousands of years apart.  That’s a big problem if the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Obviously, carbon dating is useless for scientific purposes, but at least there’s another method.  Fossils can also be dated based on the layer of strata they are found in, i.e. Jurassic, Cambrian, etc.  And we know that the layers of rock are dated accurately, because you just have to look at the fossils contained in them to see how old they are.
Did you catch that?  That is a perfect example of the circular reasoning often used by evolutionists, and again useless for scientific research purposes.  Using the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils isn't going to accomplish anything.  It’s called circular reasoning.  The whole idea of this “Geological Column” is disproven by the fact that trees and animals are found petrified and fossilized taking up several layers of rock strata that are supposedly millions of years apart.  Can an animal fossil sit there exposed for millions of years while strata slowly builds up around it?  Of course not.  Again, logic interferes with evolutionist belief.
The final aspect of the fossil record that evolutionists like to use is the shape of fossils.  They often use a neat trick where they make a line of fossils, often little to big, and claim the “modern” animal is at the end.  Then they say “See!  If you line these fossils up in a certain order, you can see that evolution is proven by the fossil record!”  This logic is illustrated at the top of this page.  I have used their same logic to prove that pickles evolve into Oatmeal Squares, simply by putting things in order by shape.  All the items are unrelated, and none of them magically morph into each-other, but put them in a line and you can see the shapes progress from cylinder to cube, big cap to nonexistent cap, and glass to paper.  This is the exact same logic evolutionists use when they present fossils as proof of evolution, although they can’t prove that any of their example animals evolved into or gave birth to anything else.  You can make your own evolutionary lineup. Take a knife, a spoon, a spork, and a fork in that order, and you have proof that knives evolved into forks.  You’ll have to show that to an evolutionist, however, for anyone to believe you.
Support for Evolution:
Faith-based assumptions:  4
Scientific Evidence:  0
So, my evolution research resulted in my realization that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with science, but rather it is a system of materialistic beliefs.  Many self-proclaimed “scientific authorities” falsely present evolution as fact, and ridicule anyone who doesn’t believe what they do, despite the fact that they have no facts backing them up.  I of course had to research the topic using an objective frame of mind, and most evolutionists would never dare consider their theory to be faulty, even when presented with such fundamental impossibilities.  The reason for this is that it's the only theory they've come up with to explain the origin of life without allowing God into the equation.  The Bible does not conflict with science, because evolution is not science.
After scientific evidence can be eliminated, it can be concluded that people believe in evolution for 1 or 2 main reasons:
1)    Societal/Peer Pressure (“people told me to believe it” or “lots of other people believe it, so I should too.”)
2)    Personal Desire (i.e. “if God exists, I have to follow some rules I’m not too fond of”)
Essentially, evolution is a religion.  It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they're still searching for that first shred of evidence.  At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, unprovable theories with excuses.  I have put the word “belief” in bold many times throughout this page, so I can illustrate the point that evolution is based entirely on belief, assumptions, and faulty logic.
Here are some additional facts to consider.  
1) In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter.  Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or prove it can happen.
2) Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself.  This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible.  Never before has information been added to the genome of a species.
3) No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism.  Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.
4) No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself.  This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history.  Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals.  Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird.  Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.
5) Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal's species long term, or made it more genetically complex.  Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed.  All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the mutated animal.
6) Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.
7) It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.
8) Plants have been around since the beginning of life, and despite all the supposed evolution that should've taken place, they have not evolved intelligence.
9) There are no instances of plants morphing into animals.
10) Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create, and yet they’ve been around since the first animals of an evolutionist timescale. In addition, fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today, which means that evolutionists face a fundamental problem.  For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions.  Their eyes had two lens layers that allowed everything to be in focus without the need for refocusing, and yet had no spherical aberrations (distortion) because of the precise alignment of the lenses.  Chuck Darwin, the founder of the religion of evolution, didn't even believe eyes could have evolved:
"To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  -Charles Darwin, in 'The Origin of Species,' 1859, p. 217
10) Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction.  How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists.  I wonder how any species survived before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.
13) Nature is full of "irreducible complexities," or things that could not function if a single part is removed.  Since evolution is a gradual and slow process, things like the human knee joint could not have evolved, because they would not function until they were fully formed.  If one part/aspect were missing, they would serve no purpose.  This is inexplicable by evolutionists.
14) No creature has ever evolved or "adapted" a new body-part to suit it's environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability to do so.  Among the ridiculous claims of evolutionists, one would be the land mammal that evolved into a whale.  I'd like to see the transition where the nostrils supposedly change into the blowhole and move to the top of the head, and learn how the hind legs could magically morph into a tail flipper, all while continuing to function for millions of years.
15) Spiders have been found perfectly preserved in amber that supposedly date back "hundreds of millions of years," according to evolutionist faith-based dating systems.  These spiders spin webs, and are no different from today's modern spiders.  If evolution were true, spiders should have changed significantly over millions and millions of years.  To the contrary, spiders remain the same spiders throughout the fossil record.  How would the first spider gain the ability to spin a web?  By accident?
16) DNA has to already be present in order to create protein, and protein has to be present in order to create DNA.  Both are required as building blocks of a living organism.  Which formed first, randomly, from the primordial soup that may or may not have existed, and how is that possible?
What DOES occur is variation of EXISTING traits.  Dogs can create a variety of dogs over thousands of years, and this is a provable fact.  Breed a beagle with a boxer and you have a new kind of dog, but guess what... it's still a dog, and the size, hair color, and shape (existing traits) vary, but all fall within the limits of the existing dog gene pool.  The confusion comes when people assume that variation of EXISTING traits means that somehow completely new genetic information can be added, thus allowing a cactus to evolve into a porcupine.  To the contrary, organisms can only sample from an existing gene pool.  
The gene pool for humans contains the ability to have a variety of skin types, hair colors, eye colors, body shapes and sizes, but never will any human form functioning gills and be able to breathe under water, because that genetic information is not in our gene pool.  A red haired woman and a black haired man can have a blonde child, but don’t freak out - that blonde child isn’t evolving into a new species.  It’s just exhibiting a variance of an existing trait in available human genes.
Evolutionists are always harping about bacteria as proof of evolution when they develop a resistance to antibiotics.  Of course, they never tell the entire truth of these matters, so I guess we have to.  Guess what- bacteria have always had resistance to antibiotics in their gene pool, they do not magically ”evolve” it.  Bacteria can become immune to antibiotics through either horizontal gene transfer of already existing immunity, or they can become immune through a loss of information or capability in the ribosome.  So, either existing immunity is transferred, or functionality is lost which results in immunity.  Neither of these methods adds any genetic information to bacteria, and coincidentally to this day bacteria have not evolved into anything consisting of more than one cell.  This suggests that God designed everything with some capabilities to adapt to environmental changes, and develop resistances to harmful substances, all using the genetic information that already exists.  If he didn’t, imagine how fast a species would go extinct as soon as they were faced with a minor habitat change.  There are limits to adaptation of course.  Lizards do not have the capability to produce feathers in their genes, and they never will.  There is no existing genetic information in fish that will ever allow them to morph into mammals.  (The fact that I have to argue that is frightening.)  Experiments were done that selectively bred large paramecium in order to produce increasingly large paramecium.  Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paramecium reached their genetic size limit rather quickly.  This is an example of the “genetic wall” that will be hit any time selective breeding or natural selection is observed.  This limitation is present in all species; they can only exhibit traits from their own species’ existing gene pool.  You will never selectively breed fast horses and get one that is faster than a cheetah.  
This may help illustrate:
Using the letters A, B, and C, try to make the sentence “Hey, teacher, leave that kid alone!”  
Of course that is impossible, but this is what evolutionists preach.  
Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution is to think about what evolutionists claim....  that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits.  Let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean.  They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day.  Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers.  Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time.  How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater?  The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater.  A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome.  Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”  
Again, it needs to be reiterated that not a single aspect of evolution has ever been observed, and yet such impossible ideas are presented as a fact to children in public schools.  Disturbing indeed.
© TheMythOfEvolution.com 2006
The Myth of Evolution
Above - <span st