Actually there were inbetween forms, such as multimillion year old fossils of creatures that can be called neither monkes nor humans, but something inbetween. As an example: Homo gautengensis, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus. All of these used to live on our planet millions of years ago, and now evovled into us. And admit it, their existance is already proven.

And it is actually your point that has no evidence, like you cant really prove the existence of God, you just have faith(Just FYU, im not atheist). But come on, faith is not enough to be an evidence in such questions. So it actually is the creationism theory the one that lacks evidence.

During the process of evolution aquatic inhabitants somehow managed to transform and move to land. If this is possible, why couldn't apes somehow evolve into humans.

When you ask why aren't there other apes transforming into humans you are being mistaken, because you see not all units evolute together. There is just some part of those who continue evolving and another part of those who remain in their previous form. This is all explained in Darwin's famous publication "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"

In addition, another reason for you not seeing evolving animals every day is that it actually takes a lot of time to evolve. I will bring those fishes that evetually became lizards as an example again, it obviously did not happen in few hours, days, weeks or years. This is very complicated process that takes millions of years. We live approximately 60-80 years. Therefore we phisically cannot evidence these changes in nature.

And btw there were inbetween forms of, how you called them "human-monkeys". Some of them are Homo-habilis and Homo-neanderthalensis.

In my opinion, one of the strongest arguments justifying their salaries is that the services that they provide are really unique. Not just anybody can throw a ball with a speed of 150 km/h, make an accurate shot into the basket in 80% of times, or rush through a defensive line of opponents. So they are rewarded for their talent and their hard work in gym and trainings.

In my mind, it is. Professional athletes are making too much money in a society where salaries and wages are traditionally based on the value of work. For example teaching. It is one of the most important occupations because our future relies on the education of its youth, yet teachers are paid astronomically less than the average professional athlete is.

I understand that it takes a tremendous amount of time of hard work and dedication every day to earn a job in professional sports, but nevertheless, these people do nothing more than entertain public.

Saying that team A is better than team B just because of one single match between them is not enough supported argument. Football is a game in which a lot of things may happen. There were a lot of examples in football history when teams won matches despite the fact that they played worse than the opposite team. One of the most significant example is Euro 2000 semi-final match between Italy and Netherlands. Dutch obviously played one of their worst matches in the tournament, still due to luck they won in penalties. I could bring a lot more examples but are they needed?

Using Caps Lock is just the same as screaming. That's just silly.