1) Transitional Fossils: How do you explain the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record? Stephen J Gold even said HIMSELF (Whom is the man, the biggest name in evolutionary science) that there are a lack of transitional fossils. If evolution were true, we should have thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils right? Well we certainly don't find that in the ground. You say we have bones of the creatures we used to be and have bones of the creatures in between common ancestors and living creatures. With animals there has to have been so many different transitions detailing how for example a chicken became a cat (for the sake of argument we'll say that happened). That chicken would have had to eventually over thousands of years turned into a cat. So we should be finding some bones of chickens, which we do, and some bones of cats, which we do, and thousands of transitions in between...but we simply don't. The "transitional fossils" scientists find are usually of animals long extinct. Some scientists find there to be actual living creatures that they had once thought were transitional fossils claiming proof of evolution but some were found alive, so they call them "living fossils" which is an oxymoron. Charles Darwin even talked about this. He knew that unless the transitions between the kinds were found, his theory would fall apart. Today, more than 150 years later, what do we find? An extreme lack of transitional fossils. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. But there are museums that I have personally walked through that has fossilized objects like a Cowboy boot with a foot inside, a bowlers hat, a bag of flour, etc. So you can't say fossilization takes very long. Fossilization can happen fairly quickly.

So what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? First, the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today.

But Darwin's theory doesn't just need fossils. It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. If we count all the fossils that have been claimed to be transitions from apes to humans, we would still have VERY few. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils.

2) The Fossil Layers. You are referring to the geologic column. Well let me say that the geological column on paper does not line up to what you see on the ground. The layers are mish mashed all over the place in the actual ground. Do you know how they date the fossils like dinosaur bones and other species in the ground? They take that fossil or bone, line it up to the geological column/chart and estimate where it was buried based off of where they found it, and they date it that way without using any type of dating method (Radiometric, Carbon (which is somewhat unreliable), etc.) Do you know how they date the layers of the ground in the geologic column? By the fossils that are found in them. Yes indeed, it is circular reasoning, they date the bones/fossils by the age of the layers in the ground, and they date the layers by the bones/fossils found in them.

You say nothing has "violated" this timeline. Well I present Polystrate fossils that are punching through many "fossil layers". So that right there invalidates that argument.

3)DNA and Mutations. DNA is the genetic makeup of living things right? And Mutations are changes to something that can alter the function and appearance of those living things? Well until you have a cow turn into a horse completely, I'm gonna go ahead and say those mutations are merely affecting appearance and messing with some biological and physiological functions of the body of that animal and not physically changing the animal's organs that are passed down to offspring. Somatic Mutations are mutations not passed down in reproduction and there are lots of mutations that happen that are somatic. Like the girl once born/found in India with a 6 inch stub/tail on her backside. This is nothing more than a genetic mutation. She isn't turning into some kind of Feline animal is she? She won't reproduce and produce another human being with a longer tail, and eventually down the line develop whiskers? See that's just common sense. If humans reproduce we know we will always always always produce another human being. Just because there are different breeds of dogs doesn't necessarily make those different breeds 'not dogs'. They are still dogs/canines. Until they become a cow or a horse or a fish or whatever than you come and talk to me and present me with those transitional fossils.

As I do not have time presently to dispute your response I'll sum it up. For the most part you have not really refuted any of my claims with evidence. All that you have presented is a opinionated response to some parts of my argument which is lacking the context to make my argument seem weak. Please provide intellectual and scientific evidence as to why my argument is wrong. If you can not present any evidence or sources than I will remove you from the debate. I do welcome all opposing arguments but they must have sources and not just opinions. They must have context and explanation. Thank you for your cooperation!

Before I get started with my argument that evolution is scientifically impossible, we first need to deal with the issue of the word "proof", what exactly it means to "prove" something. Sometimes people say "well prove to me that God really created all of life instead of the evolutionary process" and we have to be honest with ourselves and say that 'None of us were there'. We weren't there when everything was created so technically the evolutionists can't prove evolution, the creationists can't prove creation. All we can do is this: look at all the evidence that is available and determine the most plausible, the most scientific, the most logical, and the most intellectually reasoned thing to believe, and that's what I'm gonna do as I go through this.

We also need to understand the definition of science. Science is nothing more than determining the best possible explanation or hypothesis based upon observation, testing and making predictions. That's what you really do in science, trying to determine what happened, but you have some criteria for that. You use testing, you use observation, you use the ability to make predictions. Now some of the things that need to be addressed is the scientific community itself. Many people will ask "Why are so many scientists in favor of evolution and opposed to creation" And I think that is a fair question. The truth is most scientists around the world do believe in evolution, although there are thousands of scientists who believe in creation according to the evidence but they are outnumbered in a big way by the evolutionary scientists. Why is that? You need to know that most of the scientists in the evolutionary realm out there aren't getting all the information. That might seem hard to believe.

Dr. Grady S. McMurtry is one example who used to be an evolutionary scientist. When he went through all of his training and getting his degrees and schooling, he was given certain information and it was presented to him in a certain way, but when he started examining all of the evidence and all the information, he started seeing things he was never taught in school. He said that when he saw these things he said "I never saw this, never heard that, never saw half the things that I heard in school". There is alot of information that shows evolution is impossible, but it is censored from Academia today.

So let me get started with my actual argument:

1) The Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the first and second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law has more to do with disproving evolution than the 1st. But I want to explain the 1st.

The first law of thermodynamics is this: it's a conservation of energy law. In the universe, everything is made up of matter and energy. The Matter can convert into energy and the energy can convert into matter. We have all of this in the universe. However much matter and energy there is, there can never be MORE and there can never be LESS. You cannot increase or decrease the amount of matter/energy. You cannot create matter or energy, and you cannot cause it to cease to exist. This is a scientific law, just as the law of gravity is a scientific law. So how do evolutionists prove where everything came from? Where did all this stuff come from? How do we have a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy in the closed system of the universe? (big bang, etc.) There is no scientific explanation for how matter and energy can be created from nothingness. Now I argue that there is a being, we call him God, operating outside of physical law, and he has the ability to violate the laws of physics and create something out of nothing. This is a scientific conclusion..that there must be a God who created everything, cause remember, there is no scientific model that allows for matter and energy to be created from nothing. If you remove God from the equation, than science doesn't allow for everything we have in the universe.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is that everything in a closes system will tend toward a state of equilibrium. A close system doesn't have any outside influence. An open system does. With equilibrium, Let's say you take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice water in a room together. Eventually those 2 cups will become the same temperature. That is the 2nd law at work, they will become the same temperature. Another key principle of the law is Entropy. Things will tend to decay, to degrade, move from order to chaos. If you look at a neat stack of papers on your desk, as people walk by, wind passes, those papers will gradually get sloppier and sloppier. What will not happen is those papers will not get organized and stacked neatly on it's own from people bumping into it and wind passing by, etc. That's a violation of the 2nd law. Another key principle of this is that things will not increase in complexity and design, it will decrease; they will breakdown. That is the way it works, it is a physical law. The problem with evolution is that it says there was this big bang explosion 15 billion years ago and what happened over that 15 billion years is that complexity and design started to build, started develop on it's own, and than life developed on it's own and that it developed complexity and design. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Now some people will say "But the 2nd law doesn't apply to the earth cause the earth is an open system". In other words, it receives influence from outside sources (radiation, meteors, various things in space). The problem with this is that it's random energy from the sun, radiation, random impacts from space debris. Random energy will cause Entropy to INCREASE and will cause the degradation process to increase. So we should be going from order to chaos at a faster rate. So the idea that complexity and life developed on it's own it's illogical.

2) Science and Logic show that design doesn't randomly develop.

If you take a rubiks cube and it's unsolved and you roll it down a mountain, it will not solve itself. If you give it to a blind person, he can twist it around all over the place, he is twisting it randomly. It's not going to solve itself. Imagine if you will an alarm clock. Disassemble the alarm clock to its smallest compenents. Scoop them all up, put it in a coffee can, put a lid on it, and shake the coffee can. Do you think the alarm clock is gonna ever put itself together and become a working alarm clock again? It's never gonna happen right? The evolutionists tell us the universe is 15 billion years old and they will say "if there's enough time combined with chance anything is possible" But with the alarm clock you could shake it for 15 billion years and it's not gonna come together. Even though we have all the components necessary to make it, all cut to fit each other. Not gonna happen. Let alone the evolutionary argument which says all of the components for life weren't there in the first place, that everything had to become created out of nothing and than gradually all fit together. To me that is highly illogical.

How about a portrait on a wall? If I show you a portrait on a wall and none of us know how that portrait was painted. Neither one of us saw how it came to be. None of us can prove how it came into existence. So two options: Option A) an intelligence created it or option B) it just coincidentally created itself through various iron ores, sands, wind, etc. until it eventually created that image of the portrait. I can't prove an intelligence painted that and you can't prove it developed spontaneously so what we have to do is determine what is the most plausible and logical thing to believe. Are you open to the possibility that the portrait came together on it's own with no guided intelligence? My guess is No. If your not open to the possibility, why? you'll say "it's too detailed it's too designed, there is no way that mere random energy and action could produce that type of complexity and design" That is a fair answer. My next question is than, what is more complex? the 2 dimensional portrait on the wall, or the dimensional portrait of your face that you see in the mirror everyday? What's more complex? You have to be honest and say "you are, you are more complex". So if you're not open to the idea that a portrait could come together on it's own, why are you willing to believe a more complex 3 dimensional portrait could come together on it's own? It's a contradiction in logic.

Think about the complexity of the human body. Think about the level of design that evolution says came together on it's own randomly and accidentally. A Human body that has 10 fingers, 10 toes, a nose, a mouth, 2 eyes each one with 120 million photoreceptors, 2 ears each one with 24,000 hair cells that convert sound vibrations into electrical impulses, a body with over 30 trillion cells and 2 million sweat glands that automatically regulate temperature into a fraction of a degree, a 100 billion brain cells each one with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells, a central nervous system, blood flow, organs, consciousness, a standard of morality, self-awareness, a vocabulary, and the necessary vocal chords to say "I don't think I evolved into this". I don't think people realize how complex the human body really is. Remember design is something that would have to gradually happen as well, not just in the total human being, but all of the organs and parts within the human being.

Here's an interesting question: How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal in small minute steps, and than the animal survive while these changes were occuring. Did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, than 20%, than eventually 100%? Than how did the heart slowly develop and get attached in the right spot at the right time? How did the blood enter the system in the first place. The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it will spill out? Where did it come from? Did the blood have red core corpuscles white core corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating? Did the animal develop a partial stomach and than a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the Hydrochloric acid come from as part of the digestive juices? What about kidneys and bladder? The animal can't eat anything prior to this so how did the animal survive during these changes? Of course at the same time the animals eyes have to be fully developed to see the food and it's brain developed so it can control it's body to get to the food. So like the heart, brain, veins, stomach, and all of the organs and systems in it's body, they all had to be fully functional from the first moments of life. How could that have taken place through an evolutionary process? To me that is illogical.

3) The mathematical probability of life developing over time.

"Time plus chance means anything is possible" Evolutionists will say this and say life developed about 3-5 billion years ago on this planet. So is that possible? Is that enough time for life to develop. I would argue No, mathematically that is impossible. I'm gonna multiply 3x10 and give evolutionists 30 billion years and say 30 billion isn't enough time for life to develop.

The simplest protein molecule has over 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order. That is the simplest protein molecule. Is 30 billion years enough time to solve the puzzle of the simplest protein molecule (compared to human life itself)? i'm gonna simplify it and give a 100 piece puzzle that needs to be arranged in a specific sequence to determine how many combination options there are to get the magical sequence. You have alot of shuffling and re-arranging to land on the sequence. This 100 piece puzzle we'll use numbers instead of amino acids. So the sequence could be 35, 1, 83, 22, 74, etc. It wouldn't be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.....that's too easy. So to solve this we need to know how many combination options there are. To do this we use a factorial. So you go 100x99x98x97x96x95 all the way down to 1 and you get a really big number. That number is the total number of different combination options available in this simple 100 piece sequential puzzle. The number of options are 10 to the 158th power. That's a 1 with a 158 zero's behind. That is a massive, massive number. To give you an idea of how big that number is, there is not that many ATOMS on the planet earth. 30 billion years will not be enough to solve, cause there is only 10 to the 18th power number of SECONDS in 30 billion years. So if we divide 10 to the 158th power to the 10 to the 18th power number of seconds, you're left with 10 to the 140th power. That's how many combination CHANGES need to happen every second on the second for 30 billion years to solve this simple 100 piece puzzle, and yet remember the simplest protein molecule has over 400 linked amino acids in a very specific order. Simply put, I don't see how 30 billion years is enough time mathematically for life to develop, let alone 3 billion years. To make it even worse, the evolutionists have to explain how life comes from non-life. I could take a glass of water and sit there and stare at it for 30 billion years and life is never gonna develop. I could put sand in there and swirl it around but still life will not develop.

4) Irreducible Complexity is basically an organism in life that cannot have it's complexity reduce and still function. Evolution teaches that life gradually increases in complexity and design, but if it could be shown that there were complex organisms that had multiple parts all working together that you could not remove those parts and still have it function, that is something considered irreducibly complex. Think about the mouse trap for a moment. You have 5 basic components: wooden base, snap bar, spring, stabilizing bar, triggering mechanism. These 5 pieces are all necessary for it to function. Which one of these pieces could you remove and still have it function. None of them. Evolution teaches that it gradually worked up to those 5 parts. The spring evolves, than the stabilizing bar evolves, than the trigger, than the wooden base, etc. The problem is it wouldn't be a mouse trap, it wouldn't function till you got all components working together at the same time. To give you an idea, Charles Darwin himself understood the problem of irreducable complexity, and even though the term wasn't around in darwin's life, the concept was. He talked about it himself and even admitted , this is a quote from Charles Darwin"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". That's a quote from Charles Darwin. Well, Dr. Michael Bihee, PhD in biochemistry has shown, as well as many other scientists have shown, irreducible complexity existing in all kinds of organisms today: The flagellum blood clotting, countless biological systems have been found.

There is countless more evidences i will provide later but I currently do not have the time presently to write them all out, but will at a later time. Thanks for reading.