The definition of science is the study of observable phenomena . That is, it is dependent upon observations to obtain results for proof of fact. Evolution has never been observed, yet the "scientific" community has treated is as a fact. No one has ever observed one species morphing into another.

Adaptation .vs. Evolution:

"Scientists" have observed change in species, when the species has moved from one environment to another, and called this evolution. But, this is nothing more than proof of adaptation, and has nothing to do with evolution, as the basic makeup of the species remains intact. In fact, if the "evolved" species was reintroduced into its original environment, they would "evolve" back to their original form. Therefore, they never did evolve, they adapted. Evolution requires permanent change that does not allow regression back to the original state. This has never been observed nor proven by science.

Now, to discuss the basic evolutionary theory that life somehow survived the "primordial soup" in cellular form and regenerated itself into organized, intelligent life forms, consider the following:

1. Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, yet they maintain that this is how life began on earth. Whatever…
2. So, say this first cell, somehow complete with the building blocks of atomic matter and DNA intact, was produced out of the heat and sulfur of the early stages of our earth’s creation. A few questions for you:

1 – How did this miraculous cell survive in the strange, unfriendly environment when we do not of any life form today that could?

2 – Was there actually a life span of this living cell?

3 – How did DNA actually "know" to form and grow into the specialized mechanism it is today?

4 – How did this cell "know" to split into 2 cells and have each of it’s internal components split to be shared between the 2 cells?

5 – An even better question is "why" would the cell split?

6 – How did these cells know to stick together after splitting?

3. OK, now we have the 2 cells that somehow came out of nowhere and seem to have it together enough to share their components with each other for survival. (That’s exhibiting a LOT of "faith" in evolution.) And, since we’re already way out on a limb, I’ll give you the argument that the cells were able to continue splitting until there were many more. Let’s talk function: how did these cells become specialized? I mean, you have a bunch of cells that are exactly the same, but somehow they organized themselves in such a way as to take on different functions? How? Why? You see, there is no "purpose" in a single cell’s life, and it doesn’t "know" what it’s supposed to do. That is, unless there’s some kind of instructions "pre-programmed" into it. How can many types of cells be formed from one type? Mutations? Well, seems that an imperfect mutant would surely die in the hostile environment of the earliest days on earth. After all, it took so long for a single, perfect cell to be created, how could an imperfect mutant survive? It couldn’t.
4. So, now we’re so far out on the branch of believability that we’re approaching the leaves, and we know they won’t hold any weight. Let’s even allow for the cell specialization argument to hold (which I can’t believe someone would actually believe!). Now, what about the makeup of animal bodies. How and why were different parts made? If it’s out of necessity, are you saying that a bunch of cells got together and decided that they had better learn how to process oxygen in the water so they developed the gills on a fish? That "need" to process the oxygen had to come from somewhere, otherwise, why would cells want to bother doing something to survive that they had never needed to do before? It just makes no sense and is impractical.
5. Let’s consider "life forms" as we know them today. How did a "something" "evolve" into an organized system without a designer? Cell structures don’t care about one another, they don’t know how to organize themselves into an unknown quantity in exactly the same way for each living organism (remember, each living organism is it’s own, separate system). It’s amazing that our internal organs function exactly the same way from one human to the next. Could this happen by chance? Could one animal have been created with all organs except a heart, then evolved into an animal with a heart? Apply the same to each bodily organ. They all would have had to appear at the same time in order to function as a living creature.
6. Back to a more basic level, how did the one original cellular structure separate into many cellular structures, i.e., many different plants and animals. How did it "know" to stay together until it reached a certain level of sophistication, then split into 2 groupings of cells? How did the correct cells go and the correct ones stay? And, to say that this happened over and over again, plus it happened in such a way to create 2 entirely different living classifications – plants and animals? Illogical.
7. Now, let’s consider the human body. Each part is so specialized that we have a hard time getting along with even a broken arm. All animals susceptible to an broken arm should have been eliminated. What about our internal organs? How the heck did a bunch of dumb cells know how to organize and make and function as a liver? A heart? There is no logic in maintaining that cells mutated and evolved into these specialized organs. Impossible.
8. Now, for things that exist that really weren’t necessary – the senses. There could NEVER be a "need" for any of our 5 senses, yet evolutionists want you to believe that they just appeared. Cells somehow organizing to create an eyeball, that is almost exactly the same on all humans? I don’t think so. Taste buds? Huh? WHY do we have taste buds? Smell? Touch? Hearing? Then, consider that the mutations stopped when the organ started providing a specific function in the body, somehow "knowing" when to stop changing and somehow "knowing" how to work with other organs and form a "something". It just didn’t happen by chance.

There is actually NO evidence that life started from a single cell. There is some evidence that all life forms have a certain core "building block" in them. How could you actually equate this to an original cell, I don't know. But, that argument DOES fit well into the Creation theory, where there is also a single source of life.

A few more knocks against evolutionary theory:

1. Species don’t successfully interbreed. In the animal kingdom "family tree", the species is the highest form. Humans are one species, apes another. Another component of evolutionary theory is that the species interbred. Yet, we know from science – observable results from experimentation – that interbreeding species does not produce viable life forms. In other words, breed a cat and dog and you don’t get a cat-dog. You don’t get anything – they’re incompatible. Successful inter-species breeding is required for the evolutionary theory to be true.
2. No mutants between species. Another argument evolutionists use is that mutations within existing life forms cause evolutionary changes. Funny thing is that science actually DISPROVES that mutations are advantageous to the "improvement" of a life form. Positive change resulting from mutations is so rare that it has been deemed negligible. Additionally, the "level" at which these mutations take place are at the DNA "loci" level, and also very negligible in effect. In fact, it would take thousands of mutations to cause change in a living being. So, you take the thousands of required changes, multiply that by the almost infinitesimal possibility of a positive mutation and you’re approaching a chance of 1 in infinity. Add to that the fact that most successful mutations of life forms have resulted in sterile animals, plus the necessity of having more than one animal experience the exact positive mutation series in the same geographic area to reproduce, and the argument is impossible to sustain. Mutations are rare, more rarely, produce "advances" in life form function and adaptability, are individually insignificant, and require 2 duplicate mutants to pro-create. Apes evolving into man? Didn’t happen. Couldn’t have happened.
3. The fossil record. No where in the fossil record is there evidence of gradual evolution. There are fossils of different, similar species, yet no mid-evolutionary fossils to support an evolutionary claim. In fact, this absence of such a gradual evolutionary fossil record has caused "scientists" to devise a new "type" of evolutionary thought, called "Rapid Evolution" (I think "rapid" is the word they use). It basically says that "evolutionary potential" got pent up in the species, then all of a sudden, it all exploded/evolved into a new species. This, they say, is why they have never found intermediate species in the fossil record. Activities such as these by the "scientific community" further discredit them in my eyes. They seem to be in such a state of uncertainty that they have to devise new theories to cover the contrarian facts that disprove their previous theories.

And, as if you haven’t had enough…

Now, I would like to address one of the most deceiving tools that "scientists" use – dating techniques. Did you know that there are over 50 "scientifically provable" dating techniques that have been discovered? Some, such as carbon dating establish the earth as billions of years old, while on the other side of the spectrum, others date the earth to only 100 years old. The scientifically valid technique of measuring the amount of aluminum (?-not sure of the mineral) in the river deltas that have flowed into the oceans of the world prove that the world is around 100 years old. Both carbon dating and mineral deposits in the ocean techniques are provable using scientific methods, but obviously show the extremes of what can be "proven" scientifically. And, in reality, the mineral flow technique is more valid than the carbon dating due to the fact that we can collect more "recent" data. We have no idea how carbon radiation decomposes over the course of 100 years or 1000 years, as it’s only been observed over a short timeframe. We can observe mineral flow and collect data over a statistically more significant time frame to prove the mineral flow method. So, you see, you have to choose which "scientifically provable" dating technique to have faith in.

One fact about dating techniques, though, that is very interesting, is that there is a clustering of the 50 or so "scientifically provable" dating techniques that put the earth’s age between 6,000 – 10,000 years old. Interesting, huh? This fact really makes me wonder why the majority of the scientific community has accepted such an extreme technique as carbon dating, when all other methods are "scientifically provable" too. Was it one man’s agenda that everyone else bought into? (Not) Coincidentally, if you add up the unbroken lineage of Bible characters, you end up at 6,000 years, from the time of Adam.

As far as researching the validity of the historical claims of the Bible, that is another topic. There are many books, both that seek to disprove it and prove the Bible’s authenticity. Check out "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry Morris and Henry Morris III (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=10059&event=SRC&item_code=). Contains the same kind of info I addressed above, plus proofs of the Bible’s reliability and truthfulness. For an unbeliever of Christianity, it’s an eye opener.

The study of belief systems is an interesting topic, but the most interesting phenomena is that all isolated tribal "civilizations", far from Christian or other belief system influences, actually do practice "religion" by worshipping various "gods." If there is no God, where did this idea come from? Why do they all do this? Even Helen Keller, blind, mute, and deaf, knew of a Creator – she just didn’t know His name. Check it out if you’re in doubt. The spiritual world is real – we just can’t see it – so we stubbornly ignore it and arrogantly say it doesn’t exist.

How’se that for a brain dump?